Denman Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, March 18, 2025

[0:00:11] Voice 4: okay good morning everybody

[0:00:13] Voice 10: thanks for joining us today for this regular meeting

[0:00:18] Voice 10: of the denman federal local trust committee i'm going to

[0:00:21] Voice 10: begin this meeting by acknowledging

[0:00:23] Voice 16: we're fortunate to be able to gather today locations across the territory of the coast

[0:00:27] of Salish people. I'm Dave Lott,

[0:00:29] Elector of the Main Island, Chair of the Demi-Navalo

[0:00:31] Local Trust Committee. I'm joined today

[0:00:33] by your two Demi-Navalo trustees,

[0:00:35] Voice 16: David Graham and Sam Orthweck.

[0:00:37] Voice 4: Together we make up the Demi-Navalo

[0:00:39] Voice 4: Local Trust Committee. This meeting

[0:00:41] Voice 4: is being live-streamed and recorded

[0:00:43] Voice 4: for those who are unable to attend at the first of the day.

[0:00:45] Voice 4: The recording will be posted to the

[0:00:47] Voice 4: Honest Trust website for future viewing.

[0:00:50] Voice 4: We have some staff

[0:00:51] Voice 4: members joining us today.

[0:00:53] Voice 16: We have Jimmy Morrell,

[0:00:55] our legislative clerk.

[0:00:56] we have morris partner planner um chadwick other outcome planner from afar um um we have lisa

[0:01:05] millar who's looking after our online streaming services and recording which are great thanks

[0:01:11] i think that's everybody who's joining us today um

[0:01:15] Voice 4: warren's not on pen or dollar or money

[0:01:18] Voice 4: no so that's that's it for our staff members thank you very much

[0:01:21] Voice 4: chair there. Two chairs back there. We need more chairs.

[0:01:27] Voice 4: We will.

[0:01:30] Voice 4: So I'd like to know if this means a little bit more for you all to trust me and make

[0:01:33] Voice 4: decisions about what land use planning matters in this federal business. I want to add that

[0:01:37] Voice 4: this is based on requirements. That's some staff in our homes, our staff at the rate

[0:01:42] Voice 4: of the state, and a respectful workplace. So for us, we have an agenda. Any additions,

[0:01:50] Voice 17: deletions concerns uh i did want

[0:01:56] Trustee Borthwick: to ask staff briefly so last year um we were a year and a

[0:02:05] Trustee Borthwick: bit ago we were given a briefing on the uh the opt-in to the prime and primary residence uh

[0:02:13] uh rules from the bylaw from the province uh they were given the option to opt into and i know that

[0:02:19] the opt-in date is the end of march and i

[0:02:21] Voice 17: wanted to maybe bring that back with a session

[0:02:26] Voice 17: hey so why would we pop that under new business so

[0:02:37] Voice 17: anything else

[0:02:38] Voice 16: so we will put the agenda as amended so we're up front uh we have trustee reports

[0:02:49] trustees who wants to go first so uh briefly as i don't

[0:02:54] Voice 4: want to speak for my coaches and samuel

[0:02:55] Voice 4: we were in the time over, is that last week,

[0:02:58] or the trust council, which was the budget meeting.

[0:03:02] And unfortunately, there's an increase,

[0:03:06] as there often is, because basically the cost of living,

[0:03:10] mostly,

[0:03:10] Voice 4: and I think we're looking at 5.8% increase

[0:03:14] Voice 4: in your tax for the Islands Trust,

[0:03:17] Voice 4: so on your tax form, see that it's delivered.

[0:03:23] Voice 4: We, as an organization, and also through our committees, fought tooth and nail to reduce

[0:03:29] Voice 4: it.

[0:03:30] Voice 4: It was higher when we started the proposition.

[0:03:33] Voice 4: It could have been lower, but had we gone lower, we would reduce the ability to serve

[0:03:40] Voice 4: our constituents.

[0:03:41] Voice 4: And we didn't want to do that, so that's my report.

[0:03:45] Voice 4: we

[0:03:48] Trustee Borthwick: also elected a new chair at trust council this this last meeting um uh former chair luckham uh

[0:03:56] had been chair of trust council for about 10 years um and he stepped down and so we elected uh our

[0:04:03] new chair uh laura patrick as a trustee from salt spring um and uh we did that in the very

[0:04:10] beginning of the meeting and the meeting was you know i think things ran really well

[0:04:13] Well,

[0:04:14] Trustee Borthwick: I think we're all looking forward to working with Laura and seeing how things go for the rest of the term.

[0:04:25] And I step forward to where I was elected to join the Governance Committee, which is sort of looking at the governance structure of the Outlands Trust.

[0:04:36] That's been something I've been interested in, especially my experience as a new trustee.

[0:04:40] there

[0:04:41] Trustee Borthwick: were things that I would do differently to orient someone kind of stepping into this role

[0:04:44] Trustee Borthwick: in the future. And so I'm really keen to make sure that that process works well for people

[0:04:48] Trustee Borthwick: moving into this organization in the future. And yeah, I just want to say I'm looking forward to

[0:04:56] this meeting. I'm really glad to see so

[0:04:58] Trustee Borthwick: many people in this room. I know that this is a subject

[0:05:01] Trustee Borthwick: that people feel strongly about. I want to say that this is not something where we are

[0:05:07] Trustee Borthwick: hard and fast, and this is something that we've brought forward.

[0:05:11] These are things that we've brought forward as options,

[0:05:14] but nothing

[0:05:15] Trustee Borthwick: is being bravened and stoned, and this is

[0:05:19] a really important part of the process. I'm really glad to see people here who

[0:05:23] care about it and who want to speak to it. Thank you for

[0:05:27] being involved, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say and

[0:05:30] incorporating that into our process.

[0:05:35] Voice 16: Thank you, Trustee Barthwick.

[0:05:36] Voice 16: like we missed most of my thunder. Yeah, the trust council was last week. Really, to me,

[0:05:44] we got a lot done. We actually got a strategic plan after two years of running around the

[0:05:54] circles. We got that policy statement. We're hopefully on the separate road to having first

[0:06:00] reading in June. We've had a couple of delays getting forums for meetings leading up to that,

[0:06:09] but there's still confidence that it will have the first reading in June. And first reading

[0:06:15] doesn't mean much other than, you know, that it's a signal that trustees are comfortable with the

[0:06:20] process to date. After first reading, it goes out for all public consultations, First Nations

[0:06:26] consultation other partner government comments so it's there's going to be

[0:06:33] quite a bit of a period of transition to

[0:06:36] Voice 16: that and then hopefully within a

[0:06:39] Voice 16: reasonable period of time we will get all that feedback back go all around

[0:06:43] Voice 16: the trustees again and then have something that we can finally adopt

[0:06:48] Voice 16: optimistic people say we'll be done after the year pessimistic people say

[0:06:51] you know so we shall see um but it's it's consigned it's again it's not a beautiful

[0:06:59] day on denver island we have a group of other people we have some pretty serious stuff to

[0:07:04] discuss so let us proceed um so we have starting off with a community and information meeting

[0:07:12] proposed by office number of 248 249 which is housing related temporary uh permit review

[0:07:18] new project. And we have a planner presentation. Well, before we discuss

[0:07:24] Voice 4: the

[0:07:26] Voice 4: letter, I'm asking this to the latest. We

[0:07:33] Voice 16: can't, I don't know what

[0:07:34] Voice 17: this ties

[0:07:36] Voice 4: to

[0:07:37] Voice 4: public hearing. So my understanding and please help me find community

[0:07:42] Voice 4: information and the public hearing. I received a letter Friday from Comox

[0:07:50] Voice 4: First Nations. I was just going to say they don't need to be tied together. You can have a community information meeting separate from a public hearing. I agree. I didn't want to not have that because all these people are here. I want to hear from them. I wanted to at least set the table then.

[0:08:07] Voice 4: You know, shall I continue?

[0:08:09] Voice 4: Absolutely.

[0:08:09] Voice 4: So on Friday, the Environmental Trust Committee received a letter from HOMOX First Nations

[0:08:17] Voice 4: expressing an interest in these particular amending bylaws, which would remove the temporary

[0:08:24] Voice 4: experiment and remove the density payment.

[0:08:27] Voice 4: They would like to chew on this, think about it, pass it through their environmental team.

[0:08:35] Voice 4: They've just hired an environmental team just a month ago.

[0:08:39] Voice 11: Just a month ago.

[0:08:39] Voice 4: And so they're asking if the Denver Local Trust can postpone this community information meeting or at least a public hearing until July.

[0:08:48] Voice 7: Just for clarification, they didn't ask to postpone the public hearing.

[0:08:52] Voice 7: They just asked to defer consideration of adoption of the bylaws.

[0:08:57] Voice 7: I misunderstood the letter.

[0:08:59] Voice 7: Okay.

[0:09:00] Voice 7: Okay. Yeah. They just basically want the opportunity to review and have their say.

[0:09:07] Voice 7: But wouldn't they get that anyway as a referral?

[0:09:10] Voice 7: The referral went out back in last summer. So they're not asking for another referral.

[0:09:16] Voice 7: They're just asking for more time to consider the referral that went out in the past.

[0:09:20] Voice 7: They haven't had a chance to review it until they've gotten a new team.

[0:09:25] Voice 7: um so really there i did give some sort of options in the staff report of ways that we can move

[0:09:32] Voice 7: forward while still giving them the opportunity to comment so we could

[0:09:38] Voice 1: chat about that now

[0:09:39] Voice 7: or um

[0:09:40] Voice 7: we can kind of just move forward with the community information meeting the public hearing

[0:09:44] Voice 7: everyone can have their say i

[0:09:47] Voice 4: just want to let you know that there's there's more to play more in

[0:09:53] Voice 4: in play this particular so just a question about could

[0:09:56] Voice 11: you please clarify and my understanding is

[0:09:59] Voice 11: that once the public hearing is over you can no longer consider

[0:10:01] Voice 4: um public submissions and

[0:10:05] Voice 4: would that include the first nations as well as as anyone here that's

[0:10:10] Voice 13: an excellent question

[0:10:11] Voice 13: um as far as the legislatively they're correct the public hearing at the close that's the last

[0:10:19] Voice 13: that the public have a chance to have their say however referrals are a little

[0:10:26] Voice 13: different the through the planner can referral agencies they can comment up to

[0:10:35] Voice 13: final adoption but

[0:10:37] Voice 4: which would it be prudent that if there are for instance a

[0:10:41] Voice 4: First Nation is making

[0:10:42] Voice 11: a comment someone with a referral group and like that when

[0:10:46] Voice 4: the

[0:10:46] Voice 11: public also should they also

[0:10:48] Voice 4: be afforded that opportunity to comment on the um on their input as

[0:10:53] Voice 4: well that would be uh

[0:10:55] Voice 7: up to the local president trustees yeah so i could just step in just to

[0:10:59] Voice 7: clarify so after the close of the public hearing the ltc can't hear any more information so any

[0:11:05] Voice 7: more new information so the public can contact the planner uh referral agencies can contact the

[0:11:11] Voice 7: planner

[0:11:12] Voice 2: and if there's

[0:11:12] Voice 7: new information that is relevant

[0:11:14] Voice 7: for the ltc to hear the planner would

[0:11:17] Voice 7: then let the ltc know that puts us back a step so the ltc can consider that information the public

[0:11:23] Voice 7: then gets a chance to consider that new information

[0:11:25] Voice 7: we would do a public hearing again and

[0:11:29] Voice 7: move forward so are

[0:11:31] Voice 4: you saying that after we get the input from um christians that

[0:11:36] Voice 1: um we'll have

[0:11:39] Voice 7: If there's new information that we hear from Comox that the LTC needs to consider, then

[0:11:46] Voice 7: yes, but there's no new information that Comox is comfortable with the bylaws to move forward.

[0:11:53] Voice 7: In that case, there wouldn't need to be another public hearing.

[0:11:59] Voice 16: One more question.

[0:12:00] Voice 2: Can you define

[0:12:01] Voice 4: what new information

[0:12:02] Voice 7: would just be information that was not considered

[0:12:09] Voice 7: internet for public hearing that the LTC has never heard before.

[0:12:14] Voice 14: So that definition of information, that excludes the opinion

[0:12:18] Voice 14: of Comox First Nation, or is

[0:12:23] Voice 14: the new information that opinion?

[0:12:29] Voice 14: I'm asking whether new information includes in its

[0:12:33] Voice 14: category the opinion of the Comox First Nation, or is that separate

[0:12:37] Voice 14: from factual information?

[0:12:39] Voice 7: It could be separate. If the Comox

[0:12:41] Voice 7: First Nation said we have no concerns with the proposed bylaws I would just take that information

[0:12:48] Voice 7: wouldn't the LTC wouldn't need to hear that or consider that and so we would just move forward

[0:12:53] Voice 7: if there was concerns and they had presented different information then I would let the LTC

[0:13:00] Voice 7: know the LTC considers that the public gets a chance to also consider it it's just to keep

[0:13:05] Voice 7: everything on an even playing field so that the LTC hears everything that the public also has the

[0:13:11] Voice 7: be the option to hear. What

[0:13:12] Voice 14: I'm saying is if the Commonwealth's First Nations objects to this,

[0:13:16] Voice 14: what is that? What category did that fall into?

[0:13:19] Voice 7: Yeah, that would be new information.

[0:13:23] Voice 14: Okay, one last question from back there.

[0:13:26] Voice 2: Is this one of the CIA, the Community Information

[0:13:28] Voice 2: Union, ma'am?

[0:13:30] Voice 16: We were just stepping into it, yes.

[0:13:32] Voice 1: Okay, I have a couple of questions and then a

[0:13:36] Voice 1: comment first question is this proposed bylaws have only received first

[0:13:42] Voice 7: reading is that correct

[0:13:44] Voice 2: correct

[0:13:44] Voice 7: i'm going to give a presentation now that might cover everything yes

[0:13:48] Voice 2: but i want to confirm

[0:13:49] Voice 2: it right now because it seems to be appropriate um this the second question revolves around

[0:13:56] Voice 2: i'm going to look at the comments and referrals that have not come in there are as far as i can

[0:14:01] Voice 2: I can see, and you can correct me saying yes or no, whether or not

[0:14:06] Voice 4: two-thirds, it looks like, the provincial

[0:14:10] Voice 2: ministries have not commented, and I'm glad that the First Nations comment plan has made a comment, because there was

[0:14:19] Voice 4: no referral comments on that one.

[0:14:21] Voice 4: so those comments are still coming in so we not only have first nations we have major

[0:14:29] Voice 4: ministries forestry housing and so on that have the right to comment and at first reading oh sorry

[0:14:36] Voice 4: you should answer that question am i correct so

[0:14:39] Voice 7: i could go through the referral list which i will do

[0:14:42] Voice 7: later and let you know who has commented so the referral period closed back in november i believe

[0:14:49] Voice 7: leave 2024. So the agencies, this is quite common, we don't get 100% response rate,

[0:14:55] Voice 7: but whatever. So it's quite common that not every single First Nation or not every single agency

[0:15:00] Voice 7: will comment. We, but I will go through all the referrals that we received, and the period is

[0:15:09] Voice 7: closed. So in this case, Coman says ask for more time.

[0:15:13] Voice 1: So you're saying that if the major

[0:15:16] Voice 1: ministries don't didn't comment in time they won't have an opportunity to

[0:15:22] Voice 7: comment they would do it would be the same it's unusual that they would

[0:15:27] Voice 7: comment months and months later without asking for a without asking for

[0:15:32] Voice 7: additional time so that would be very unusual but if they did you know six

[0:15:36] Voice 7: months after the referral date had closed they submitted a comment it would

[0:15:41] Voice 7: be the same situation I would look at that I would review the information and

[0:15:45] Voice 7: would let the ltc know if there was relevant new information in that referral response so my

[0:15:50] Voice 1: understanding with the first reading that's

[0:15:56] Voice 4: unusual for it um it just is a statement um that

[0:16:00] Voice 4: it's unusual to actually go forward to a public hearing because a public hearing is a last

[0:16:07] Voice 4: opportunity for

[0:16:09] Voice 2: its community to evaluate what's in front of them and at this and also until the

[0:16:16] Voice 2: second reading occurs the trust local trust committee and the staff can actually make

[0:16:22] Voice 2: changes even

[0:16:23] Voice 4: changes that are significant because first reading allows changes second reading does

[0:16:30] Voice 4: not allow those changes and if they're majored it has to go back to a public hearing with

[0:16:37] Voice 4: incorporating those changes and i'm worried about that because we're all here and more people i

[0:16:44] Voice 4: think are coming to comment on something that may be very amorous or you know it's going to mutate

[0:16:51] Voice 4: or a high chance of mutation and i'm concerned about that i wanted to express that thank you

[0:16:57] Voice 1: thank

[0:16:58] Voice 4: you we seem to be looking for more chairs

[0:17:44] Voice 17: Thank you.

[0:17:50] Voice 17: Thank you.

[0:18:24] Voice 17: Right, but she need a chair right there. Okay.

[0:18:34] Voice 17: There's

[0:18:35] Voice 4: a Tai Chi class going on.

[0:18:51] Voice 17: Thank you

[0:19:08] Voice 17: very much.

[0:20:03] Voice 17: all

[0:20:03] Trustee Borthwick: right how's everybody how's everybody doing are we reasonably comfortable you know it's a

[0:20:09] Trustee Borthwick: little chocolate block in there we might we might think about removing a table at some point

[0:20:13] Trustee Borthwick: unfortunately we don't have access to the other chairs because this is my cheat class happening

[0:20:17] Trustee Borthwick: in the main home that we don't want to disturb um i just wanted to say like sort of further to

[0:20:25] Trustee Borthwick: trustee graham's comments and and like with respect to you know the people who gathered

[0:20:30] Trustee Borthwick: here to talk about this we want to have a community information meeting we want you

[0:20:35] Trustee Borthwick: to hear from staff and we want to hear from you that's very important um that said having had this

[0:20:42] Trustee Borthwick: referral from from the co-ops i'm not going to we're not going to vote on it right now we're

[0:20:47] Trustee Borthwick: not going to introduce that right now but there's a very good chance that we will defer having a

[0:20:53] Trustee Borthwick: public hearing until later which will increase the comment period for you guys today we don't

[0:20:59] Trustee Borthwick: want to rush into any of these decisions this is a big thing there's no there's no rush to get there

[0:21:03] Trustee Borthwick: the important thing is to get it right not to get it put um and i i really appreciate the the you

[0:21:10] Trustee Borthwick: guys have come here to do this i don't want to waste your time upon us to have this conversation

[0:21:13] Trustee Borthwick: i want to talk through this stuff but we also you know it's important to us certainly to me

[0:21:18] Trustee Borthwick: that we are you know going forward with uh you know good intention and being responsive to the

[0:21:25] Trustee Borthwick: to the needs of the nation and to the needs of our community so i think we're not going to rush this

[0:21:29] Trustee Borthwick: um this is still an important part of the process i want us to have a good discussion here and i

[0:21:36] want you guys to get your answer your questions answered

[0:21:38] Trustee Borthwick: um because the less confusion there is

[0:21:41] Trustee Borthwick: over whatever happens the the veteran will all be able to walk forward with it uh so i hope that

[0:21:49] Trustee Borthwick: helps for anyone who has you know some concerns or whatever but um yeah that's that's certainly

[0:21:56] Trustee Borthwick: where i'm sitting with this i don't want to rush into this um yeah thank

[0:22:02] Voice 16: you we'll see you in the

[0:22:03] Voice 16: morning involved so over to you planning requirement to start off yeah

[0:22:08] Voice 1: just ask a

[0:22:09] Voice 1: question in lieu of because of that um it's not being the dead deadlines or institutions

[0:22:15] Voice 11: for the public hearing um will be changed we'd

[0:22:20] Voice 16: have to make a motion to to do that

[0:22:22] Voice 16: so you just want to verify that um

[0:22:26] Voice 12: yes if they postpone the public hearing then that public

[0:22:31] Voice 12: submission and deadline also get extended all

[0:22:37] Voice 7: right good morning everyone

[0:22:39] Voice 7: my name is Marla Carter and I'm a

[0:22:41] Voice 7: planner out of the Adrila office also

[0:22:45] Voice 7: the day planner for Denman Hatton this morning I'm going to be reviewing the

[0:22:50] Voice 7: main elements of proposed bylaws number 248 and 249 so the purpose of this

[0:22:58] Voice 7: meeting is to provide an opportunity to review the information related to this

[0:23:03] Voice 7: project and ask questions. So typically we'll do a community information meeting

[0:23:09] Voice 7: before the public hearing but they can also be done just as a standalone

[0:23:13] Voice 7: meeting. So I'll be providing an overview of the two bylaws that are being

[0:23:18] Voice 7: considered by the LTC. So the goal of this meeting is to help you determine if

[0:23:24] Voice 7: your interests are affected by the proposed bylaws. Typically so that during

[0:23:29] Voice 7: the public hearing you're

[0:23:30] Voice 7: prepared to make a submission to the LTC about whether or not you

[0:23:34] Voice 7: support proposed bylaw changes. So this slide summarizes the work that's been completed on

[0:23:41] Voice 7: this project to date. This has been in the works since for a year basically, April of 2024. So back

[0:23:52] Voice 7: in April the LTC selected this project as their minor project and it was a small piece of the

[0:23:59] Voice 7: larger housing review project that was kind of carved off um to to help look at some of the

[0:24:06] Voice 7: housing related issues so when the ltc is making decisions they have to factor in a number

[0:24:17] Voice 7: of things into their decision-making process so there's relevant legislation there's the

[0:24:21] Voice 7: island's trust policy statement there's legal considerations first nations perspectives

[0:24:26] Voice 7: public input, professional input, and referrals from various agencies and community groups.

[0:24:37] Voice 7: So proposed bylaw number 248 is the OCP amending bylaw.

[0:24:42] Voice 7: So this bylaw will amend the OCP to remove the density bank.

[0:24:46] Voice 7: It removes all references to the

[0:24:48] Voice 7: residential density bank.

[0:24:49] Voice 7: It simplifies the administrative process and eliminates the need for the complex tracking mechanisms.

[0:24:55] Voice 7: them. The residential density bank was originally established in the OCP to manage residential

[0:25:02] Voice 7: development through density accumulation, storage, and allocation. Some of the challenges that we

[0:25:08] Voice 7: face is that it's administratively complex, requiring extensive tracking and regulation.

[0:25:15] Voice 7: One of the current issues is that the density bank has become obsolete. This tracking hasn't

[0:25:21] Voice 7: really happened and so it's quite out to date proposed bylaw 249 amends the land use bylaw

[0:25:33] Voice 7: to allow secondary dwellings in the rural residential forestry and resource zones without

[0:25:38] Voice 7: a temporary use permit so current regulations in the denman land use bylaw secondary dwellings are

[0:25:48] Voice 7: permitted by temporary by temporary use permit tup in the zones for residential r2f and re

[0:25:55] Voice 7: and there's an ALR exemption so ALL property zone agriculture already

[0:26:02] Voice 7: permits secondary dwelling outright no TUP is required in those in that zone

[0:26:06] Voice 7: so some of the issues with the temporary use permits it's temporary in nature

[0:26:12] Voice 7: does not provide long-term housing solution there's been a really low

[0:26:16] Voice 7: uptake there's been two permits applied for in the 11 years that this has been

[0:26:24] Voice 7: and options. And when the community was surveyed earlier, 75% of respondents found that temporary

[0:26:33] Voice 7: use permits are ineffective in addressing the OCP housing objectives. So there's approximately

[0:26:40] Voice 7: 292 properties that are zoned R2F and RE. So there's current regulations in the Denman

[0:26:52] Voice 7: land use bylaw that would not change except for the temporary use permit requirements.

[0:26:57] Voice 7: So a secondary dwelling still will have a floor area of no larger than 140 square meters,

[0:27:07] Voice 7: shall not be located more than 60 meters from the principal residence,

[0:27:10] Voice 7: be connected to an approved sewer system, include rainwater catchment and storage system for at least 1,000 gallons,

[0:27:20] Voice 7: and a written plan must be submitted to the LTC to demonstrate that an adequate supply of potable

[0:27:26] Voice 7: water exists. So these regulations

[0:27:30] Voice 7: are currently in the land use bylaw tonight for the temporary

[0:27:33] Voice 7: use permit and they would say they'll not be changing just the temporary use permit

[0:27:38] Voice 7: requirement would be removed. So this is a map here of the properties that are in the R2F and

[0:27:46] Voice 7: re zones as i said earlier there's 292 properties in these zones and there are a total of 869 parcels

[0:27:56] Voice 7: on denman island that have uh the capacity for residential development

[0:28:02] Voice 1: so

[0:28:07] Voice 7: this is the basic

[0:28:07] Voice 7: process of the proposed bylaws the blue steps identify completed milestones the green identifies

[0:28:14] Voice 7: identifies the current stage, and the grey identifies potential next steps in the process.

[0:28:20] Voice 14: Susan, could you read the text on the screen? It's just way too small to see.

[0:28:23] Voice 7: Yeah, so the blue steps

[0:28:24] Voice 1: first reading...

[0:28:26] Voice 1: How much people can't even see that?

[0:28:28] Voice 1: Yeah, we can't see it.

[0:28:30] Voice 14: Yeah.

[0:28:30] Voice 14: Okay.

[0:28:31] Voice 1: Can you slow it down?

[0:28:34] Voice 14: So, we'll get the planner to read them all?

[0:28:36] Voice 14: Yes, read them all.

[0:28:38] Voice 14: Okay.

[0:28:38] Voice 14: so

[0:28:40] Voice 7: the blue first reading of the bylaws were in august of 2024 and then referrals were sent out

[0:28:46] Voice 7: to first nations and agencies right now we're in the green and we're at the community information

[0:28:52] Voice 7: meeting in march um the public hearing in march and then after that we have the gray steps which

[0:29:00] Voice 7: is second reading third reading uh executive committee so the bylaws are forwarded to the

[0:29:05] Voice 7: Executive Committee of the Islands Trust and they are after that they're referred

[0:29:09] Voice 7: out to the Ministry of Outlay and Municipal Affairs and then they come back to the

[0:29:15] Voice 7: LTC for final adoption so that could be in the summer or fall of 2025 depending

[0:29:22] Voice 7: on how long those steps take. So after the public hearing the LTC can consider

[0:29:29] Voice 7: second, third reading of the bylaws. The bylaws must be approved by Islands Trust

[0:29:35] Voice 7: executive committee and then forward it to the minister and then we can take as much time as

[0:29:43] Voice 7: needed to answer your questions um typically this is for technical questions related to the bylaw

[0:29:50] Voice 7: and then we reserve the public hearing for your views and opinions on the bylaws

[0:29:54] Voice 7: um i'm not sure how the ltc wants to structure that today but i'm happy to take

[0:30:00] Voice 7: any really technical questions uh anything else should be directed to the number

[0:30:04] Voice 14: of properties

[0:30:05] Voice 14: that would be affected by these changes you said something like 860.

[0:30:11] Voice 7: 292 properties are in the

[0:30:13] Voice 7: zones that would be affected by the changes there's 869 parcels in total on denman island

[0:30:21] Voice 7: that have the capacity for residential development so that's not including you know park zones to

[0:30:28] Voice 7: and conservation zones that's just properties that could have a house on them i'm very slow

[0:30:33] Voice 14: but i still don't understand the difference could you just run through that a little bit

[0:30:37] Voice 7: yeah so the total number of properties on denman island that have the ability to build a house

[0:30:44] Voice 7: are 869. yeah number of lots the number of lots that would be affected by this change that would

[0:30:52] Voice 7: be allowed a secondary dwelling are 292.

[0:30:59] Voice 2: okay can i just ask does that 869 is that properties or

[0:31:07] Voice 2: i

[0:31:07] Voice 4: hate to use the word density but it's just it's just properties so if there's a property that has

[0:31:14] Voice 4: is zoned for

[0:31:15] Voice 2: four houses that's not counted in the 869

[0:31:21] Voice 4: So,

[0:31:22] Voice 1: do you know

[0:31:23] Voice 4: how many potential dwellings there could be at the moment?

[0:31:31] Voice 2: Hi, I'm Erica Lynch. I'm just curious about the comment about the densities not being properly tracked that led to the decision to abolish the density bank.

[0:31:41] Voice 2: Can you explain a little bit more about how the densities, how that might have come off track

[0:31:48] Voice 7: for the years?

[0:31:50] Voice 7: I am not sure that would have been before my time but any so the way that the density bank is set up

[0:31:55] Voice 7: currently is that any uh you know affordable housing project or a project that proposes to

[0:32:02] Voice 7: remove densities from the bank would require an OCP amendment and it during that OCP amendment

[0:32:07] Voice 7: there's a charts or graph table in the OCP and that would also need to be amended and for whatever

[0:32:14] Voice 7: reason that that was missed in some cases so because

[0:32:20] Voice 2: that step was missed we want to just

[0:32:22] Voice 2: get rid of all of that hard

[0:32:24] Voice 4: work and all those donations to the density bank in the years

[0:32:29] Voice 4: quite right to me but i i just don't quite

[0:32:32] Voice 7: understand how how that got lost

[0:32:35] Voice 7: so it's not lost so we do have an accurate number of densities currently in the density bank it's

[0:32:43] Voice 7: not it's seven there's seven densities sitting in the density bank the number that's reflected

[0:32:47] Voice 1: in the

[0:32:47] Voice 7: ocp is not current and it was not getting trapped correctly but staff have gone back over

[0:32:53] Voice 7: time okay yeah okay

[0:32:56] Voice 5: tell me a little bit not like taylor comox 140 meters the uh largest

[0:33:02] Voice 5: side for your addition how what is that in square foot i think

[0:33:05] Voice 7: it's about 1500 1400

[0:33:15] Voice 1: I'm curious about the density bank versus density cap.

[0:33:22] Voice 1: Are they the same thing?

[0:33:23] Voice 1: Did the density cap just start getting referred to as density bank?

[0:33:27] Voice 1: I

[0:33:28] Voice 7: think what happened was that the density bank was initially informed by the density cap.

[0:33:34] Voice 7: that there was a and those that have been around longer than I have might know a little bit more

[0:33:39] Voice 7: about how this was started but I believe the cap was five percent there was the total density on

[0:33:47] Voice 7: Denman and then the density cap was going to be five percent greater than that yeah am I yeah so

[0:33:54] Voice 4: at the time that the density bank was created Louise Bell and I were the trustees I think

[0:33:59] Voice 4: clear what they've been the chair and it's a policy in the OCP it's actually

[0:34:06] Voice 4: policy number three so it says it to set a maximum density for overall resident

[0:34:14] Voice 4: and residential density on Devon as that number and when the this particular

[0:34:20] Voice 4: violence topic which I think was 2008 as the number of houses number of densities

[0:34:30] Voice 4: plus 5% and the 5% was to take care of affordable housing and secondary

[0:34:37] Voice 4: dwelling units at the time you need to get a temporary

[0:34:41] Voice 4: disturbance and any social housing so that was that was the amount that we

[0:34:46] was comfortable as a community to go beyond the total to

[0:34:49] Voice 5: take care of those

[0:34:50] Voice 5: three

[0:34:51] Voice 4: needs affordable housing social housing secondary dwelling units and

[0:34:56] Voice 4: And that's how it started.

[0:35:01] Voice 4: All right, so let's see.

[0:35:02] Voice 4: We're adding the back.

[0:35:03] Voice 4: Can

[0:35:04] Voice 2: you give an accurate accounting of how many densities have been used for affordable housing out of the density bank?

[0:35:13] Voice 5: Well, Coho, 15.

[0:35:16] Voice 5: Denman Green, 20.

[0:35:18] Voice 4: Pepper Lane, 8.

[0:35:20] Voice 4: I'm sorry, affordable housing that's been built?

[0:35:23] Voice 4: Oh, 1.

[0:35:24] Voice 4: And it's actually affordable?

[0:35:26] Voice 4: affordable. Is that count as affordable?

[0:35:30] Voice 4: I believe they would count affordable. They have a, in their housing agreement, you can't sell your

[0:35:37] Voice 4: club on the share or your dwelling for more than. So

[0:35:41] Voice 2: 16 if we're

[0:35:42] Voice 4: generous. I'm sorry?

[0:35:43] Voice 2: 16 densities have been used to build affordable

[0:35:45] Voice 4: housing if we're being generous.

[0:35:49] Voice 15: Yeah, I just want to clarify something on the 869 properties. That doesn't mean, okay, let me start again. The density, the density takes into account the fact that properties can be subdivided in the future, or do they take into account the properties

[0:36:11] Voice 5: that were subdivided then?

[0:36:13] Voice 5: like i've been involved in lots of subdivisions since that 2008 are those part of that that's a

[0:36:22] Voice 5: planner question so

[0:36:23] Voice 7: i don't want to get too hung up on the 869 number

[0:36:27] Voice 5: it was a really rough number

[0:36:28] Voice 7: that was just basically any parcel that has the capacity for residential

[0:36:33] Voice 7: development was counted

[0:36:35] Voice 7: as one so it subdivision was not taken into account so that parcel has subdivision potential

[0:36:41] Voice 7: to be three it wasn't counted as three parcels what if

[0:36:44] Voice 15: it was 40 what if

[0:36:45] Voice 15: it was 40 acres and

[0:36:47] Voice 15: it was allowed to have two houses

[0:36:49] Voice 5: was that just one

[0:36:51] Voice 7: it was just counted just for this in particular

[0:36:53] Voice 7: i ran a really rough number just to give us a sense of how many parcels are on denman that

[0:37:00] Voice 7: could have a residential house i didn't count secondary dwellings okay so what we're saying

[0:37:11] Voice 15: I mean, it doesn't just the 5% didn't take into account all these extra houses that we've already know

[0:37:19] Voice 5: it was an attempt at

[0:37:21] Voice 11: the baseline worth of 5% all all of the existing so

[0:37:29] Voice 4: and the zoning, and they also included the properties that could be siding with the existing housing.

[0:37:44] Voice 1: If I may,

[0:37:45] Voice 4: that's a really good question as

[0:37:48] Voice 4: to what is the absolute maximum number of blocks that could exist in Devin to date.

[0:37:54] Voice 4: I could have asked the planner to do that as another task, but that's information that we should have.

[0:38:00] Voice 4: Yeah, it doesn't change the fact that the next

[0:38:03] Voice 4: Demand Local Trust meeting with community support

[0:38:06] Voice 4: could make some crazy ruling that would allow

[0:38:09] Voice 4: the large residential lots to be even smaller.

[0:38:13] Voice 4: But that doesn't happen at this table,

[0:38:15] Voice 4: which is what we're seeing.

[0:38:17] Voice 4: We're not talking about a more box.

[0:38:19] Voice 4: Okay, go ahead.

[0:38:20] Voice 2: Hi.

[0:38:21] Voice 2: You've given an awful lot of information here

[0:38:24] Voice 2: with some historical perspective and numbers.

[0:38:26] Voice 2: I don't know if anybody else can keep track

[0:38:28] Voice 2: of all of this stuff,

[0:38:29] Voice 2: but my suggestion would be that you guys do a summary somebody do a summary of the history

[0:38:36] Voice 2: the numbers the relevance what's the difference between social and supportive housing because i

[0:38:41] Voice 2: really don't know um so that when people are coming to a meeting like this you've got to

[0:38:46] Voice 2: because it's very very difficult to go through all you know the policies and the dates and the

[0:38:50] Voice 2: changes and all that for the average person to understand this so if somebody could do a cogent

[0:38:58] Voice 2: nice tidy summary

[0:39:00] Voice 2: with all the important relevant

[0:39:01] Voice 2: facts so that we can be better prepared

[0:39:03] Voice 2: for the next meeting because

[0:39:05] Voice 2: I'm feeling that there's going to be a next meeting

[0:39:08] Voice 2: where we don't spend

[0:39:09] Voice 2: a lot of time going back over old history

[0:39:11] Voice 2: because if you get people coming to another meeting

[0:39:13] Voice 2: that haven't been to this one, they're going to go over all

[0:39:15] Voice 2: of this stuff again.

[0:39:17] Voice 4: If I may,

[0:39:18] Voice 4: I know I'm taking up your time

[0:39:22] Voice 4: to ask questions, but part of your concern

[0:39:25] Voice 4: I have to take personal responsibility

[0:39:27] Voice 4: for that we said we were removing the density thing what we should have said what i wish i had

[0:39:32] Voice 4: said is we're going to relook at defining the density thing because we in no way wanted to

[0:39:38] Voice 4: throw it out completely this was a minor project to just move us forward in the general housing

[0:39:44] Voice 4: review and as part of that review we were going to discuss with the community different ways of

[0:39:50] Voice 4: capping our density but the density bank as i explained in my blackstone article not that long

[0:39:56] Voice 4: ago is kind of empty and it's irrelevant at this point so we need to think of a

[0:40:00] Voice 4: new way of doing it and I'm sorry that I used the word remove expunge forever

[0:40:06] that wasn't our plan our plan was to come back and fulsome community

[0:40:13] discussion work out a way that we're comfortable with having our density

[0:40:19] current one doesn't work okay I have a question if you take a look at the

[0:40:24] net effect of these two changes? Have you modeled out

[0:40:28] what the change

[0:40:29] Voice 4: in number of wellings and population of the island

[0:40:32] Voice 4: would be if these were fully, in other words, if people

[0:40:36] Voice 4: built out to the maximum possible, what would that look like? That question

[0:40:40] Voice 4: I am going to ask the planner that very question. She's not going to pull that out of her

[0:40:45] Voice 4: No, I think, but I think,

[0:40:46] Voice 1: you know, I think you could

[0:40:47] Voice 4: approximate it and I think that

[0:40:48] Voice 4: would give us something to look at.

[0:40:52] Voice 4: Yeah, so that's what we call a build-out analysis, and we have done that work.

[0:40:58] Voice 4: We just didn't bring it with us today.

[0:41:01] Voice 4: It requires

[0:41:02] Voice 11: going in, because it's not complete yet, because

[0:41:06] Voice 4: it requires having a look at the existing covenants and what those mean,

[0:41:09] Voice 4: because there are certain restrictions that are very specific to specific parcels.

[0:41:13] Voice 4: So we have a rough number, but we're needing to do a little bit more work before we feel ready to share it publicly.

[0:41:22] Voice 4: Because the net effect is going to be increased security traffic.

[0:41:25] Voice 4: All of that has to be modeled in, right?

[0:41:27] Voice 4: And I know you guys are looking at this.

[0:41:29] Voice 4: Once you get to the point where you understand, you can share with us.

[0:41:32] Voice 4: So just

[0:41:34] Voice 16: have your hand there.

[0:41:36] Voice 3: I have a comment and a question.

[0:41:38] Voice 3: One is, in the presentation,

[0:41:40] Voice 4: there was the bullet, are your interests defined to understand if your interests are affected?

[0:41:48] Voice 4: Which I found a very weird comment, because we're an island community and we're all affected, whether we rent, whether we own or whatever.

[0:41:59] Voice 4: So I would ask you to just look at that. That is very odd.

[0:42:03] Voice 4: on it and um i think a number of the you know the factors here is that that the density bank was

[0:42:10] Voice 4: to set a maximum density and i think what many people want to know is what will now replace that

[0:42:19] Voice 4: what we'll be doing that now and if we remove this what is in place in our will be going through

[0:42:26] Voice 4: a period where there is nothing in place because i think that is what there might be a concern about

[0:42:31] Voice 4: here it is one in fact will replace that and how can we do better to achieve those three elements

[0:42:37] Voice 4: of housing so certainly so i was on the housing advisory

[0:42:45] Voice 5: planning commission that ran for a few

[0:42:47] Voice 5: months here

[0:42:48] Voice 4: to sell them out i'm

[0:42:49] Voice 5: pretty sure there's a really good history of what has happened

[0:42:54] Voice 5: with the density

[0:42:54] Voice 4: bank that's in the final report uh

[0:42:58] Voice 5: i cannot actually give you a url but there's

[0:43:01] Voice 5: Sam's got a paper.

[0:43:03] Voice 5: There's a whole bunch of other stuff about history.

[0:43:05] Voice 5: There was a lot of work done back then.

[0:43:09] Voice 5: The report was published. It's available.

[0:43:11] Voice 5: So I would encourage folks who are interested in the history,

[0:43:14] Voice 5: who are interested in what kinds of considerations

[0:43:18] Voice 5: and public consultation and so on

[0:43:20] Voice 5: went into some of these recommendations

[0:43:23] Voice 5: that's in that report.

[0:43:25] And I would say

[0:43:27] Voice 5: that I get everybody's concerns about

[0:43:31] all the things that people are concerned about,

[0:43:33] but also this is occurring in the context

[0:43:35] Voice 5: of a desire

[0:43:37] Voice 5: to create more affordable housing on Denman,

[0:43:41] Voice 5: particularly with affordability linked to housing agreements.

[0:43:46] Voice 5: And that is something that will take properties off the market

[0:43:50] Voice 5: for capitalist development,

[0:43:51] Voice 5: and that will make them affordable in a way that is quantifiable

[0:43:56] Voice 5: and that is enforceable by the law.

[0:43:59] Voice 5: So, for me, something to always keep in mind as we go through this is that we're trying to not make this just a park for rich people, okay?

[0:44:10] Voice 5: And we need to have more people here who can chop your wood, who can do the things for you if you're aging.

[0:44:21] That is going to require trade-offs, it's true, but I

[0:44:24] Voice 5: would just suggest keeping that part in mind.

[0:44:26] Voice 5: That's what, at least for me and for the time and all of us who

[0:44:30] Voice 15: put

[0:44:31] Voice 5: in to the House Advisory and

[0:44:33] Voice 4: Planning Commission, that's what it was about.

[0:44:35] Voice 1: Thank you.

[0:44:39] Voice 10: Oh, there's one right in the back.

[0:44:41] Voice 1: I know.

[0:44:43] Voice 1: Someone just completely blamed me why Denman-Ribbentrop is a lot of 20 cities when it's not even a mature country.

[0:44:59] Voice 7: Well, at the rezoning stage, that's when the densities are removed from the bank.

[0:45:05] Voice 7: So when the land is rezoned and allows a use that you can build on, that's when the densities

[0:45:13] Voice 7: are removed.

[0:45:14] Voice 7: It's not at the time of build.

[0:45:22] Voice 2: My understanding, and you can verify that, is there was a request for

[0:45:28] Voice 1: the actual application

[0:45:29] Voice 1: from the General Instructional Association last

[0:45:33] Voice 2: year in May to put more new densities

[0:45:36] Voice 2: into the density bank, and what's happened to that? Because I think it's important to

[0:45:45] Voice 2: you know we're talking

[0:45:46] Voice 1: about what's in the density branch you know that there are densities coming in

[0:45:50] Voice 2: so

[0:45:50] Voice 1: is it true that there are four densities basically awaiting

[0:45:56] Voice 2: almost here

[0:45:57] Voice 1: for that

[0:45:58] Voice 1: approval when the local trust committee so that

[0:46:02] Voice 7: that application is currently in stream and being

[0:46:05] Voice 7: uh processed so yes so if

[0:46:10] Voice 4: we haven't removed the density bank then those four densities would add

[0:46:15] Voice 4: to the seven and we would then have 11 densities in the density and we have

[0:46:20] Voice 4: removed the density bank those four densities will kind of float around in

[0:46:24] Voice 4: the ether until we had a fulsome discussion as a community and

[0:46:28] Voice 4: reinvigorated a method to hold these densities for affordable housing and

[0:46:34] Voice 4: then they will be put in that whatever that and something but we haven't

[0:46:37] Voice 4: thought that's a substitute I mean

[0:46:41] Voice 1: just one question I guess for the planners and

[0:46:44] Voice 1: and for conservancy.

[0:46:46] Voice 1: How many densities

[0:46:47] Voice 1: have been transferred

[0:46:50] Voice 1: from conservancy since 2013

[0:46:53] Voice 1: when the first density bank was established?

[0:46:59] Voice 8: They don't have that

[0:47:00] Voice 1: number right now.

[0:47:01] Voice 1: I can get it.

[0:47:02] Voice 1: Not very many.

[0:47:03] Voice 1: It's like, mm-hmm.

[0:47:05] Voice 17: Okay, so, Doreen, Doreen.

[0:47:07] Voice 17: Yeah, back to you, Doreen.

[0:47:09] Voice 17: I

[0:47:10] Voice 2: would like to encourage everybody

[0:47:11] Voice 2: to read the Housing APC report.

[0:47:13] Voice 2: Unfortunately, even though we made it

[0:47:15] Voice 2: a personal invitation to Conservancy to come and help us figure this out.

[0:47:20] Voice 2: Nobody from Conservancy came.

[0:47:22] Voice 2: In fact, we received a letter saying that they wouldn't,

[0:47:25] Voice 2: which is really unfortunate because we were trying to have

[0:47:28] Voice 2: a very fulsome community discussion, and that was really tricky.

[0:47:33] Voice 2: So we did the best we could to do some forensic accounting,

[0:47:36] Voice 2: and it's all in the Housing APC report,

[0:47:40] Voice 2: including explanation of how the Density Bank works.

[0:47:43] Voice 2: So, it really is a worthy document to read for people who are interested in both density bank, conservation, and housing on Denman.

[0:47:54] Voice 1: How did you get that?

[0:47:56] Voice 2: I

[0:47:56] Voice 1: put a link recently

[0:47:58] Voice 2: on the Facebook bulletin board.

[0:48:01] Voice 2: I believe there's a link under the housing projects on the Denman page under projects.

[0:48:06] Voice 2: And there's also a guide.

[0:48:08] Voice 2: the report itself is like 240 pages or something. It's really long. We also

[0:48:15] Voice 2: produced a guide to make it like little bite-sized chunks so if you really geek

[0:48:19] Voice 2: out on the information you might want the whole guide and if you're just

[0:48:22] Voice 2: overwhelmed by information. So you might want the whole report if you geek on

[0:48:26] Voice 2: information. If you just want the highlights, the guide might be more useful.

[0:48:30] Voice 16: Rae Ann, there used to be a Coffin at Abraxas. Is it still there?

[0:48:33] Voice 2: I don't know. I retired because of lack of community support for the

[0:48:38] Voice 2: work that i did and the lack of engagement from people who i know care about this community

[0:48:43] Voice 2: and that was a very frustrating thing and i took care of myself and living an unlawful housing

[0:48:50] Voice 2: makes critical stress on those of us living in it and then doing a whole bunch of work for community

[0:48:56] Voice 2: without being supported is just exhausting so i don't know the status in abraxis and i really

[0:49:03] Voice 2: encourage those who care about affordable housing to show up and make it happen there's um two

[0:49:08] Voice 2: companies in the library

[0:49:10] Voice 4: likewise

[0:49:11] Trustee Borthwick: i have i have a copy and a spare copy so if you want to have

[0:49:14] Trustee Borthwick: a look at it you can contact me i'll get you a copy uh

[0:49:19] Voice 4: i'll reject i was just wondering about

[0:49:22] Voice 4: the floating around in the evening but okay hi um

[0:49:27] Voice 1: a couple of comments one is i i don't think

[0:49:30] Voice 1: we're ready for a public hearing i know that's we've got to you guys to decide um i was dismayed

[0:49:37] Voice 1: that a community creation meeting i

[0:49:39] Voice 2: thought we limited to 15 minutes so thank you for broadening

[0:49:43] Voice 2: the time that we have as a community to ask

[0:49:46] Voice 1: questions i'm a little surprised

[0:49:48] Voice 1: by the small

[0:49:49] Voice 1: venue given that this is a big interview for the community um

[0:49:54] Voice 2: but also i'm interested in your

[0:49:57] Voice 1: your comment about housing

[0:49:59] Voice 2: agreements, because that to me,

[0:50:01] Voice 2: I have been on the website, I have read bylaws,

[0:50:05] Voice 2: I have submitted in a submission,

[0:50:07] Voice 2: I didn't see anything about housing agreements.

[0:50:10] Voice 2: And I do believe that one of the bylaws,

[0:50:13] Voice 1: which one it is, people don't even know it,

[0:50:15] Voice 1: does talk

[0:50:16] Voice 1: about removing a density bank.

[0:50:19] Voice 1: So it wasn't simply, you know,

[0:50:21] Voice 1: something the trustee, I believe the bylaw does mention,

[0:50:26] Voice 1: and getting

[0:50:27] Voice 4: rid of the density.

[0:50:28] Voice 4: I agree, and I apologize.

[0:50:30] Voice 4: Yeah, no, I apologize.

[0:50:32] Voice 4: I accept that it isn't necessary,

[0:50:33] Voice 4: but

[0:50:33] Voice 2: I'm just saying, like,

[0:50:35] Voice 2: can we keep this conversation going,

[0:50:37] Voice 2: perhaps in a bigger venue,

[0:50:39] Voice 2: perhaps at

[0:50:40] Voice 1: a time when more people are coming down?

[0:50:44] Voice 1: You know, we're talking about wanting to

[0:50:49] Voice 1: create opportunities and possibilities

[0:50:51] Voice 1: for people to live in this community

[0:50:53] Voice 1: to be of a wide

[0:50:55] Voice 1: demographic. And in order

[0:50:57] Voice 1: for that to happen, you've got to hold a meeting

[0:50:59] Voice 1: at a time when working people

[0:51:00] Voice 1: allow.

[0:51:02] Voice 1: Yeah.

[0:51:13] Voice 16: I

[0:51:14] Voice 4: just wanted to pick up on

[0:51:15] Voice 4: what Cynthia was saying

[0:51:17] Voice 4: in that I'm not

[0:51:20] Voice 4: sure. Look, I've been on the local

[0:51:23] Voice 4: website for the

[0:51:24] Voice 4: local trust committee, and

[0:51:25] Voice 4: And there's a few letters that are published.

[0:51:29] Voice 4: I learned that there was a lot more letters

[0:51:31] Voice 4: and expressions of concern or support for these changes

[0:51:35] Voice 4: that are not yet on the website.

[0:51:39] Voice 4: The APC report isn't available there.

[0:51:43] Voice 4: Is it?

[0:51:44] Voice 17: Okay, I could not

[0:51:45] Voice 4: find it, excuse me.

[0:51:46] Voice 4: But I think that there's, yeah,

[0:51:51] Voice 4: a pretty low awareness in terms of advanced information

[0:51:55] Voice 4: that could have been provided to us prior to this meeting.

[0:51:58] Voice 4: But the main thing, I wanted to pick up on the point

[0:52:02] Voice 4: that was made about the temporary use permit by Erica,

[0:52:06] Voice 4: is that there's an assumption there

[0:52:08] Voice 4: that the temporary use permit was an obstacle

[0:52:12] Voice 4: or an impediment, and it very well may have been.

[0:52:15] Voice 4: But I'm not sure we can make that assumption

[0:52:18] Voice 4: because there's other factors too

[0:52:20] Voice 4: that have been prohibitive and obstacles,

[0:52:22] Voice 4: whether it's money or water or, you know, so is there going to be some sort of a way to track whatever change, if this change, in fact, does become approved, that it's had any impact?

[0:52:36] Voice 4: You know, I remember a lot like a long time ago when you were talking about the first changes is that, oh, you know, this is going to be the solution.

[0:52:47] Voice 4: We're going to have R2 accessory dwellings above a temporary use permit.

[0:52:53] Voice 4: One thing that we learned at that time was that the legals at, you know, Island Trust said there's no, the Island Trust is not a housing authority and has no jurisdiction to be a housing authority.

[0:53:07] Voice 4: So I'm not sure about these agreements, these housing agreements, whether they're enforceable at the local level.

[0:53:14] Voice 4: Like, I'm not the lawyer, but I'm saying we learned this in the past.

[0:53:18] Voice 4: It's that Amnesty Trust has no jurisdiction as a housing authority.

[0:53:21] Voice 4: So I'm just wondering if it's going to be tracked,

[0:53:24] Voice 4: if we remove this temporary use permit,

[0:53:29] Voice 4: whether in fact does it have any effect?

[0:53:32] Voice 4: My assumption that it's overstated,

[0:53:36] Voice 4: that the temporary use permit is the prohibitive obstacle

[0:53:41] Voice 4: that has stopped more accessory dwellings from being built it may be some

[0:53:47] Voice 4: but we don't know for sure that it's been any not really for sure unless

[0:53:51] Voice 4: planners have some other data we've

[0:53:54] Voice 7: heard from community that there's a lot

[0:53:57] Voice 7: of these accessory dwellings that are being built without permit because

[0:54:01] Voice 7: they're just going ahead and doing it anyway so we don't have that data

[0:54:04] Voice 7: because that's

[0:54:06] Voice 4: true but people were doing that long before the bylaw was

[0:54:09] Voice 4: changed too so there's always been accessory dwellings on denman island being built that were

[0:54:14] Voice 4: so-called non-conforming but

[0:54:17] Voice 7: to build a permanent dwelling on a permit that only lasts for three

[0:54:21] Voice 7: years it it is risky right because it is at the discretion of the ltc so you build a permanent

[0:54:29] Voice 7: dwelling you get three years you can apply for a renewal every three years you have to apply again

[0:54:34] Voice 7: and so there's the risk that you apply and you're denied and

[0:54:37] Voice 3: you can really apply twice

[0:54:39] Voice 3: so

[0:54:39] Voice 7: you get six years of building you

[0:54:42] Voice 3: can you can

[0:54:43] Voice 7: reapply now so you but you would have to

[0:54:47] Voice 7: is it you know expensive it's it's lengthy process so it doesn't make sense every

[0:54:52] Voice 2: temporary use

[0:54:53] Voice 2: permit that's granted come out of the density bank for

[0:54:57] Voice 7: uh yes yeah thank you

[0:55:01] Voice 7: the

[0:55:02] Voice 4: only reason it would not be renewed upon reapplying is if there was something you know

[0:55:12] Voice 4: it was turned into an airbnb

[0:55:14] Trustee Borthwick: or if they weren't they didn't have proper water or stewardy

[0:55:17] Trustee Borthwick: the local trump committee is not going to deny a temporary use permit just arbitrarily i don't

[0:55:23] Trustee Borthwick: see the huge risk in it but anyway oh

[0:55:26] Voice 16: but i think to be clear is that there is a slight risk

[0:55:30] there's a cost but also if you want to get a loan for the bank or something we'll get

[0:55:36] temporary use does

[0:55:37] Voice 16: put a lot of barriers in place to do it on that so there are three steps

[0:55:45] Voice 2: i'm just curious if there is a any possibility for looking at the creation of like an additional

[0:55:52] Voice 2: zone like an r2h or something that is not going to be as much of an administrative burden as

[0:56:00] Voice 2: something like the temporary lease permit on an individual basis but where the community can go

[0:56:05] Voice 2: through a process of you know as you've analyzed what properties could be affected by this these

[0:56:11] Voice 2: bylaws would you do an analysis

[0:56:14] Voice 4: of what properties might be appropriate for additional housing and

[0:56:19] Voice 4: And then have people able to apply to rezone

[0:56:22] Voice 4: if they're not already in that,

[0:56:23] Voice 4: or to do a community change of zoning to some lots.

[0:56:27] Voice 4: I know that sounds like a huge amount of work.

[0:56:28] Voice 4: Of course, it's a huge amount of work.

[0:56:30] Voice 4: But so was the temporary use permit.

[0:56:32] Voice 4: So was removing the density bank

[0:56:34] Voice 4: and readdressing the density caps.

[0:56:36] Voice 4: But I'm just curious if another zone,

[0:56:38] Voice 4: I know we've done it in the past,

[0:56:39] Voice 4: we added R2, is that a possibility?

[0:56:43] Voice 17: I don't know, Chad, but it's a smile on your face.

[0:56:45] Voice 17: Well, so

[0:56:46] Voice 11: an example of what you're talking about,

[0:56:48] Voice 11: in a slightly different way, is on Main Island.

[0:56:52] Voice 11: We introduced what we call flexible housing.

[0:56:56] Voice 1: So in

[0:56:56] Voice 11: Maine, the trustees of which Chairman is one,

[0:57:00] Voice 11: they were looking at options to allow additional units,

[0:57:06] Voice 11: but to limit the square footage.

[0:57:08] Voice 11: And so we came up with this flexible zoning regulation,

[0:57:13] Voice 11: which allows for, you know,

[0:57:16] Voice 11: depending on the size of property

[0:57:18] Voice 4: up to you know up to five units small units within a maximum

[0:57:22] Voice 4: smaller area so maybe you're not maybe you're up to you know three and it's 3500 square feet or

[0:57:27] Voice 4: what have you um and

[0:57:29] Voice 11: so what we did we did an analysis to see where the more appropriate areas

[0:57:35] Voice 11: we decided to do it as a pilot this is the way we've

[0:57:38] Voice 4: done it on me on

[0:57:38] Voice 4: me um so we did a an

[0:57:42] Voice 4: an analysis using all the available data that we had around um water and um so forth to identify

[0:57:52] Voice 4: uh the area that would be um most suitable to have exact simulation a suitable land analysis

[0:57:58] Voice 4: that was the um that's

[0:58:02] Voice 11: where the idea of doing the single analysis came because we were able to

[0:58:05] Voice 11: use that sort of uh to identify so so the way that it is in on main island right now is um

[0:58:12] Voice 11: It's a pilot area, so it's on the map. So the map identifies where you can have this type of zoning. So that's definitely an option. A separate zone would also be an option. So there are a number of ways to do it. And we have sort of essentially piloted that approach on Main Island.

[0:58:30] Voice 11: So, and if I may, this is the next conversation that we want to have with the community.

[0:58:39] This is what

[0:58:40] Voice 4: we're doing with this removing of the temporary use permit and the density

[0:58:43] Voice 4: bank is a minor part of a much larger housing review.

[0:58:48] Voice 4: We thought this was almost an administrative thing.

[0:58:52] Voice 4: Removing of the temporary use permit was based on a report

[0:58:56] Voice 7: that was done for the past local

[0:58:57] Voice 7: trust committee.

[0:58:58] Voice 7: So both of these options came out of the HAPC report.

[0:59:03] Voice 7: Housing Advisory Planning Commission.

[0:59:05] Voice 7: Yeah, LTC thought that these would be kind of two easy wins

[0:59:08] Voice 7: to address some of the housing needs.

[0:59:10] Voice 7: Great wins.

[0:59:12] Voice 7: While also looking at, you know, this larger project is ongoing.

[0:59:16] Voice 7: So your questions about

[0:59:17] Voice 4: could there be a zone specifically, yes.

[0:59:20] Voice 4: That's a great idea.

[0:59:22] Voice 4: That's what we want to add in the big hall.

[0:59:23] Voice 4: As Cynthia said, it's a bigger conversation.

[0:59:26] Voice 4: Absolutely.

[0:59:29] Voice 4: yeah i just wanted to add uh just a note about the uh why the why this tp removal and the density

[0:59:36] Voice 4: bank

[0:59:37] Voice 11: removal are sort of happening at the same time and that that is because um it's sort of

[0:59:42] Voice 11: assumed uh you know as the gentleman over here has identified you know there's there's a number

[0:59:47] Voice 11: of units that have been likely and we've heard this from many other people built without the

[0:59:51] Voice 11: temporary permit the temporary use permit was the only way that we were able to

[0:59:55] Voice 4: kind of monitor

[0:59:56] Voice 4: what's been built if people aren't applying for

[1:00:00] Voice 4: or study and use permits.

[1:00:02] Voice 4: So the assumption is

[1:00:05] Voice 11: that there are a number of units

[1:00:07] Voice 11: that are out there that are illegal

[1:00:08] Voice 4: because they're additional to the primary dwelling

[1:00:11] Voice 4: and that by removing the density bank at this juncture

[1:00:17] Voice 4: would legalize those existing.

[1:00:20] Voice 4: So that's where the logic is with that.

[1:00:23] Voice 4: I just wanted to point that out.

[1:00:29] Voice 4: that's actually

[1:00:30] Voice 4: very much to the questions that i asked i have and you referred to to the many

[1:00:37] Voice 4: accessory dwellings that we already have so um if the temporary use permit um

[1:00:45] Voice 4: clause gets

[1:00:46] Voice 1: changed does that make them legal

[1:00:52] Voice 8: if

[1:00:53] Voice 7: they were in

[1:00:54] Voice 7: those zones

[1:00:56] Voice 7: so the R2

[1:00:59] Voice 7: yes they would make them legal

[1:01:01] Voice 7: and if

[1:01:03] Voice 4: they comply with all the other

[1:01:05] Voice 4: if they're not in that zone

[1:01:07] Voice 4: are they all the ones

[1:01:10] Voice 17: that are built that are not in the right zone

[1:01:11] Voice 17: those when

[1:01:15] Voice 17: illegally built without a

[1:01:21] Voice 7: Yeah, they wouldn't. This is only looking at those three zones.

[1:01:28] Voice 7: Regarding the

[1:01:29] Voice 4: suitable land analysis as a tool that you're going to be using to refine this R2 designation,

[1:01:38] I

[1:01:39] Voice 4: wonder if it would make sense to just briefly describe the suitable land analysis to people here

[1:01:44] Voice 4: so that they understand some of the broader work that's going on.

[1:01:47] Voice 4: with regard to these as we came in here.

[1:01:50] Voice 4: Monica?

[1:01:51] Voice 4: Sure, yeah.

[1:01:52] Voice 4: So as I've hinted at, during the main project,

[1:01:57] Voice 4: we were looking at all of the maps.

[1:01:59] Voice 4: So when we do our work, we have rezoning subdivisions,

[1:02:03] Voice 4: larger projects that

[1:02:05] Voice 11: are going to,

[1:02:05] Voice 4: that are looking at any increase in any kind of impact

[1:02:08] Voice 4: to the land, we have a variety of maps that we reference.

[1:02:13] Voice 4: And so in the main case, we sort of

[1:02:16] Voice 4: brought all the maps together and kind of looked at them independently and sort of kind of eyeballed

[1:02:22] Voice 3: and said,

[1:02:22] Voice 4: you know, this area is good for this because it's not in such an ecosystem and that

[1:02:29] Voice 4: also overlaps with this piece of data. So the suitable land analysis is a tool that we put

[1:02:39] Voice 4: we put together it's a a mapping tool that allows the ability to to overlap so it overlaps

[1:02:47] Voice 4: it takes all of the data of all of the maps and the information that we have

[1:02:51] Voice 4: and it sort of it processes that there's a there's an opportunity to um um to identify

[1:02:59] Voice 4: um what

[1:03:01] Voice 11: kind of values you want to place on on different um aspects of data so it

[1:03:07] Voice 11: So if you want sensitive ecosystems to

[1:03:10] Voice 4: be informing your decisions more than others,

[1:03:14] Voice 4: then there's an ability to weight it.

[1:03:15] Voice 4: And so what the tool does is it sort of takes all of that and then all of that different data

[1:03:21] Voice 4: and then it produces a map that identifies areas that are more suitable for increasing density

[1:03:28] Voice 4: and those that are less.

[1:03:30] Voice 4: And generally, those that would be more suitable are ones that don't have the potential of self-watering future

[1:03:36] Voice 4: we're not in sensitive ecosystems. We've done some recharge mapping, there's a variety of data

[1:03:43] Voice 4: that's been included. Now the conservancy, Denham Conservancy identified to us that they had done

[1:03:51] Voice 4: some extensive mapping. So we actually, I had a chance to chat with the conservancy yesterday,

[1:03:57] Voice 4: and Sam was in that call as well, and they have an incredible volume of information about this

[1:04:04] Voice 4: island so we are now in conversation about how to integrate all of that data so i actually i'm just

[1:04:11] Voice 4: getting i'm getting goosebumps as i talk about it because it's actually quite an exciting very

[1:04:16] Voice 4: exciting opportunity for this island yeah

[1:04:20] Voice 8: i

[1:04:21] Voice 3: think it's a great idea i think that the the problem

[1:04:26] Voice 3: that i would see with it is that when you have private ownership then regardless of if something

[1:04:31] Voice 3: If something isn't zoned and protected, people will alter it to their own purposes, drain it, log it, or whatever else, so that, and then maybe it would become suitable for secondary housing, like who the hell knows?

[1:04:45] Voice 3: so that it seems to me that doing that analysis needs to be paired with a

[1:04:51] Voice 3: willingness if you're going to put secondary housing or else that sensitive

[1:04:55] Voice 3: area or that valuable part of the ecosystem is covenanted in some kind of

[1:05:01] Voice 3: way like that you can't just map it and then someone the next owner decides that

[1:05:06] Voice 3: they want a bigger view you know but then you're

[1:05:09] Voice 14: related the total number of

[1:05:14] Voice 14: It just develops a question I asked a while ago.

[1:05:17] Voice 14: The total number of properties of them, 800 and something,

[1:05:21] Voice 14: that doesn't take into account

[1:05:24] Voice 14: the rights of subdivision, correct?

[1:05:27] Voice 14: Now, that right to subdivide,

[1:05:30] Voice 14: that, can you just summarize quickly

[1:05:32] Voice 14: what Island Trust controls would be on that,

[1:05:39] Voice 14: apart from the requirements of any dwelling,

[1:05:41] Voice 14: which is water and sewage?

[1:05:43] Voice 14: Yeah,

[1:05:44] Voice 7: and it would be related to lot size. So, there's a minimum lot average. There's a minimum lot size. So, in some zones, it's quite large. So, you know, you'd need to have at least, I don't know, 10 acres in order to subdivide or it depends on the zone. So, smaller lots would require less land.

[1:06:04] Voice 14: Presuming that they meet that, then it's just up to the discretion of the owner?

[1:06:09] Voice 14: if

[1:06:10] Voice 7: they want to subdivide or not yeah they meet so there's all the requirements in our

[1:06:14] Voice 7: land use bylaw that's you know sets out what's required subdivision the requirements of each zone

[1:06:21] Voice 7: and then they would be the application is actually through the ministry of

[1:06:24] Voice 7: transportation and transit um and there's a lot of requirements that

[1:06:28] they would hold as well related to roads and access

[1:06:35] Voice 15: I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I want to reiterate that we really don't want to get rid of any kind of capping mechanism until we have a viable capping mechanism in place or at least thought of.

[1:06:49] Voice 15: Let's not trash the density bank and then hope that we get something that's as good.

[1:06:55] Voice 15: I think that we should keep it until we come up with something that's as good or better, and then trash it.

[1:07:06] Voice 15: I have a

[1:07:08] Voice 17: letter

[1:07:11] Voice 4: from Laura Mushekin, a former

[1:07:14] Voice 17: faculty. She is in Europe and is involved in

[1:07:20] Voice 17: difficultly concepting others so she asked this letter he read

[1:07:31] Voice 17: uh dear denmark island local trust committee thank you for your hard work creating draft

[1:07:40] amendments to make these housing options

[1:07:43] Voice 16: i think this project is getting in the right direction

[1:07:47] Voice 16: direction, generally, but we need to reconsider one thing, the elimination of the density

[1:07:57] Voice 17: cap. The density cap, one, is a very easy barrier to runaway development. Secondly,

[1:08:08] it is one of two items in Denman's regulations that are notable barriers to local development

[1:08:17] development for the wrong kind of development. The other is our barely-stripped education

[1:08:25] Voice 17: boards. In some activities during the Northlands Proposal, it was a main part of the justification

[1:08:38] Voice 4: for turning down the first proposal and forcing the developers to combat it with the new plan,

[1:08:46] Voice 4: and modest

[1:08:48] Voice 17: in scale, and did not introduce the idea of density by law in the city bank.

[1:08:56] Voice 17: It is an essential piece of law that guides current and future local trust committee decisions

[1:09:05] of both New Zealand and local trust committee initiated bylaws.

[1:09:10] It also sends a message to

[1:09:14] Voice 17: developers that they need to

[1:09:16] Voice 16: design their

[1:09:17] Voice 4: projects within Density Vendor.

[1:09:22] Density CAF is a powerful tool, something that I understand that Density CAF is seen as

[1:09:35] Voice 17: a barrier to expanding housing options.

[1:09:39] Voice 17: both special needs and seniors housing projects, and secondarily, unattached units.

[1:09:56] But I believe there is a relatively easy two-part solution that would achieve the desired ends.

[1:10:05] One, change the policy that allows 5% new density cap policy for affordable special needs

[1:10:16] needs and

[1:10:17] Voice 17: seniors housing significantly increased that percentage or simply a build limit on starts

[1:10:25] Voice 17: of density increases. If a limit is desirable then an account corresponding to the Denman Island

[1:10:39] Voice 17: Housing Needs Assessment estimates how much affordable housing is needed. Ideally adjusted

[1:10:48] Voice 17: to adjust it upwards to account for the increase in the climate.

[1:10:52] Voice 17: To find a density as a primary dwelling unit that can be cleared at a second season

[1:11:08] Voice 17: towards the end of both season and its half-life.

[1:11:22] Voice 17: Ideally, the property owns the farm especially in number one.

[1:11:38] Voice 15: The amendment 5 should be revised as suggested without triggering new

[1:11:43] Voice 15: given that it is a refinement on a chain sum

[1:11:58] Voice 17: up with a way to skew the density bank.

[1:12:05] Voice 17: Thank you.

[1:12:06] Voice 17: Yeah.

[1:12:10] Voice 10: I think part of the problem coming to this meeting in terms of what was laid out for

[1:12:19] Voice 10: us as the dimensions of what we're talking about is that unfortunately the TUP and the

[1:12:29] Voice 10: the density bank have been linked together in the past.

[1:12:32] Voice 10: And the assumption is that they're inevitably linked together.

[1:12:36] Voice 10: I think they need to be de-linked.

[1:12:38] Voice 10: And I think the density bank has been useful

[1:12:42] Voice 10: in providing some affordable housing

[1:12:44] Voice 10: and preventing unnecessary development.

[1:12:48] Voice 10: And I think those qualities of the density bank

[1:12:51] Voice 10: should be what we work with

[1:12:54] Voice 10: and try to establish and rethink

[1:12:57] Voice 10: think what we mean here in a way that doesn't necessarily throughout the city with the faculty

[1:13:06] Voice 10: point of order i believe there was two units that were um

[1:13:11] Voice 4: two units that were created for the affordable housing under the previous

[1:13:15] Voice 1: oh

[1:13:17] Voice 7: for the temporary so they wouldn't they weren't connected to affordable housing

[1:13:22] Voice 7: just as additional dwelling units okay some

[1:13:24] Voice 10: um point of information and the comox valley uh

[1:13:28] Voice 10: the affordable housing service by the community,

[1:13:32] Voice 10: and Courtney, they require

[1:13:36] Voice 10: approximately

[1:13:37] Voice 5: 5,000 units over the next two or three years.

[1:13:40] Voice 4: And just to

[1:13:42] Voice 5: let everybody know, I was in

[1:13:44] Voice 5: the night when Brian O'Reilly brought in the electric system.

[1:13:48] Voice 5: And if my math is correct, at 1,500

[1:13:52] Voice 5: square feet or 140 meters per additional

[1:13:54] Voice 5: um um rolling and

[1:14:00] Voice 10: that's 450 000 square feet of new construction that the scope of what you're

[1:14:05] Voice 10: talking about here am i correct

[1:14:07] Voice 1: yeah that's that's that's interesting

[1:14:10] Voice 17: well

[1:14:11] Voice 1: yeah

[1:14:15] Voice 17: i mean but but here it's not here no

[1:14:19] Voice 5: you're talking about

[1:14:20] Voice 5: about 200, 280 to 90, 300,

[1:14:23] Voice 4: 300 times that is probably right.

[1:14:26] Voice 4: But that's over spread over millions of square feet. I'm

[1:14:33] Voice 4: just sort of funny. I

[1:14:35] Voice 10: don't see you know, I'm getting the

[1:14:37] Voice 10: construction really possible. Yeah. Oh,

[1:14:39] Voice 4: yeah. And it's just

[1:14:41] Voice 4: the scope is huge. Well, I think I agree with one your point

[1:14:46] Voice 4: about flexible zoning. This would streamline and while the point is to read the book, the note is to see.

[1:14:59] Voice 1: Well before Mulroney.

[1:15:02] Voice 1: Can I clarify something? Currently there are 30 properties, some agriculture, which could have a second dwelling unit without any

[1:15:14] Voice 12: And then there's also all the properties on Southern Lake, and maybe other parts of the

[1:15:20] Voice 12: island too, that

[1:15:21] Voice 1: legally can build

[1:15:23] Voice 12: multiple dwellings currently.

[1:15:25] Voice 1: Is that correct?

[1:15:26] Voice 1: So we have the 30 in

[1:15:29] Voice 12: the southern agriculture, and then we have

[1:15:33] Voice 4: additional properties that

[1:15:36] Voice 12: build,

[1:15:36] Voice 1: some of them I think, like three and four dwellings on their

[1:15:40] Voice 4: property on Southern

[1:15:42] Voice 17: Lake.

[1:15:43] Voice 1: so we already have a whole lot of potential that has not been utilized for whatever reasons

[1:15:50] Voice 1: for second dwelling units correct yes you are quite correct there are some

[1:16:02] Voice 1: some zones

[1:16:03] Voice 11: that are allowed uh one well

[1:16:06] Voice 4: that's not um that's right like

[1:16:14] Voice 4: So this exists

[1:16:18] Voice 1: and you

[1:16:20] Voice 4: know I'm sure there are

[1:16:21] Voice 12: various land owners have various reasons as to

[1:16:24] Voice 1: why they don't want to build a second dwelling unit but they're not doing it and they could do it and

[1:16:32] Voice 4: I don't know what the total number is but it's more

[1:16:35] Voice 1: than 30 so why are we

[1:16:40] Voice 1: contemplating opening this up to all these additional times they don't already have this potential isn't there wouldn't there be a way to encourage the

[1:16:51] Voice 4: current um you

[1:16:54] Voice 1: know property potential to to have secondary well units because they already have

[1:17:08] Voice 11: So this is also why the doing the build out takes a little bit of time because we have

[1:17:13] Voice 11: to look we have to look at each like you know in some cases each lot

[1:17:16] Voice 4: in the size of the

[1:17:18] Voice 4: lot and how many how many units for that because in some cases it is based on the size so that's

[1:17:25] Voice 4: why it takes a little bit of time that's why that so we are working on that we'll have

[1:17:29] Voice 4: all that information to that

[1:17:32] Voice 1: point i think it actually also shows that lots of people have

[1:17:40] Voice 1: the potential to have more dwellings and they're choosing not to so so don't freak out about how

[1:17:47] Voice 1: many square foot could could happen in some theoretical world because not everyone not even

[1:17:53] Voice 1: close to half not

[1:17:54] Voice 2: even probably a quarter of people are going to be able to afford it

[1:17:57] Voice 1: or have the desire to do it, need to do it.

[1:18:00] Voice 1: Lots

[1:18:01] Voice 2: of people like

[1:18:01] Voice 1: their space around them.

[1:18:03] Voice 1: They don't want to share

[1:18:04] Voice 2: their property

[1:18:04] Voice 2: and have someone within a certain distance

[1:18:06] Voice 2: or whatever, depending on the land.

[1:18:08] Voice 2: So I'm just asking people not to catastrophize, perhaps,

[1:18:13] Voice 2: and think about that, because it's evident.

[1:18:17] Voice 2: Not everyone chooses, and the majority, that's it.

[1:18:20] Voice 2: Not us,

[1:18:21] Voice 1: I don't know.

[1:18:21] Voice 1: The majority don't choose, who can choose.

[1:18:24] Voice 1: And then you end up just with people who have no other choice but to have a legal violence.

[1:18:30] Voice 4: Actually, I was a very quiet baby.

[1:18:35] Voice 1: Will there be any more opportunity to submit a comment?

[1:18:43] Voice 1: So will there be public hearing after this, because I made something, I have something

[1:18:51] Voice 1: to submit, but I also wanted to comment that this

[1:18:59] Voice 2: is a very, very big change that's being

[1:19:02] Voice 2: proposed in both bylaws to make it carte blanche to bylaw 249, 292 properties.

[1:19:11] Voice 2: It may be that 250 don't want to do anything, but I can just hear

[1:19:16] Voice 1: the

[1:19:16] Voice 2: real estate ads saying

[1:19:18] Voice 2: two dwellings allowed, you know, and it creates

[1:19:21] Voice 1: land prices and makes it harder to find affordable

[1:19:26] Voice 1: housing.

[1:19:28] Voice 1: And some will be hugely benefited from this, and others will be penalized because they

[1:19:34] Voice 1: don't intend to do anything, but their assessment goes on.

[1:19:40] Voice 1: and I don't know how to solve the problem but I have friends who really need to build housing

[1:19:46] Voice 1: on the place which I'm not allowed in the zones that they're currently in but I also heard about

[1:19:52] Voice 2: an upsetting situation where someone is paying high market rent the landlord

[1:19:57] Voice 12: has a cabin at the

[1:19:59] Voice 12: Airbnb and the landlord has security cameras on the activities of the renters and I don't

[1:20:08] Voice 4: stressed i think i quickly scanned something the staff said they're they

[1:20:13] Voice 1: just don't have the

[1:20:14] Voice 1: resources to enforce short-term rentals and inevitably people need landowners need money

[1:20:22] Voice 1: to pay the bills and we're going to choose that option for great money so i hope there's

[1:20:30] Voice 1: time to make further submissions and I don't support, I do not support getting rid of the

[1:20:39] Voice 1: density bank. David, I understand what you said about this, but it was just a hard one

[1:20:45] Voice 1: and hard fought through a lot of negotiation through individuals and conservancy. Those

[1:20:52] Voice 1: are valuable things, these densities.

[1:20:56] Voice 16: So to answer your question, if the trustee selects not to go to a public hearing, yes there will be more

[1:21:01] Voice 10: opportunities to submit.

[1:21:08] Voice 10: I'm curious,

[1:21:11] Voice 2: the last housing needs assessment was done in 2018 and we needed 80 or more homes to meet housing need in 2018.

[1:21:20] Voice 2: do you have an accurate number of what our housing need is now so we have a consultant working on

[1:21:28] Voice 4: housing needs assessments for the whole trust area and i understand the contract concludes at

[1:21:34] Voice 4: the end of this month so we're waiting for that to have that data and that data will all be included

[1:21:40] Voice 4: in in this project so

[1:21:43] Voice 2: if we're working off of numbers from 2018 which we know is woefully out

[1:21:47] Voice 2: of date because the housing crisis has increased since then um how are we supposed to meet any

[1:21:56] Voice 2: housing a significant amount of housing need when we only have seven possibly 11 uh if the

[1:22:04] Voice 2: conservancy donates its four um how do we meet our housing need with only 11 densities in the

[1:22:10] Voice 2: uh housing in the density bank i'm looking to my community i

[1:22:17] Voice 17: think it's closer to 200

[1:22:19] Voice 4: 200 advocates 200

[1:22:20] Voice 2: that we need yeah yeah

[1:22:22] Voice 4: that are poorly housed

[1:22:23] Voice 17: i'm looking to

[1:22:24] Voice 2: community to

[1:22:25] Voice 2: engage and how do we meet this need not just say we're afraid how

[1:22:31] Voice 4: do we engage with our actual

[1:22:33] Voice 4: community need these are people

[1:22:36] Voice 2: we know and care for who serve us in all these ways who need to

[1:22:41] Voice 2: get out of critical stress and have safe homes i i can

[1:22:46] Voice 4: answer that thank you

[1:22:48] Voice 4: historically we

[1:22:49] Voice 4: just do it we build little cabins we re uh equip the shop we put a little kitchen in there we

[1:22:58] Voice 4: encourage our neighbors that we want to protect and we do it and they live illegally without

[1:23:03] Voice 4: rental support and we as the landlords take the risk but we don't take the risk now because the

[1:23:09] Voice 4: local trust committee has stopped all investigations on illegal housing but this has been going on for

[1:23:15] Voice 4: decades where we continue to house people illegally because our bylaws do not reflect the

[1:23:21] Voice 4: way we live but

[1:23:22] Voice 2: those renters are subject to enforcement and

[1:23:25] Voice 4: the bank is empty the 11 that

[1:23:29] Voice 4: are there as soon as as someone pointed out in the agricultural land reserve if you happen to have

[1:23:35] Voice 4: land in the agricultural land reserve because of the previous local trust committee approved the

[1:23:40] Voice 4: provincial regulations to allow secondary money they don't need a temporary experiment they could

[1:23:44] Voice 4: just build it today and they probably will and as soon as 11 of those built the bank has got

[1:23:50] Voice 4: zero densities yes the the provision of 50 includes from portable housing social housing

[1:23:58] Voice 4: and secondary dwelling units.

[1:24:01] Voice 4: Well, those second dwellings on ALR

[1:24:04] Voice 4: would be secondary dwelling units.

[1:24:07] Voice 14: Okay, but I'm trying to just put a context here.

[1:24:11] Voice 14: From my broad understanding and not thorough reading

[1:24:14] Voice 14: of the whole nationwide issue of the lack of affordable housing,

[1:24:20] Voice 14: it seems to be the emerging wisdom

[1:24:22] that only government can do it

[1:24:25] because only government is going to invest

[1:24:28] invest in below

[1:24:30] Voice 14: market value housing.

[1:24:32] Voice 14: So government provides government land,

[1:24:36] Voice 14: not private land, doesn't market that market value.

[1:24:39] Voice 14: It converts public land into affordable housing land

[1:24:43] Voice 14: and doesn't rely on the motivation of private ownership,

[1:24:50] Voice 14: which is definitely not going to invest

[1:24:53] Voice 14: in this kind of housing unless the other factor

[1:24:57] Voice 14: that we're not talking about here is people who currently allow legal housing on their property

[1:25:03] Voice 14: don't do it for any Tom, Dick or Harry, Jane, Mary or Elizabeth. They do it because they have

[1:25:09] Voice 14: a relationship with that person. That replaces a rental agreement. There's no rental agreement

[1:25:16] Voice 14: for the housing. It's outside all of that stuff. So just for that context, if we spin around,

[1:25:24] Voice 14: turn around, turn around. Are we going to butt our heads against something or is there another solution?

[1:25:32] Voice 1: Can I just ask something that was said by Mr. Graham? I own AOR

[1:25:38] Voice 1: land and I have farm status.

[1:25:47] Voice 1: I can have a suite without pulling a density. I can have a secondary drive without a two-year fee

[1:25:53] Voice 1: be upon the density. So it isn't our choices I made or farmers

[1:25:59] Voice 4: made does not require removal from a density bank. It is what

[1:26:06] Voice 4: my friend who likes redundancies says it's a free bonus game.

[1:26:15] Voice 4: I'm just reading our policy in the OCP. It includes secondary

[1:26:18] Voice 4: developments, so I don't know what to say to them.

[1:26:21] Voice 4: That's what it says.

[1:26:24] Voice 4: What's that?

[1:26:25] Voice 4: Did I say

[1:26:26] Voice 10: anything to add to that?

[1:26:30] Voice 4: My

[1:26:31] Voice 17: understanding is

[1:26:32] Voice 4: it's the same as .

[1:26:33] Voice 4: So that's what it says in our violence today.

[1:26:39] Voice 1: All right.

[1:26:41] Voice 17: Who was first?

[1:26:42] Voice 17: In the back there.

[1:26:43] Voice 2: So, slightly off-topic but not very, you said that at the end of this month, the needs assessment,

[1:26:54] Voice 2: how was that conducted? How was the needs assessment conducted? Because, I mean, that's

[1:27:05] Voice 2: something we really need to do on this island. We haven't done the needs assessment since

[1:27:08] Voice 2: it's 2018 so we really don't have an accurate

[1:27:12] Voice 2: sense of what the affordable housing needs are

[1:27:15] Voice 2: you know on the island currently i'm curious to know like where did the data come from because

[1:27:21] Voice 2: i'm part of a housing organization and i've got my fingers on everything housing on denton

[1:27:28] Voice 2: we were never asked to participate you know we we are part of the deep knowledge on the island

[1:27:35] Voice 2: I have no idea where the data comes from.

[1:27:41] Voice 11: Yes, I hear you.

[1:27:42] Voice 11: And so a consultant was hired.

[1:27:46] Voice 11: I have not been part of that process.

[1:27:50] Voice 11: There's a survey that's available on the,

[1:27:55] Voice 11: yeah, so there was obviously,

[1:27:59] Voice 11: it was done quite, it's being done quite quickly

[1:28:04] Voice 11: with women in engagement, excluding the survey.

[1:28:08] Voice 11: Is there a problem?

[1:28:11] Voice 11: I hear you.

[1:28:12] Voice 11: I hear you, absolutely.

[1:28:16] Voice 17: Just for me to confirm that we do have a 400

[1:28:22] Voice 5: ,000 emergency on Denman,

[1:28:23] Voice 5: and I don't know, the numbers between 75 to 200 people

[1:28:26] Voice 5: are already housed, unhealthy housed, or illegally housed,

[1:28:30] Voice 5: and they're not approved land uses,

[1:28:33] Voice 5: So you can get into potential power dynamic and the financial undue hardship issues in the rental relationship very easily, as well as the 95 law enforcement.

[1:28:42] Voice 5: So and any new multi-unit dense affordable housing is years away.

[1:28:47] Voice 5: So how do you address this? And so when Graham brought up, you know, the only way to do this is government.

[1:28:55] Voice 5: Here's two really dramatic examples that require political capital that could solve it.

[1:29:01] Voice 5: One is to do what other places do with tremendous affordable housing, is, of course, ban SDRs, but also basically do huge taxes on vacant homes six months or more or ban empty homes.

[1:29:17] Voice 5: Because if we banned empty homes and filled them with rentals, that would solve it.

[1:29:23] Voice 5: The second thing is failed Dutch legislation, but it's possible.

[1:29:29] Voice 5: this is just some consideration

[1:29:31] Voice 5: you won't find people here

[1:29:34] Voice 5: but only people

[1:29:36] Voice 5: below a certain wealth are allowed

[1:29:38] Voice 5: to purchase new properties

[1:29:40] Voice 5: not above

[1:29:41] Voice 5: below

[1:29:42] Voice 5: so you basically

[1:29:45] Voice 5: change both of those

[1:29:48] Voice 5: things between the value of properties

[1:29:49] Voice 5: because people's properties

[1:29:52] Voice 5: would be worth less if you

[1:29:53] Voice 5: have

[1:29:54] Voice 4: to rent

[1:29:55] Voice 4: they can't be empty and people's properties

[1:29:57] Voice 4: would be worthless if only people

[1:30:00] Voice 5: low a certain wealth would be allowed to buy and it would be a transfer of wealth and I

[1:30:07] Voice 5: the wealth transfer thing would or putting that limit would be needing federal government

[1:30:13] Voice 5: provincial government approval but the bylaw having something like a vacancy tax or an empty

[1:30:19] Voice 5: homes ban and the homes and filling with home connectors that could be done um with conjunction

[1:30:28] Voice 5: with the provincial government of BC because we do have that in Vancouver.

[1:30:32] Voice 5: They have an increasing vacancy. So just some thoughts that there are other

[1:30:38] Voice 5: options that are outside of cluster housing and they are hugely impactful on

[1:30:46] Voice 5: what people believe are their rights and values. One of the issues here is

[1:30:53] Voice 5: I hear the term affordable housing but I don't think that's what we mean.

[1:30:57] Voice 5: I think we need low-income housing right so it's very very different that is like

[1:31:04] Voice 5: there's worlds between that and we're talking about tenement green and you

[1:31:10] Voice 5: probably know better that it's affordable housing it's not low-income

[1:31:15] Voice 5: housing the

[1:31:16] Voice 1: other

[1:31:18] Voice 5: thing is if we already have a potential where we have

[1:31:26] Voice 5: properties that could have secondary dwellings and they opt not to.

[1:31:31] Voice 5: Incentives are way cheaper than any form of trying to punish or to enforce or to

[1:31:38] Voice 5: you know create very interesting concepts with people who have less

[1:31:45] Voice 5: wealth are allowed to buy homes. That is very difficult to actually do. So

[1:31:51] Voice 5: incentives are really cheap. So if there are properties that are identified that

[1:31:55] Voice 5: they can have more housing if they don't have to maybe there's a way to incentivize them

[1:32:00] Voice 11: um

[1:32:01] Voice 5: just

[1:32:04] Voice 17: speaking to um this

[1:32:06] Voice 4: issue of of uh

[1:32:08] Voice 1: uh

[1:32:09] Voice 4: empty home tax um i'm not sure where the current

[1:32:12] Voice 4: local trust committee stands on this the last local trust committee opted not or didn't opt

[1:32:20] Voice 4: into that when the province was proposing it just generally and the local last local trust committee

[1:32:27] Voice 4: did not support the inclusion of that the other thing that this relates to i believe is that

[1:32:33] Voice 4: there's been a real huge change

[1:32:34] Trustee Borthwick: in the uh airbnb and verbo market i've been on those websites it's

[1:32:41] Trustee Borthwick: like fourteen hundred

[1:32:42] Voice 4: dollars a week for one room like they're just driving the prices up on the

[1:32:47] Voice 4: island and it's i think that in conjunction with you know accessible housing affordable housing

[1:32:54] Voice 4: you know these are all um part of the same thing is that i think that we need to address

[1:33:00] Voice 4: this short-term rental stuff because it's like it's driving the prices up and it's also

[1:33:06] Voice 4: um taking up vacancies that might otherwise be offered to other people in a long-term situation

[1:33:15] Voice 10: So just to address a couple of things. The opt-in opt-out is an annual thing. Last year was the first time to opt-in.

[1:33:23] Voice 4: The advice that we got, organizational-wise, was perhaps don't opt-in the first year, just

[1:33:30] Voice 16: see how it pans out.

[1:33:31] Voice 16: Trustee Borthwick has it on our agenda today to discuss it.

[1:33:35] Voice 16: um yeah

[1:33:37] Voice 7: i'll just add that even without opting in um short-term vacation rentals are not permitted

[1:33:43] Voice 7: on denman so bylaw enforcement is actively enforcing on short-term vacation rental if

[1:33:49] Voice 7: you know of one they do look through the sites and will actively do proactive enforcement on

[1:33:55] Voice 7: short-term vacations if you know of one report it just

[1:33:59] Voice 4: point of order um like i believe you

[1:34:01] Voice 4: But my understanding is being that there are legal

[1:34:06] Voice 4: Airbnbs here

[1:34:09] Voice 7: Airbnb

[1:34:12] Voice 4: Well, there's if you go on

[1:34:14] Voice 17: Airbnb and Herbo there's dozens of yeah everywhere everywhere

[1:34:19] Voice 4: So we do allow them a traditional bed and breakfast where you house guests in your

[1:34:25] Voice 4: Principal residence, right? That's always been legal on them and continues to be legal

[1:34:29] Voice 4: right if they that owner advertises that on a whatever platform you mentioned right it's still

[1:34:37] Voice 4: a legal use that's what i understood yes that's

[1:34:40] Voice 5: a legal use today you

[1:34:41] Voice 4: need a covered walkway

[1:34:42] Voice 5: whatever the principal dwelling is that's where your guests are living it's legal

[1:34:47] Voice 5: yes

[1:34:48] Voice 4: i sorry david i just wanted to say is that they consider it part

[1:34:52] Trustee Borthwick: of the principal dwelling

[1:34:53] Trustee Borthwick: If you have like a covered connector to the roof of

[1:34:57] Voice 4: something that's not more than 12 meters apart, something like that.

[1:35:02] Voice 4: But

[1:35:03] Voice 7: the difference is the owner operator must live there as well. Yes.

[1:35:06] Voice 5: Yeah. So there are properties on Denman that have three SBR units of non lived in owner property.

[1:35:13] Voice 5: So they that exists and they're there.

[1:35:19] Voice 10: But if you see things like that, there's ease to go along with that bylaw, unfortunately.

[1:35:24] Voice 10: Yeah,

[1:35:25] Voice 4: I just wanted to add that, so the way that it's written in the bylaw right now,

[1:35:30] Voice 4: we're going to, one of the parts of this process is to, there's a few little wording changes that need to happen,

[1:35:37] Voice 4: so there's absolutely no interpretation of that, that it can be a separate unit.

[1:35:41] Voice 4: it just to just to make the the intention right now is that it cannot be and we had a legal

[1:35:47] Voice 4: opinion that encouraged some words to be changed so it absolutely is restricted to just just within

[1:35:54] Voice 4: the house itself yeah where there's somebody living okay cool i'm just going to ask one

[1:36:02] Voice 4: One question, because I'm probably at

[1:36:04] Voice 16: the wrong meeting, but I'm

[1:36:08] Voice 10: waiting for that.

[1:36:10] Voice 17: Anyways, all of the increase of dwellings that we need

[1:36:15] Voice 7: for the people to be on deck and to increase population.

[1:36:20] Voice 7: I'm just wondering how we're going to support infrastructure and look at infrastructure.

[1:36:26] Voice 7: structure? Does the Islands

[1:36:29] Voice 4: Trust help us get better roads, help us get a bigger ferry, help us

[1:36:35] Voice 4: get services for seniors that are living here or people coming? So when are we going to deal

[1:36:41] Voice 4: with the end result of increasing population on Denman because we are able to open up housing?

[1:36:50] Voice 4: So who do we ask, and who looks after building a Canadian kind around the corner instead of a little part of their store because

[1:36:59] Voice 5: we've now increased the population?

[1:37:03] Voice 5: Walmart.

[1:37:07] Voice 5: Denmark.

[1:37:08] Voice 13: Are you ready?

[1:37:09] Voice 5: No,

[1:37:11] Voice 13: I'm just asking. It's a good project, and everybody wants it.

[1:37:15] Voice 13: i just don't know how the

[1:37:17] Voice 4: island population is going to need some support for our infrastructure

[1:37:23] Voice 4: you can just talk about highways schools

[1:37:32] Trustee Borthwick: well and and to that so i spent i think six hours uh engaging on engaging with bc ferries

[1:37:42] Trustee Borthwick: Council last week that they spend my day until about 13 hours on the Wednesday, which is

[1:37:49] Trustee Borthwick: the day that we discuss the budget, which already feels like a real long day.

[1:37:53] Trustee Borthwick: We can advocate.

[1:37:54] Trustee Borthwick: We can't directly do the things.

[1:37:56] Trustee Borthwick: We don't fill the roads.

[1:37:57] Trustee Borthwick: We don't get to have control.

[1:37:58] Trustee Borthwick: But I totally agree with you.

[1:37:59] Trustee Borthwick: That is a major part of considering all of this stuff.

[1:38:02] Trustee Borthwick: Those are parts of that.

[1:38:04] Trustee Borthwick: I will continue to advocate as hard as I can.

[1:38:08] Trustee Borthwick: sometimes it's a little bit like pushing water uphill um but i will do i will do my part in that

[1:38:14] Trustee Borthwick: um but i think again all of these major bodies struggle to engage on us uh and there are lots

[1:38:24] Trustee Borthwick: of reasons for that um not the least of those is their own um they don't do good engagement they

[1:38:31] Trustee Borthwick: They don't come and speak to us in a meaningful and engaging way.

[1:38:37] Trustee Borthwick: We've got to, and the thing is, a lot of the times, these are very hostile environments

[1:38:43] Trustee Borthwick: who wish to speak to those bodies.

[1:38:45] Trustee Borthwick: And I mean, the trust can also be a very hostile body to speak to.

[1:38:48] Trustee Borthwick: I really want to own that for us too.

[1:38:51] Trustee Borthwick: I want to do better for that within the systems that we currently have.

[1:38:56] Trustee Borthwick: You know, keep pushing is part of it.

[1:39:01] Trustee Borthwick: Keep speaking to those people.

[1:39:02] Trustee Borthwick: keep talking out keep reaching out to it and yeah but i think in terms of like how we're going to

[1:39:07] Trustee Borthwick: handle any increase in infrastructure and even maintaining the infrastructure that we have right

[1:39:11] Trustee Borthwick: now because i don't even want to talk about the big hill uh like that road has got some stuff going

[1:39:17] Trustee Borthwick: on

[1:39:17] Voice 17: um

[1:39:18] Trustee Borthwick: it's going to take a lot of work and and the thing that tends to move the needle is loud public

[1:39:25] Trustee Borthwick: like political discourse that tends to make people

[1:39:31] Trustee Borthwick: in charge of those things move a little bit,

[1:39:33] Trustee Borthwick: but that's the best tool I have at the moment.

[1:39:37] Trustee Borthwick: But yeah, I think that's a really valid concern

[1:39:39] Trustee Borthwick: and we do need to bear that in mind.

[1:39:40] Voice 17: I just want to say is that,

[1:39:42] Voice 17: because I think we should take the moment

[1:39:43] Voice 17: as many people to see the effects of increased density

[1:39:49] in cities already in trouble

[1:39:52] because they don't have,

[1:39:54] Voice 17: they've built

[1:39:57] Voice 17: And just living there is not

[1:40:01] Voice 4: sufficient.

[1:40:02] Voice 4: Yeah, well, I mean, the structure,

[1:40:04] Voice 4: we can get to

[1:40:05] Trustee Borthwick: our neighboring community too.

[1:40:07] Voice 10: But I think, to think from as an outsider, my understanding of this effort all the way through

[1:40:13] Voice 10: was to create better, affordable, reasonable opportunities for people who are already here.

[1:40:18] Voice 10: The purpose was not to make more density, to bring more people to the island.

[1:40:24] Voice 10: It was to address the

[1:40:26] Voice 4: existing issue on the island, but the people who were living marginally, illegally, inappropriately.

[1:40:33] So it was to open up opportunities for those on the island, not to create density to draw people to the island, but to deal with the problem that has existed for many years.

[1:40:44] So that was my understanding. It wasn't to bring more

[1:40:47] Voice 4: people here. It was to address the issue on the island.

[1:40:50] Voice 4: So, sir, in the current official community plan, the Amnesty Trust is spoken to the local trust committee that created and the community that created spoke to this and that that we would advocate for a

[1:41:05] Trustee Borthwick: ferry system that was sufficient for average traffic flow and not advocate for

[1:41:12] Voice 4: a ferry system that was built to address peak flow.

[1:41:17] Voice 4: There's other things that we can do in terms of addressing peak flow time, et cetera.

[1:41:21] Voice 4: But the surest way to put additional pressure on housing, on prices, is to make a bigger ferry and make it easier and more convenient,

[1:41:31] Voice 4: which seems to be always the default of, like, let's make it more convenient, which all you're doing is accelerating growth.

[1:41:40] Voice 4: growth when

[1:41:41] Trustee Borthwick: Hornby and Denman have you know our overall numbers aren't huge but the rate of growth

[1:41:47] Trustee Borthwick: is super high as compared to anywhere in British Columbia so I think that we you know should keep

[1:41:52] Trustee Borthwick: in

[1:41:53] Voice 4: mind ideas about not accelerating growth here it's being you know in the 20 years 25 years that

[1:42:00] Voice 4: I've been here it's like it's substantial amount of growth outpacing other communities in British

[1:42:07] Voice 4: Columbia. So I'm just advocating for slow growth strategies as opposed to more convenience for

[1:42:13] Voice 4: people who

[1:42:13] Voice 16: want to get home from the big box. I just

[1:42:21] Voice 4: want to get back to the question of the

[1:42:24] Voice 4: files on the table and not to discount anything that's been said, but I'm just curious if,

[1:42:33] Voice 4: let's get rid of the tup sounds great the density bank can we look at not removing the density bank

[1:42:40] Voice 4: at this point and and also looking at a different way of trying some different rezoning trying to

[1:42:47] Voice 4: reallocate uh densities that may not be used to solve the problem of existing community members

[1:42:54] Voice 4: living in illegal or unsuitable housing like can there be an application process for someone

[1:43:00] Voice 4: one in a house right now that is not legal to

[1:43:04] Voice 2: like uh make it legal without removing the density bank

[1:43:10] Voice 2: because like that's my question is is it is it necessary to go ahead with removing the density

[1:43:15] Voice 2: bank right now in order to move forward

[1:43:18] Voice 7: with that other possibility well so that that would be a

[1:43:21] Voice 7: rezoning that would be required by someone if they have a residential property and they would

[1:43:25] Voice 7: like to add an additional unit if it's not permitted they would need a rezoning and then

[1:43:30] Voice 7: that would come out of the density bank but is the density only for affordable no no that's no so

[1:43:37] Voice 7: that's that's been incorrect like not yeah that's what i think it's um it's affordable housing

[1:43:44] Voice 7: special needs yeah secondaries dwelling units yeah okay sure so you would we could have seven

[1:43:52] Voice 7: But if there was a way to take some of the, as it's been pointed

[1:43:56] Voice 4: out, there are one point

[1:43:57] Voice 4: unused, seven point unused on properties, on sub-light modern, whatever, if you were

[1:44:03] Voice 4: saying, without touching those seven densities necessarily, are there other densities that

[1:44:08] Voice 4: can be pulled from other properties through a community process for an application process

[1:44:13] Voice 4: similar to the TUP sort of, but

[1:44:15] Voice 7: then reallocated to a density tool and to a property where

[1:44:18] Voice 7: There is a density transfer that exists, but that's typically like the conservation lands that they can transfer the density from up.

[1:44:28] Voice 7: So something we could look at.

[1:44:32] Voice 4: So we have fewer and fewer opportunities to take lands and put them in conservation, to take those densities off and put them in the pen.

[1:44:41] Voice 4: we have no crown land anymore because we we have the suitable provincial part um and these

[1:44:49] Voice 4: conservancy is i think looking at their last piece of property that they have and they would

[1:44:53] Voice 4: be able to transfer those taxes um but your suggestion of those that are illegally housing

[1:45:00] Voice 4: people to have some mechanism to become legal was one of the recommendations from the housing

[1:45:05] Voice 4: advisory planning yeah one of their top recommendations i know and we could have gone

[1:45:09] Voice 4: And maybe we should have, when we started this housing review, maybe we should have started with an open call to people who are illegally housing.

[1:45:18] Voice 4: An amnesty.

[1:45:20] Voice 4: An amnesty, yes.

[1:45:21] Voice 4: But we didn't do that.

[1:45:25] Voice 4: But that's a really interesting idea and one that we're going to look at once we ever get past it.

[1:45:31] Voice 4: because this particular and again for that larger uh program of reviewing and amending our housing

[1:45:39] regulations include which would include a

[1:45:42] Voice 4: density mechanism because right now i want to say it again

[1:45:47] Voice 4: but it's empty we don't have enough tensities in there to do the work that we need to do to make

[1:45:52] Voice 4: this community healthy resilient and responsible and that's just the reality of it so those

[1:45:59] Voice 4: or whatever it is, aren't enough.

[1:46:02] Voice 4: They really aren't.

[1:46:03] Voice 4: But I believe you by the proposed increase

[1:46:07] Voice 4: in the percentage of the density.

[1:46:09] Voice 4: Exactly, because that 5% was an arbitrary thing

[1:46:12] Voice 4: that was just dropped on the table at the time

[1:46:15] Voice 4: that seemed okay.

[1:46:16] Voice 4: Well, apparently it wasn't.

[1:46:18] Voice 4: Okay, it wasn't enough.

[1:46:20] Voice 4: It's not enough to do co-hosts and spend.

[1:46:23] Voice 4: Yeah, exactly.

[1:46:24] Voice 4: Yeah, there's a little bit more.

[1:46:27] Voice 4: But I think too, Eric,

[1:46:29] Voice 4: There's not enough

[1:46:31] Voice 4: charts before we're going to

[1:46:34] Voice 4: submit it on the website.

[1:46:36] Voice 4: There's not enough to do that.

[1:46:37] Voice 4: That's correct.

[1:46:38] Voice 4: These are all projects that are supported.

[1:46:41] Voice 4: And perhaps, originally

[1:46:42] Voice 4: we made the mistake of including secondary

[1:46:44] Voice 4: dwellings in that density bank.

[1:46:47] Voice 4: I don't know how that happened,

[1:46:49] Voice 4: but it happened. So

[1:46:50] Voice 4: even if we just add

[1:46:52] Voice 4: a definition of the density bank,

[1:46:54] remove that, and then add

[1:46:56] a few more percents,

[1:46:58] will be in a

[1:47:00] Voice 4: better place, but we weren't doing that today.

[1:47:03] Voice 4: We were just going to get rid of it and then have the planners come back with their

[1:47:07] Voice 4: solutions to this table, and with your comments, and then we would reinvigorate

[1:47:11] a better, more responsive system of counting our

[1:47:15] algorithm. Trustee Morrison. And I don't want to take up, because I know there's a lot of people

[1:47:19] who really want to

[1:47:19] Trustee Borthwick: speak, just to say, yes, Eric, I'd like to

[1:47:22] Trustee Borthwick: we can absolutely make modifications to the density bank instead of getting

[1:47:27] Trustee Borthwick: rid of it that was addressed this that could be and that can be a broader and ongoing discussion

[1:47:32] Voice 14: so you've been waiting very patiently yes maybe not patiently

[1:47:38] Voice 4: i'm happy

[1:47:39] Voice 4: i'm really happy

[1:47:41] Voice 4: uh

[1:47:41] Voice 3: i think that you know people are talking about um private owners who could have a secondary

[1:47:48] Voice 3: dwelling and and and simply choose not to uh and and also the concern that people around them when

[1:47:56] Voice 3: they do start to have secondary dwellings put up the price of everything if you have the right

[1:48:01] Voice 3: to build a second one then the property increases in value and i i think that one possibility of

[1:48:09] Voice 3: gaining densities and keeping your property under control is to be you know relinquish a density if

[1:48:16] Voice 3: you were on a larger property you never want to have anybody there you know you can still sell

[1:48:23] Voice 3: this land is a valuable piece of land but you relinquish that density which goes into the

[1:48:28] Voice 3: density bank and you control the upward push of your land because it isn't assessed in the same

[1:48:34] Voice 3: just in

[1:48:47] Voice 5: regards to what the housing advisory commission recommended

[1:48:50] Voice 5: We try to find the word to use other than the one I'm going to use now for secondary

[1:48:55] Voice 5: trolleys, which was amnesty.

[1:48:57] Voice 5: David has spoken about people living illegally.

[1:49:00] Voice 5: It isn't a fun thing.

[1:49:02] Voice 5: The problem with legalizing, and it's similar to what has happened with the legalization

[1:49:07] Voice 5: of marijuana, what that becomes is something

[1:49:11] Voice 5: where massive

[1:49:13] Voice 17: regulation and capitalist investment

[1:49:15] Voice 17: comes into it.

[1:49:16] Voice 17: So if you're going

[1:49:17] Voice 5: to legalize a place on Denman that has evolved over the past 30 years, all of a sudden you're going to be spending tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[1:49:26] Voice 5: We had people show up at that House Advisory Planning Commission meetings who said, I like where I live.

[1:49:32] Voice 5: I don't want it to be legalized because I know the people who own the place where I live will not be able to afford turning it into the current idea of what is required by code.

[1:49:43] Voice 5: what they will do have to do instead is kick me out so I just want to throw that

[1:49:47] Voice 5: out there this is something we considered something that people in the

[1:49:51] Voice 5: community talked about and I as a member of that committee say amnesty is better

[1:49:57] Voice 5: and what this current bylaw does doesn't quite go that far and I get why I get

[1:50:03] Voice 5: why amnesty is a scary word and all the words like it are scary but that's what

[1:50:08] Voice 5: we need many people are currently living illegally to no longer be illegal that's

[1:50:13] Voice 5: what i would like to say no one should be illegal

[1:50:19] Voice 2: something about the density that you might have on a property is we don't have a maximum house size

[1:50:24] Voice 2: which i don't understand why we don't have the maximum house size somebody on the boat and built

[1:50:29] Voice 2: one that was like 50 000 square feet you know and if you had somebody living on a lot in two tiny

[1:50:33] Voice 2: homes is that equivalent to somebody living in a monster home we should have that size yeah and

[1:50:39] Voice 9: And also,

[1:50:40] Voice 2: if you want to have second-hand estate for something or, you know, tiny homes on the lot,

[1:50:44] Voice 2: the combined floor area that they use on main or in other places,

[1:50:48] Voice 2: and they recommended the House of Housing Advisory Committee, that should be looked at.

[1:50:53] Voice 2: And, you know, say for us, we live on 15 acres, and we'd like to have somebody sharing our lot,

[1:50:58] Voice 2: you know, tiny home or whatever, and we should be allowed to do that.

[1:51:02] Voice 2: We don't have a large house, and we'd like to support somebody in the community.

[1:51:06] Voice 14: Thank you.

[1:51:07] Voice 14: My suggestion is to think right outside the box, and I'm taking as my starting point that we don't want to create regulations which attract more people to Denver.

[1:51:20] Voice 14: We want to keep the existing people, the numbers of people who are currently illegally held.

[1:51:29] Voice 14: Okay, so that's the starting point. What I get and have done at previous meetings about this is that we're kind of, of course, like sort of a pinball, bouncing around between different regulations and we've got to think outside the box.

[1:51:44] Voice 14: So taking a line from what you were talking about, the Dutch idea and the

[1:51:50] Voice 14: mainland idea, but also going to the incentive that you spoke about, rather than asking the property owners to make a huge financial commitment into creating basically market value housing and allowing, as you said, allowing big money to get into it.

[1:52:13] Voice 14: You create a situation where the current owners of the property, where you have illegal housing,

[1:52:23] Voice 14: prioritize them, work through them and their options, their willingness, incentivize them

[1:52:31] Voice 14: to create whatever kind of housing they want to do that passes the regulations.

[1:52:38] Voice 14: if it's a formal house or sewage or whether it's a tiny home or a mobile or whatever,

[1:52:47] Voice 14: but incentivise them.

[1:52:49] Voice 14: Take those two things as the starting point.

[1:52:52] Voice 14: You want to house people who are already here

[1:52:56] Voice 14: and work through the people who have taken that commitment illegally

[1:53:01] Voice 14: on the basis of their relationship with the people who are there to

[1:53:05] Voice 1: house them illegally

[1:53:06] Voice 14: illegally and then incentivize

[1:53:09] Voice 14: them to make that

[1:53:10] Voice 14: legal. It seems to me

[1:53:14] Voice 14: does that solve it?

[1:53:15] Voice 14: I can't believe that I've just said it.

[1:53:21] Voice 2: Sharon, I just

[1:53:23] Voice 2: want to have a question about

[1:53:25] Voice 2: what you said.

[1:53:27] Voice 2: I guess I don't fully understand,

[1:53:29] Voice 2: but I

[1:53:29] Voice 4: understood, from my

[1:53:31] Voice 4: understanding of this, if

[1:53:32] Voice 4: these bylaws go ahead

[1:53:34] Voice 4: and

[1:53:35] Voice 4: the motivation behind

[1:53:38] Voice 4: putting forth these recommendations for these violent amendments came from the ABC report which

[1:53:44] Voice 4: was incredibly well done and I read it and if those if won't it achieve exactly what you just

[1:53:53] Voice 4: said like it will achieve legalization for those current dwellings that are potentially substandard

[1:54:00] Voice 4: or whatever but that are housing people currently and it will also create opportunities for people

[1:54:05] Voice 4: in those zones to have to build additional blinds but it will actually technically make it will

[1:54:11] Voice 4: legalize

[1:54:12] Voice 2: current people if they comply with the regulations it's so different than if somebody

[1:54:19] Voice 2: came forward with amnesty uh to apply for identity from somewhere else that's what i don't understand

[1:54:26] Voice 4: and maybe i'm not being fair my question the difference would be r1 being able to apply

[1:54:34] Voice 4: So it could apply to families in our home, or people in our want, the proposal that we want in front of us, does not.

[1:54:43] Voice 4: Exactly. So the proposal in front of us doesn't actually even address all the currently unhoused, poorly housed people.

[1:54:53] Voice 4: So if we switch to a model that is having those people who are currently in a situation

[1:55:01] Voice 4: that isn't legal be able to apply for legality, I get what you're saying that that's their

[1:55:07] Voice 4: subject.

[1:55:08] Voice 5: It's a greater, I think it's a statistical argument, to the extent that surveillance

[1:55:13] Voice 5: is required, that surveillance is more likely to produce the effect I described.

[1:55:18] Voice 5: right yeah the

[1:55:19] Voice 5: the the violence is currently proposed it's not what i would think of as ideal

[1:55:22] Voice 5: but it creates a lower statistical likelihood of generating surveillance and therefore high

[1:55:27] Voice 5: costs and therefore eliminating housing from the market yeah that's fine okay

[1:55:30] Voice 4: so just to note a

[1:55:34] Voice 4: couple of things we started off in 10 and 15

[1:55:36] Voice 10: minutes on this um i'd like to conclude at noon

[1:55:42] Voice 10: um it does not sound like we're going to go forward with the public hearing

[1:55:46] if I'm reading the trustees, so we can look at that.

[1:55:51] I see Rianne has her hand up.

[1:55:53] But I would like, I'm not demanding, but I'd like to wrap this up with news.

[1:55:58] So if people have any other questions that have not basically been addressed,

[1:56:03] I'd like to get those dealt with before we conclude.

[1:56:07] But

[1:56:07] Voice 16: this has been really wonderful.

[1:56:09] Voice 16: I really appreciate it.

[1:56:10] Voice 16: So, Rianne.

[1:56:12] Voice 2: I love this conversation.

[1:56:14] Voice 2: these are the conversations we had around the housing agency table now we've got more people

[1:56:19] Voice 2: from different perspectives and interests here um the proposal that was on the table for today

[1:56:27] Voice 2: was hived off from our recommendations we didn't recommend that it be separated from

[1:56:33] Voice 2: square footage that was a staff decision um the fact is we don't have any staff that live on

[1:56:41] Voice 2: on island that understand how we live on our island and that work for us exclusively that

[1:56:48] Voice 2: makes this entire everything really complicated because they're servicing multiple islands

[1:56:54] Voice 2: and it seemed administratively expedient for them to hive off these two recommendations from the rest

[1:57:03] Voice 2: personally i found that a bit um troublesome which is what we're finding right now because

[1:57:12] Voice 2: Because the square footage, for example, would, if we had a distributed square footage, that might address a lot of people's concerns about unchecked development.

[1:57:25] Voice 2: So this is, unfortunately, this kind of piecemeal thing is what we get with the government structure that we have.

[1:57:33] Voice 2: It's very limited, and even though the entire Islands Trust budget is $11 million this year,

[1:57:40] Voice 2: we only get a tiny, tiny fraction, and we've already spent what we got for this process.

[1:57:46] Voice 2: So a lot of, I'm just saying, a lot of the concerns people have are not actually related to housing.

[1:57:52] Voice 2: They're related to Islands Trust administration, and it's really important to know this is the beast we have to deal with.

[1:58:02] Voice 2: Thank you.

[1:58:05] Voice 4: Thank you but let's just be clear the decision to hive off these two items was this group's decision and the reason we did that is that it gave us the opportunity to have two planners working at the same time that's why we did it because we had finished one of our little minor projects which I can't remember what it was and a door opened where we could have a planner

[1:58:30] Voice 4: Planner Necargar worked on these two issues at the same time Planner Nerissa Chadwick

[1:58:38] Voice 4: was continuing to work on the overall.

[1:58:40] Voice 4: So from an expediency perspective, it seemed to make sense to have two planners working

[1:58:45] Voice 4: on this project at the same time.

[1:58:48] Voice 4: That's how it was presented to us, and we said, that's fantastic, let's do that.

[1:58:53] Voice 4: We'll get rid of it.

[1:58:54] Voice 4: We'll take those two little, which we obviously erroneously thought was fairly simple, ideas

[1:58:59] Voice 4: to move forward so we could move the entire housing review forward. I'd love to get some of it done during our term, but, you know, it's going to be what it's going to be.

[1:59:14] Voice 4: I just wanted to correct that. That's important that we deal with the facts.

[1:59:19] Voice 4: But you made that decision based on staff recommendation.

[1:59:21] Voice 4: But we did decide to, we agreed that it made sense to have two planners working at the same time as opposed to just one.

[1:59:28] Voice 4: Does

[1:59:28] Voice 1: that still make sense?

[1:59:30] Voice 1: Because then we

[1:59:31] Voice 1: have a community 3D band?

[1:59:32] Voice 4: They're going to take responsibility for us

[1:59:34] Voice 4: about including the density bank with the TUP.

[1:59:37] Voice 4: I mean, you know, we just misread the room.

[1:59:39] Voice 4: It's okay. It's all good.

[1:59:41] Voice 4: We've got a great show.

[1:59:42] Voice 4: We have more than 10 minutes for this community.

[1:59:45] Voice 4: We need to learn a lot.

[1:59:47] Voice 4: This is community work, okay?

[1:59:50] Voice 4: This is beautiful.

[1:59:51] Voice 4: I'd like to say a couple of quick things.

[1:59:53] Voice 4: If you have a property that has two cities.

[2:00:00] Voice 4: In other words, it's probably a five-acre property where you could have two houses on it right now.

[2:00:05] Voice 4: R1.

[2:00:06] Voice 4: R2, you can't have two houses on five acres.

[2:00:09] Voice 4: We're at 15 acres.

[2:00:10] Voice 4: You've got 20 acres.

[2:00:11] Voice 4: You've got 20 acres.

[2:00:12] Voice 4: You have R2, then you can have two houses.

[2:00:14] Voice 4: Yep.

[2:00:14] Voice 4: Well, I know there's a

[2:00:16] Voice 4: static example where somebody can have two houses on their piece of property.

[2:00:20] You

[2:00:20] Voice 4: can have a 20-acre parcel.

[2:00:22] Voice 4: It's not 20 acres.

[2:00:24] Voice 4: Maybe it's five.

[2:00:25] Voice 4: I don't know.

[2:00:26] Voice 4: You can have one.

[2:00:28] Voice 4: Unless it's R1.

[2:00:29] Voice 4: Is it a joint R1?

[2:00:30] Voice 4: well i'm not sure but let's just say so this doesn't apply to r1 no no not talking about

[2:00:36] Voice 4: r1 we're not talking about the small lots at all well i'd have to take another look at it i guess

[2:00:42] Voice 4: the other question is um if you have one of the uh outcomes of this is to legalize uh existing

[2:00:52] Voice 4: dwellings that are some would would be able to be legalized yeah and so the

[2:00:57] Voice 3: question is if the

[2:00:58] Voice 3: The bylaw goes ahead.

[2:01:00] Voice 3: Do those houses automatically become legal

[2:01:02] Voice 3: or is there a process

[2:01:04] Voice 4: that they'd have to go through

[2:01:06] Voice 4: to make sure it complied with the existing other bylaws?

[2:01:10] Voice 4: The question matter, turn

[2:01:11] Voice 7: over to our planners.

[2:01:13] Voice 7: So they would comply with zoning.

[2:01:15] Voice 7: They likely still didn't get a siting and use permit

[2:01:18] Voice 7: if the dwelling's legal, so they would, yeah,

[2:01:21] Voice 7: they would need to get a siting and use permit

[2:01:22] Voice 7: and that would check to make sure that they conform

[2:01:25] Voice 7: with setbacks and hikes and all that shit.

[2:01:28] Voice 7: will be

[2:01:28] Voice 11: a pretty good chance they

[2:01:29] Voice 7: don't comply so that

[2:01:31] Voice 4: seems to me to be a big issue there yeah

[2:01:35] Voice 5: because they talked a lot about a lot of business jpc and um a lot of houses are not built to code

[2:01:42] Voice 5: they're not their property they're hidden away for a reason how do you safely and legally give

[2:01:49] denman residents current residents a healthy legal

[2:01:54] Voice 7: place to live that's the question well that would

[2:01:57] Voice 7: would be there's no infectious there's no building infection on dead men right

[2:02:01] Voice 7: so without a lot of people will not do a rezoning process or they're a legal

[2:02:06] Voice 5: tenant they're illegal they will not do that that will

[2:02:09] Voice 4: not happen I say I'm not

[2:02:11] Voice 4: but it wouldn't be a rezoning they would be allowed to have that second

[2:02:18] Voice 4: dwelling under the existing zone so there's no rezoning application there

[2:02:24] Voice 4: There may be, and citing a use permit that needs to be filed, as Carter said, that's the planner's opportunity to see, oh, it's 61 meters away from the principal of money.

[2:02:35] Voice 4: It doesn't comply.

[2:02:35] Voice 4: They may be able to get it done.

[2:02:37] Voice 4: There is a permit.

[2:02:38] Voice 4: You can come back to the local trust committee and say, I'm one meter where I shouldn't be.

[2:02:44] Can I still do it?

[2:02:46] And

[2:02:46] Voice 4: this table gets to go.

[2:02:48] Voice 4: You know, yes, you know.

[2:02:50] Voice 4: So

[2:02:50] Voice 5: there is an opportunity.

[2:02:51] Voice 5: I do want to say thank you very much for engaging us on this, because the buzz on the island was just, what are they doing?

[2:03:00] Voice 5: So I appreciate that. I appreciate the whole two hours that we're spending on this.

[2:03:06] Voice 5: Amen.

[2:03:12] Voice 10: You've given a lot of information here. We'll get to you.

[2:03:20] Voice 10: obviously we're going to rehash this we're going to try it again and probably get more people out

[2:03:29] hopefully it'll be smiling

[2:03:30] Voice 10: people is it

[2:03:35] Voice 10: so but this is a good example of you know how you influence the process we did not come here

[2:03:43] Voice 10: to this meeting with the determination that we were going to do what we were going to do

[2:03:47] Voice 10: is that we were here to listen we have listened and the input comes in we will think you will

[2:03:54] see the product of your good work becomes the planner's good work which becomes our good work

[2:04:01] and until we've got all

[2:04:03] Voice 10: three in agreement we're not voting um but but there is pressure

[2:04:09] Voice 10: everybody says why does it take so long well you know this is probably a really good example

[2:04:16] Voice 10: why it does take so long because we do listen we don't force things we try to do what's the

[2:04:24] Voice 10: best interest of the community so go ahead i'm

[2:04:27] Voice 1: wondering why in heaven's name that you

[2:04:29] Voice 1: to take that we would only need 15 minutes to participate in

[2:04:42] Voice 10: the process.

[2:04:45] Voice 10: It is that the community information meeting was basically about the technical aspects of the

[2:04:50] Voice 10: bylaw. So that should have been like pretty simple questions and all that. When we got in the public

[2:04:55] Voice 10: hearing that's where we had allocated an hour and a half that's where a lot we

[2:05:00] Voice 16: really burned

[2:05:01] Voice 16: the lines a lot today which we do very well um but you know it is the reason the room was

[2:05:09] Voice 16: we weren't going to go to

[2:05:11] Voice 16: the public hearing so we just i arbitrarily decided well we just

[2:05:14] Voice 16: expand the conversation and deal with everybody's questions this

[2:05:18] Voice 3: is just a suggestion to planners

[2:05:22] Voice 3: planners and it's talking about the amnesty and the

[2:05:25] Voice 3: illegality and that non-conforming would fit in

[2:05:29] Voice 3: and I think that one of the major places that we all care about

[2:05:33] Voice 3: but that is a sticking point has to do with dealing with

[2:05:37] Voice 3: septic and sewage and there are very many

[2:05:41] Voice 3: you know very modern ways to have

[2:05:44] Voice 3: an inexpensive system which may

[2:05:49] Voice 3: may allow illegals to be brought in.

[2:05:54] Voice 3: My experience was when I was attempting to get a TUP, that my huge expense was in septics

[2:06:03] Voice 3: treatment and to invest in the ground and then have only a three-year permit was just

[2:06:13] Voice 3: like an insanity I couldn't afford.

[2:06:16] Voice 3: board but but it is it remains the same kind of problem for anybody who's trying to um you know

[2:06:23] Voice 3: fit in with the new plan with their old uh rental right there so you know i think it's really

[2:06:33] Voice 3: important and i think that charlene was very prescient years ago in working on alternative

[2:06:38] Voice 3: kinds of septic like the kinds of things that are expected on a municipal level are not appropriate

[2:06:44] Voice 3: here

[2:06:44] Voice 7: so that is island health we don't actually control what is permitted in terms of septic

[2:06:51] Voice 7: sewer that's all island health there

[2:06:52] Voice 2: is a island

[2:06:54] Voice 7: stress gray water um manual i think

[2:06:57] Voice 4: so is

[2:07:01] Voice 7: it entirely outside your purview yeah it is a

[2:07:04] Voice 7: approved sewerage system and what that is

[2:07:07] Voice 7: is Island Health that determines

[2:07:09] Voice 17: what's the approved sewerage system.

[2:07:11] Voice 16: But Island Health, last year UBCM, Miles Trusted,

[2:07:16] Voice 16: came forward and requested the province to do reviews on greywater and composting toilets.

[2:07:22] Voice 16: So we are actively advocating for the alternatives.

[2:07:26] Voice 7: Yes. The composting toilet does

[2:07:28] Voice 7: fit under an approved sewerage system.

[2:07:31] Voice 7: It just has to be, there's certain conditions that it has to be.

[2:07:35] Voice 7: It's the great one.

[2:07:38] Voice 7: So,

[2:07:39] Voice 10: John, on the back, if we can

[2:07:40] Voice 10: conclude this.

[2:07:42] Voice 10: Go ahead.

[2:07:43] Voice 10: I think

[2:07:47] Voice 10: overall

[2:07:49] Voice 10: something that is

[2:07:53] Voice 10: developing

[2:07:54] Voice 10: everything we talk about

[2:07:55] Voice 10: is that when we talk about

[2:07:58] Voice 10: affordability, the flip side of

[2:08:00] Voice 10: affordability is gender security.

[2:08:03] Voice 10: I would like to see

[2:08:04] Voice 10: those things constantly

[2:08:06] Voice 10: address together. And unfortunately, everything gets fragmented. I started talking about affordability

[2:08:13] Voice 10: without addressing gentrification. One of the tools for dealing with gentrification

[2:08:20] Voice 10: that very rarely gets used because it's extreme, but I think is also very dramatic and possibly

[2:08:28] Voice 10: very effective is the idea of a moratorium. I would like to see a moratorium on all high-end

[2:08:38] Voice 10: development approval on this island until we get the requisite number of affordable housing units

[2:08:44] Voice 10: available to people. And I know that that would make a lot of people.

[2:08:50] Voice 10: I think that's something that I'm very resentful of you. I just can't.

[2:08:55] Voice 10: Well,

[2:08:55] Voice 17: thank you, everybody.

[2:08:59] Voice 17: That's what they were looking at.

[2:09:00] Voice 17: I don't think it's all the way through here.

[2:09:02] Voice 17: Yeah, I don't think we have a question like that.

[2:09:06] Voice 17: It's a maximum cost.

[2:09:07] Voice 17: And again,

[2:09:07] Voice 9: I mean, we're in the US

[2:09:09] Voice 17: to go to the United States.

[2:09:13] Voice 17: And I think it's all the way through here.

[2:09:17] Voice 17: All right.

[2:09:17] Voice 17: I mean, it's all right.

[2:09:19] Voice 1: All right.

[2:09:20] Voice 1: Thank you.

[2:09:21] Voice 1: Thank you.

[2:09:22] Voice 1: Thank you.

[2:09:23] Voice 1: Thank you.

[2:09:24] Voice 17: Thank you.

[2:09:24] Voice 17: Thank you.

[2:09:25] Voice 17: Thank you.

[2:09:26] Voice 1: Thank you.

[2:09:28] Thank you.

[2:09:29] Voice 17: Yes, why are we going to go on a break?

[2:09:42] Voice 17: Sorry, folks.

[2:09:44] Voice 15: Sorry, folks.

[2:09:45] Voice 15: Excuse

[2:09:45] Voice 17: me a second.

[2:09:48] Voice 17: Everybody, please be

[2:09:49] Voice 15: quiet for a moment.

[2:09:55] Voice 15: We need to formally go on a break, so

[2:09:58] Trustee Borthwick: we need to relay that online.

[2:10:01] Trustee Borthwick: you're welcome to have a discussion, but if you could take it outside just for a second while we formally

[2:10:04] Trustee Borthwick: go on a break, then you can continue talking.

[2:10:30] Voice 15: So, we'll be coming

[2:10:31] Voice 15: back at 12.35, we then have a team camera meeting, we'll be back at 1.15 for the public.

[2:48:48] Voice 8: so we can go in camera so we can check

[2:48:50] Voice 4: it out you want to do this uh first or i

[2:48:55] Voice 7: so i was thinking

[2:48:58] Voice 7: that we could just um so

[2:49:01] Voice 10: we're back on live we're

[2:49:04] Voice 7: reconvening and so over okay i was thinking that

[2:49:08] Voice 7: we could just deal with that part at the section of the agenda that talks about the post-public

[2:49:13] Voice 7: the hearing report. Okay. So we just need a motion to move in

[2:49:18] Voice 7: camera.

[2:49:21] I move that we move that the

[2:49:25] Trustee Borthwick: Domino and Local Trust Committee

[2:49:26] Trustee Borthwick: move in camera. The meeting be closed to the public in accordance

[2:49:30] Trustee Borthwick: with the Community Charter, part four, division three, section

[2:49:32] Trustee Borthwick: 90, part one, practice B, for the purposes of considering

[2:49:38] Trustee Borthwick: litigation or potential litigation affecting the

[2:49:39] Trustee Borthwick: municipality and the recorder in this county to attend the

[2:49:42] Trustee Borthwick: meeting.

[2:49:42] Trustee Borthwick: Excellent. Thank you, Trustee Graz. I have a follow-up question. All in favor? We are in Canada.

[2:49:49] So, we have

[2:49:52] Voice 17: Margo. So, we have a...

[2:50:00] Voice 17: Okay.

[2:50:02] Voice 17: Sorry.

[2:50:03] Voice 17: I'm just going to go over and have a battle.

[2:50:09] Voice 10: Good

[2:50:10] Voice 4: enough? Okay.

[2:50:11] Voice 4: You're just going to have a discussion. The RISD report is the local trust for a relief,

[2:50:18] Voice 4: legal advice and consideration.

[2:50:24] And that's it for the U.S. report.

[2:50:27] We're

[2:50:28] Voice 16: moving forward with our agenda.

[2:50:31] Voice 16: It'll be more interesting as we go.

[2:50:34] Voice 16: So we have, now we have public comments.

[2:50:37] Voice 4: If anybody has a comment, raise your hands.

[2:50:40] Voice 4: I have a feeling, Charlie,

[2:50:41] Voice 4: just outside the office, I am going to go on just a bit.

[2:50:44] Voice 16: All right, we're going to see if we can rise

[2:50:46] Voice 16: a member of the public to have a public comment.

[2:50:49] Voice 17: Because we're pretty low here right now.

[2:50:51] Voice 17: Did

[2:50:56] Voice 16: you guys do any

[2:50:57] Voice 4: more? I thought I

[2:50:58] Voice 16: know it was 32 people.

[2:51:00] Voice 4: Did you guys do it?

[2:51:01] Voice 4: 43.

[2:51:02] Voice 4: What was that?

[2:51:03] Voice 1: 43.

[2:51:04] Voice 4: Okay, Lisa, if you could amend that number to 43.

[2:51:07] Voice 12: I made it to it.

[2:51:08] Voice 4: Okay, perfect.

[2:51:10] Voice 12: I made an amend.

[2:51:11] Voice 16: Yeah, I just said that.

[2:51:12] Voice 12: So I'm going to call.

[2:51:14] Voice 16: I didn't have a plan that I said, but I know it's me.

[2:51:17] Voice 16: I

[2:51:17] Voice 17: mean,

[2:51:22] Voice 1: we're

[2:51:24] Voice 8: not much of a job.

[2:51:39] Voice 1: And

[2:51:39] Voice 10: there are 10 minutes that are available to the public.

[2:51:42] Voice 1: Thank you. I

[2:51:42] Voice 10: still don't understand that one.

[2:51:43] Voice 10: So, um, until we're done, at the comment hall portion of the meeting, um, if anybody has

[2:51:53] Voice 4: any questions or comments or concerns,

[2:51:55] Voice 4: don't get your hands, you can talk about three minutes, or we don't really do three minutes, or whatever, re-enroll.

[2:52:02] Voice 2: I'd like to speak about the application for an in-ground pool.

[2:52:07] Voice 2: This is the second application for an in-ground pool that the Islands Trust, sorry, the Devon Island LCC has received.

[2:52:17] Voice 2: The previous LTC committee received also an application. They said there's nothing to stop an in-ground pool. We will approve it.

[2:52:25] Voice 2: I suspect that there's going to be more of this. I would like to suggest to our Local Trust Committee

[2:52:29] Voice 2: They can make a requirement that anybody who wants to build an in-ground pool have that much cistern rainwater set aside so that they're not drying from the aquifer or the groundwater in order to build their in-ground pool.

[2:52:46] Voice 2: I suggest that that be an across-the

[2:52:49] Voice 2: -board new bylaw, and I also want to register my objection to an in-ground pool being built in an area that is going to be prone to flooding as sea levels rise,

[2:53:05] Voice 2: and an in-ground pool doesn't meet any OCP objectives or any community objectives.

[2:53:12] Voice 2: So I would recommend that you do not allow the same ground pool for those reasons and also make a new bylaw

[2:53:19] Voice 2: Thanks, we've done. Thank you

[2:53:22] Voice 17: Anybody else have anything?

[2:53:26] Voice 17: I would second that

[2:53:31] Voice 4: Okay, well that's it. We kind of

[2:53:33] Voice 10: all move on

[2:53:35] Voice 10: We have

[2:53:38] Voice 10: Considered

[2:53:39] Voice 10: Like five production

[2:53:45] Voice 4: I couldn't

[2:53:46] Voice 4: see anything amiss within those minutes. Did you

[2:53:48] Voice 16: guys catch anything?

[2:53:50] Voice 16: So by general consent, we've got those minutes.

[2:53:53] Voice 16: Once again, excellent minutes.

[2:53:54] Voice 16: Yes, thank you very much. We're very happy.

[2:53:59] Voice 4: So business management minutes, we have a follow-up action listed March 11, 2025.

[2:54:07] Voice 4: Any questions or comments

[2:54:09] Voice 16: or concerns about these?

[2:54:19] Voice 4: I know that we've got the minor project received because of the First Nations update, is that

[2:54:29] Voice 4: going to happen?

[2:54:30] Voice 7: Correct.

[2:54:31] Voice 7: Has that already happened?

[2:54:32] Voice 7: That has not happened.

[2:54:33] Voice 7: So that would be coming to you at the next minor project.

[2:54:36] Voice 7: That was something that we talked about at the last meeting.

[2:54:40] Voice 7: meeting, so the project charter would come to you. We're still heavily in the other minor

[2:54:47] Voice 7: project.

[2:54:49] Voice 7: Might

[2:54:49] Voice 16: be a delay on that one.

[2:54:51] Voice 16: We'll just, we'll have to do what happens today.

[2:54:52] Voice 16: Yeah.

[2:54:53] Voice 16: Yeah.

[2:54:53] Voice 16: Okay, very nice. So, oh

[2:55:00] Voice 10: yes, easing into the 13.1 minor project, housing related temporary

[2:55:05] Voice 10: use permit review,

[2:55:06] Voice 10: public hearing staff report.

[2:55:09] Voice 16: Yeah, so I...

[2:55:14] Oh,

[2:55:14] Voice 4: I'm on page 17. I'm just looking at the OCP and LUB amendments for the Demics Insurgency Association and their interest in evaluating the board. Where are we at that?

[2:55:27] Voice 7: Yeah, so staff are reviewing it and would be bringing in preliminary staff reports soon.

[2:55:33] Voice 7: soon and

[2:55:36] Voice 4: is this a place for me to ask about coho's

[2:55:39] Voice 7: application where are we with that one

[2:55:42] Voice 7: so that one um or sorry with the conservancy staff we've done the preliminary review and

[2:55:49] Voice 7: we've been directed by the lpc to start drafting bylaws so those draft bylaws would be coming

[2:55:55] Voice 7: shortly and with coho the bylaws have received first reading

[2:56:03] Voice 7: depending on what happens today with this temporary use density bank minor project that

[2:56:09] Voice 7: would also affect the rezoning for coho it might mean that they also need an ocp amendment if they

[2:56:17] Voice 7: do need to withdraw them these from the density bank we previously thought that the two would go

[2:56:23] Voice 7: together through this process but if that's not going to happen then we'll have to reevaluate

[2:56:32] Voice 7: So,

[2:56:35] Voice 16: we can back forward, we're back forward, so, a previous

[2:56:40] Trustee Borthwick: pilot permit review.

[2:56:42] Trustee Borthwick: Well, Clara MacArthur was going to prepare some language for some notions.

[2:56:45] Voice 7: Yeah, so I won't go through the entire report because it's not really relevant, given

[2:56:49] Voice 7: that we didn't have a public hearing, and this is a public hearing report.

[2:56:54] Voice 7: I guess the part that was relevant that we talked a little bit about earlier was that at the time of writing this report, staff had had a meeting with COMOX.

[2:57:05] Voice 7: And so we were told by COMOX that they would likely be submitting something to the LTC, but when I wrote the report, they hadn't submitted it yet.

[2:57:13] Voice 7: So we now know they've submitted a request to defer adoption of these bylaws until they have a chance to review them.

[2:57:21] Voice 7: And they had said that they would have a chance to review and provide a response by July.

[2:57:28] Voice 7: But as we're standing right now, is

[2:57:30] Voice 16: that kind of a moot thing?

[2:57:33] Voice 7: Well, yeah, so that's sort of up to the LTC.

[2:57:38] Voice 7: There are some alternatives that I had listed in this report, which were amend the bylaws.

[2:57:45] Voice 7: forwarding the bylaws to executive committee and which wouldn't be relevant defer second and third

[2:57:50] Voice 7: reading to a future LTC meeting proceed no further with these bylaws and then I also have an

[2:57:59] Voice 7: additional recommendation alternative which would be that and then LTC request staff to include

[2:58:06] Voice 7: analysis of density bank alternatives and permitting accessory dwelling units on Denman

[2:58:11] Voice 7: island into phase 2c of the housing review project so that would be basically wrapping

[2:58:18] Voice 7: these bylaws these proposed bylaws into the larger project and i'm proceeding no further no further

[2:58:24] Voice 7: with the bylaws as they currently are i can share my screen and you can have a look at those

[2:58:30] Voice 7: recommendations if you like i'm leaning

[2:58:33] Voice 4: towards that last recommendation

[2:58:35] Voice 4: innovation as of its interdependency on the larger question density and the density bank

[2:58:45] Voice 4: yeah

[2:58:46] Voice 16: so

[2:58:47] Voice 4: other than that we carve off the nc bank portion of the proposed bylaws and just look at

[2:58:53] Voice 4: the tup but um what

[2:58:58] Trustee Borthwick: do you think i mean i had some reservations about uh you know advancing stuff

[2:59:06] Trustee Borthwick: separately and certainly in the run-up to this meeting I have felt pretty conflicted about

[2:59:10] how

[2:59:11] Trustee Borthwick: things were sort of shaping up um just and not because I don't appreciate the work and and

[2:59:16] Trustee Borthwick: think that there's a lot of really valuable stuff that's happened and I appreciate the intent with

[2:59:21] Trustee Borthwick: which we we sort of tried to section this off um nevertheless uh I think it's really important

[2:59:27] Trustee Borthwick: that we advance this work uh together I mean in the context of the rest of the land use and

[2:59:32] Trustee Borthwick: and land use bylaw and OCP amendments

[2:59:34] Trustee Borthwick: that we'd like to make

[2:59:36] or that we're going to advance.

[2:59:40] So I think

[2:59:41] Trustee Borthwick: it's unwise to take the guardrails off

[2:59:43] Trustee Borthwick: without having a replacement.

[2:59:45] Trustee Borthwick: And I appreciate the intent in which this is brought forward.

[2:59:50] Trustee Borthwick: And I do think this is going to,

[2:59:53] Trustee Borthwick: we're going to have a better considered discussion

[2:59:58] Trustee Borthwick: and process with this.

[3:00:00] Trustee Borthwick: do advance it as a part of the whole I think community will be glad that I don't necessarily

[3:00:06] Trustee Borthwick: you know I think I think these discussions are important I think and we can't make these decisions

[3:00:10] Trustee Borthwick: without knowing how we would uh uh you know put in put in some safeguards for for protecting

[3:00:18] ourselves from unexpected

[3:00:20] Trustee Borthwick: loopholes so I uh yeah I would I would be very happy to make this motion

[3:00:25] Trustee Borthwick: as it is, unless anybody else has anything else they want to say.

[3:00:29] Trustee Borthwick: Any further questions?

[3:00:31] Voice 4: No, I'm on your third suggestion, I would support that.

[3:00:37] Before you do that, I know that Comox First Nation is excited that they're interested in looking at

[3:00:42] Denman proposed changes and Hornby.

[3:00:46] Do we have enough of their focused

[3:00:49] Voice 4: attention on what we're doing without Hornby scooping their energy

[3:00:54] Voice 4: and making the conversation more complicated?

[3:00:57] Voice 4: Yes.

[3:00:59] In fact, most of the work that Comox has been doing

[3:01:03] has been focused on.

[3:01:06] So you're fine.

[3:01:07] Okay, good. Thanks.

[3:01:08] Yes.

[3:01:09] Voice 17: All right.

[3:01:10] Voice 17: Well, so there's...

[3:01:12] Voice 17: I'm sorry.

[3:01:29] Voice 8: This

[3:01:29] Trustee Borthwick: is a thing.

[3:01:30] Trustee Borthwick: So yeah, I think I overheard and I agree.

[3:01:33] Trustee Borthwick: That was the thing that I was thinking about too.

[3:01:35] Trustee Borthwick: It's like we should make sure we tell Comox

[3:01:36] Trustee Borthwick: that we don't need them to review these as they were but that it's going to be part of the broader

[3:01:41] Trustee Borthwick: conversation but we can do that yeah yeah that would

[3:01:46] Voice 16: really annoy me if i was if i went through

[3:01:49] Voice 16: we are

[3:01:54] Voice 4: in

[3:01:57] Voice 11: consistent communication with the snaps so um so

[3:02:01] Trustee Borthwick: there's open dialogue and and because we

[3:02:03] Trustee Borthwick: are not yeah i don't want to assume that yeah well i would love to assume it but i can't

[3:02:11] Trustee Borthwick: uh all right i move that the demo and local trust committee requests staff to include analysis of

[3:02:16] Trustee Borthwick: density bank alternatives and permitting to accessory dwelling units on den island into

[3:02:20] Trustee Borthwick: phase 2c of the housing review project for the discussion i will just say so this is not

[3:02:30] Trustee Borthwick: specifically referencing uh the temporary use permit as a specific mechanism um is that captured

[3:02:36] Trustee Borthwick: within the the language of accessory dwelling units yes i assume you guys know that but i just

[3:02:43] Trustee Borthwick: want to make sure we'll be clear enough yeah that's great okay so call the question about

[3:02:48] Trustee Borthwick: all right uh and then we could also make this this last motion as well uh so i move that the

[3:02:57] Trustee Borthwick: demo and i will local trust committee proceed no further with bylaw numbers uh 248 and 249.

[3:03:08] okay now

[3:03:10] Voice 4: that means we can re-look at our minor projects and get the other one

[3:03:17] Voice 9: excellent you

[3:03:18] Voice 4: smile it's still like having two planners working on this project

[3:03:23] Voice 4: it is the best way to go all right what's your name so next up we have uh that's finished 13.2

[3:03:35] Voice 4: major project testing 10 housing official can you find the land use file review project staff report

[3:03:43] Voice 11: yes

[3:03:43] Voice 4: that's me yeah

[3:03:45] Voice 4: so um this report um so this report is sort of i guess there's there's there's

[3:03:54] Voice 4: There's three recommendations here, and so there's sort of three conversations.

[3:04:00] Voice 4: The first is looking at the endorsement, so basically moving to the writing of the bylaws

[3:04:07] Voice 4: for Phase 2a and 2b, and I've methodically stepped through each one of those things.

[3:04:14] Voice 4: There's an opportunity to move anything from Phase a or b on to Phase

[3:04:18] Voice 11: c, and originally

[3:04:21] Voice 11: Originally, we had separated the bylaws that were sort of more, I mean, as I identified, that required limited analysis or less analysis are the bylaws in Phase A,

[3:04:35] Voice 11: the amendments in Phase A, and Phase B are the ones that are

[3:04:38] Voice 4: limited analysis but require a CPM amendment, so it's a bit of a longer process.

[3:04:46] Voice 4: And originally, the idea was maybe, you know, phase A could potentially move ahead of phase B, but because we've been doing the update to the zoning format, it's taken a bit more time. We've got it legal, so the processes are kind of aligned.

[3:05:03] Voice 4: So at this

[3:05:03] Voice 11: point, the conversation is around whether you want to move those phase A and B ahead of phase C.

[3:05:12] Voice 11: And the Phase C discussion is all about the additional events and questions, specifically

[3:05:19] Voice 11: for private landowners.

[3:05:21] Voice 11: And I think just for a reminder for everybody in this process, the way that the process

[3:05:28] Voice 11: has moved so far is that we received the information from the Housing APC, an action plan was developed

[3:05:42] Voice 11: from that. The implementation list is included as an amendment. I'm doing my best to ensure

[3:05:50] Voice 11: that the decisions in the process are very clearly identified, and every time I will

[3:05:58] Voice 11: bring back, I will update. So I've given you the housing implementation plan list from

[3:06:05] Voice 11: October between the four and identified where pages were made and I'll consistently bring this

[3:06:12] Voice 11: back for you so that you that we can you can see where the and the community can see whether the

[3:06:17] Voice 11: symptoms have been made with respect to that list I will point out that one of the things that was

[3:06:24] Voice 11: on main island's

[3:06:26] Voice 4: list enfolded into their housing plan is not allowing groundwater fed or groundwater

[3:06:34] Voice 4: water fed swimming pools. So you might want to choose to add

[3:06:37] Voice 4: that given the conversations, we could we could add that as a as

[3:06:42] Voice 4: a another recommendation. Um, in addition to that, you can add

[3:06:46] Voice 4: anything else as we go through the conversation. So to make it

[3:06:51] Voice 4: also to sort of help with the process I so I pulled out of the

[3:06:54] Voice 4: larger so the larger list includes things that are

[3:06:57] Voice 4: directly

[3:06:58] Voice 11: related to bylaw amendments and things that are

[3:07:00] Voice 11: not. So I pulled out the things that are directly related to the amendments and that's on a separate

[3:07:08] Voice 11: page in the table. And I have then gone

[3:07:12] Voice 4: through every one of those ones and identified where we

[3:07:14] Voice 4: are in the process. So you have made some decisions around some of those things already

[3:07:20] Voice 4: and that's all identified. We can walk through each one of those. The suitable land analysis

[3:07:27] Voice 4: this um item there um is sort of reflective of um conversations that we have had uh with with

[3:07:37] Voice 11: trustees with the comox nation and also with uh um with the conservancy here um so there's an

[3:07:46] Voice 11: interest in um in revising um some of that information based on a lot of the input that

[3:07:53] Voice 11: we're getting. So that third resolution, that would facilitate prioritizing

[3:08:02] Voice 4: or like allowing

[3:08:03] Voice 4: you know staff to continue to work, to do the work with the Conservancy, with the Comox to update

[3:08:10] Voice 4: the information that we have. So

[3:08:13] Voice 11: that's there, that's a little clarification on that piece.

[3:08:16] Voice 11: Um, before I go into the specific

[3:08:22] Voice 4: actions, is there any questions related, like on a higher level?

[3:08:27] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:08:29] Voice 4: So you already explained that we didn't see the updated technical review of these,

[3:08:35] Voice 4: and we won't see that.

[3:08:37] Voice 4: Correct, yeah.

[3:08:38] Voice 4: As far as suitable land analysis, your second paragraph confirmed that there are threats

[3:08:45] Voice 4: for citing additional density across Denman's residential zones. How did you come to that conclusion?

[3:08:55] Voice 11: Well, that's a good question. So the way that you look at it, and whether you agree with it,

[3:09:02] Voice 11: what

[3:09:02] Voice 8: we're

[3:09:04] Voice 3: learning now, like, you know, what we've learned is there's a ton more information.

[3:09:08] Voice 3: right so the confirmation of the in that context

[3:09:14] Voice 4: that's not an appropriate word

[3:09:15] Voice 4: for teams I agree and

[3:09:17] Voice 3: I think that yeah so now we have an opportunity to look at

[3:09:21] Voice 4: a bunch more data and that'll help to identify you know whether there is

[3:09:28] Voice 4: you know whether how do you want to interpret that information so yeah also

[3:09:34] Voice 4: the use of the suitable analysis in my mind and I could be wrong here but in my

[3:09:38] Voice 4: mind it's more applicable to when you're evaluating a piece of property that that

[3:09:44] Voice 4: is being offered to the community uh either as a donation or if uh

[3:09:49] Voice 4: green was paid for with densities that somebody gave up from their own property uh for multiple

[3:09:56] Voice 4: unit development multiple not singular property by property or are you thinking that we in other

[3:10:05] Voice 4: words, had we expunged the temporary use permit requirement for R2, that would have been a blanket R2

[3:10:13] Voice 4: A and F, regardless of what the suit of the land analysis was going to say on all those

[3:10:20] Voice 4: particular properties. Are you suggesting that we consider using the suit of the land analysis

[3:10:26] Voice 4: and earmark which properties are appropriate for another dwelling? Because I don't see that.

[3:10:35] Voice 4: Well,

[3:10:35] Voice 11: again, that's a potential use

[3:10:36] Voice 4: of it, right?

[3:10:37] Voice 4: It is a potential use of it.

[3:10:38] Voice 4: It's not necessarily one that we may use.

[3:10:42] Voice 4: That's right.

[3:10:43] Voice 11: So it's just a tool.

[3:10:45] Voice 11: It's just a good-making tool.

[3:10:46] Voice 11: So it's really up to the LPC to decide how you want to use.

[3:10:50] Voice 11: So the data that's in the suitable land analysis right now.

[3:10:53] Voice 11: Yeah.

[3:10:54] Voice 11: So let's call it, it's the Islands Trust suitable land analysis.

[3:10:59] Voice 11: Sure.

[3:10:59] Voice 11: Let's say that.

[3:11:01] Voice 11: um there's additional information that you can be using for your decision making

[3:11:05] Voice 11: that is also mapping archaeological data all that sort of thing um there's the data

[3:11:11] Voice 11: from conservancy and so all of that could inform what might be suitable for putting

[3:11:17] Voice 11: anything additional right so um it's up to you whether you want to use it in the context of

[3:11:24] Voice 11: adding secondary suites or another secondary? Do I have to dwell on property?

[3:11:34] Trustee Borthwick: Yeah, I think my question would be, so we're talking about, you know,

[3:11:38] Trustee Borthwick: moving forward with Phase 2a and 2b, and that 2c we're going to have a special meeting for,

[3:11:44] Trustee Borthwick: which I think is good. I'm keen to make sure that we're not ending up in another situation similar

[3:11:49] Trustee Borthwick: to today where we've got a bunch of stuff that's arriving ahead of the rest of its compatriots,

[3:11:53] just because they're complicated um because i think that opens us up to two problems um so

[3:12:00] that's not necessarily what i'm seeing in these motions i don't think that that's the intent

[3:12:04] uh but just that there there does need to be a broader conversation about

[3:12:07] Trustee Borthwick: tc but that otherwise

[3:12:09] Trustee Borthwick: 2a and 2b are enhanced to some degree is that my own design you

[3:12:14] Voice 11: can go through it you can see the

[3:12:15] Voice 11: extent to which they're yeah

[3:12:17] Trustee Borthwick: yeah no and i like what i'm just in terms of these motions in

[3:12:19] Trustee Borthwick: specific that's what i'm kind of

[3:12:20] Trustee Borthwick: looking at that might be one of the things i understand the thing

[3:12:24] Trustee Borthwick: and and i just i want to express to staff that i that i think um just being really clear that we

[3:12:32] Trustee Borthwick: want to make sure that this stuff comes forward together in the context of the other motions that

[3:12:36] Trustee Borthwick: we're making and the other amendments that they can come together and omnibus changes are

[3:12:41] Trustee Borthwick: challenging obviously because it means there's a ton of data to go through uh and i really

[3:12:46] Trustee Borthwick: appreciate the uh the intent with sort of trying to like partition things a little bit so they're

[3:12:52] a little more digestible totally get that and i

[3:12:55] Trustee Borthwick: think um we have an appetite to continue the

[3:12:59] Trustee Borthwick: eating metaphor we have an appetite for the whole dish and and making sure that we're doing it all

[3:13:05] Trustee Borthwick: in concert is going to mean that we have a much better chance i think of making the changes that

[3:13:12] you know, we're trying to make. That's really just my sort of, I think that if these are the steps

[3:13:22] that you make, this is the process. I'm happy with the process. It seems to be going forward.

[3:13:27] And just to sort of say, I

[3:13:30] Trustee Borthwick: think we will need to do this stuff in relation to itself.

[3:13:35] Trustee Borthwick: Yeah, yeah.

[3:13:36] Trustee Borthwick: It's a bad sentence, but I think it makes sense.

[3:13:40] Trustee Borthwick: yeah that's much better yes uh the civil land analysis um i would say i mean i was very

[3:13:51] Trustee Borthwick: grateful to be in the meeting yesterday uh with with steve from the the uh conservancy

[3:13:57] Trustee Borthwick: demo conservancy i'm i've got i've got i've got a lot of concerns about civil land analysis

[3:14:06] And as it currently exists, the software within which it exists, the

[3:14:15] Trustee Borthwick: data which it is currently using is not effective.

[3:14:22] Trustee Borthwick: This is not a tool we could use tomorrow, in my view.

[3:14:28] Trustee Borthwick: There are serious issues and serious gaps in the data.

[3:14:31] Trustee Borthwick: And there's a lot of work yet to do to get it out to a place where I think it can be a deft tool.

[3:14:38] And I'm, you know, I think I have some concern that we're losing the consultant that has been

[3:14:44] Trustee Borthwick: working on it.

[3:14:44] Trustee Borthwick: I forget his name. It's my other notebook.

[3:14:49] And it's currently not in a position where our staff seem to have a lot of ability to sort of manipulate the tool

[3:14:59] to like on a sophisticated level.

[3:15:03] Trustee Borthwick: Like there seems to be, like we can input stuff,

[3:15:05] Trustee Borthwick: but I think it's, I'm not convinced of the accuracy of it.

[3:15:10] And the process is, I'm very concerned about the process

[3:15:14] for how

[3:15:15] Trustee Borthwick: we're establishing weighting,

[3:15:17] Trustee Borthwick: if we're doing weighting at all,

[3:15:19] Trustee Borthwick: and that there hasn't been,

[3:15:22] Trustee Borthwick: doesn't seem to have been a great deal of thought

[3:15:24] Trustee Borthwick: or a care given to the process

[3:15:28] Trustee Borthwick: by which it's going to be executed within within our greater plan and i would be concerned in its

[3:15:34] Trustee Borthwick: current state to have it influence our our tools it seems to me we have a lot of the data

[3:15:40] Trustee Borthwick: like we have access to a lot of data about the islands and this this is primarily like to boil

[3:15:46] Trustee Borthwick: it down to an obscene level is basically a place for us to collect it all in one place so that we

[3:15:52] Trustee Borthwick: can immediately compare and contrast it to projects as we go forward and it can be used in all sorts

[3:15:58] Trustee Borthwick: of things. That's great. I'm a huge nerd for maps. I think they're really great. I think it's really

[3:16:03] Trustee Borthwick: good that we collect the data and that we are using it. This does not seem to currently be a

[3:16:08] Trustee Borthwick: tool that is very effective. This is not a thing. I could get a copy of the PDF that I can toggle

[3:16:15] Trustee Borthwick: through on a professional PDF reader to sort of switch between layers. But until we've done the

[3:16:24] Trustee Borthwick: waiting process until you know what those things are and until we have data that is we can be

[3:16:31] Trustee Borthwick: confident in it doesn't immediately provide a tool that's that's useful and I'm concerned about

[3:16:38] Trustee Borthwick: the impact that it's having on the broader project and I I would struggle to see it immediately like

[3:16:44] Trustee Borthwick: I I really understand the potential for it and I really like I really welcome that I think it's

[3:16:49] Trustee Borthwick: really valuable I would really struggle to want to continue to include this in our housing

[3:16:55] Trustee Borthwick: project just because like and I fully support staff supporting it at a regional level and you

[3:17:01] Trustee Borthwick: know this is something we will no doubt talk about at regional planning committee but for our

[3:17:07] local project I feel

[3:17:09] Trustee Borthwick: like this is this does have the potential to pull focus and I understand that

[3:17:13] Trustee Borthwick: your time is siloed off on this and there are other staff who are working on it I don't

[3:17:17] Trustee Borthwick: there's no part of me wants to integrate the work that has gone into it from our side

[3:17:23] Trustee Borthwick: and I don't I'm not seeing in its current form I do not see its utility to this project

[3:17:30] and I struggle to to have resources from this project be drawn

[3:17:35] Trustee Borthwick: away from the other work that

[3:17:36] Trustee Borthwick: is really vital those are this this is my concerns this is this is you know from what I've looked at

[3:17:44] Trustee Borthwick: I've had a lot of conversations and I've read through the data and I've participated in the

[3:17:48] Trustee Borthwick: meetings uh you know as fully as i can and i'm not uh it's it's it's not in a place right now

[3:17:57] Trustee Borthwick: where it's useful we're about to lose the consultant who has done a lot of the work to

[3:18:01] Trustee Borthwick: build it yeah anyway sorry we can't do that i appreciate your support but it's not yeah

[3:18:13] Voice 4: yeah yeah so um it's not it doesn't pull any of my time away

[3:18:18] Voice 4: is a regional project. We have had been short-staffed in order to GIS. We just hired somebody just

[3:18:28] Voice 4: a couple of weeks ago. We're having a meeting tomorrow to discuss her role in this and orient

[3:18:37] Voice 4: her to the tool. So I think some of the concerns that you have about it being able to live

[3:18:44] Voice 4: live beyond the consultant I think will be addressed by the fact that we now have

[3:18:49] Voice 4: the consultant came in because we we lost our our other uh GIS

[3:18:54] Voice 11: person and so so we didn't lose

[3:18:56] Voice 11: momentum on the project um

[3:18:59] Voice 4: uh we we hired the consultant who had already been doing some work

[3:19:05] Voice 4: for us mapping for us to fill in the gap so now we have this new person we're going to be having

[3:19:10] Voice 4: this meeting so i think your concerns around that are going to be addressed in that respect

[3:19:15] Voice 4: there is some new data that there that we do have confidence in and that is um

[3:19:22] Voice 4: the uh recharge um recharge mapping that was uh been a project of the is trust for a number of

[3:19:32] Voice 4: years now um and in addition to that there's some watch and resilience uh mapping that also

[3:19:40] Voice 4: um there was some some money that was actually left over from our fresh water grants that we

[3:19:45] Voice 4: got that we actually used to um to support the the consultants that's going to work right now

[3:19:52] Voice 11: to do some water resistance mapping on deadman um and he's currently doing his phd like he's

[3:19:58] Voice 11: he's quite like he's quite immersed in this work so there's some pretty cool new data for them as

[3:20:04] Voice 11: well um again i mean i think the question ultimately comes down

[3:20:08] Voice 4: to uh what kind of data

[3:20:10] Voice 4: you want to use to inform your project. And you could be using all of these

[3:20:15] Voice 4: layers independent of the actual tool that goes and does the weighting

[3:20:22] Voice 3: and so forth.

[3:20:23] Voice 3: So you can use all that information independent of this. This just sort of brings it together.

[3:20:27] Voice 3: And also,

[3:20:28] Voice 4: you know, with respect to the demo conservancy information as well,

[3:20:33] Voice 4: you know, time could be spent integrating. It wouldn't be any of my time. That would

[3:20:38] Voice 4: be the that would be our gis specialist i don't know

[3:20:42] Trustee Borthwick: anyone doing the mapping technologies and i

[3:20:46] Trustee Borthwick: i appreciate that and the reality is like staff can have the demo conservancy data tomorrow if

[3:20:55] they're invested and we heard from from the dca yesterday that they're very happy

[3:21:00] Trustee Borthwick: to share with

[3:21:01] Trustee Borthwick: us and in fact some of the data that exists within that they are they get from us as part of that

[3:21:07] Trustee Borthwick: they've done the work

[3:21:08] Trustee Borthwick: to ground truth a lot of the stuff

[3:21:09] Trustee Borthwick: and I know that we've had a lot of this work

[3:21:12] Trustee Borthwick: coming through from the freshwater stuff

[3:21:13] Trustee Borthwick: but it's

[3:21:16] Trustee Borthwick: DCM heard from us about the development

[3:21:18] Trustee Borthwick: of this and that concerns me

[3:21:20] because they have the information

[3:21:22] and I look at the suitable land analysis

[3:21:24] and I have it on my other computer

[3:21:26] but there's a road that's wrong

[3:21:28] like a major road that is just

[3:21:30] incorrect on that

[3:21:31] Trustee Borthwick: and I

[3:21:34] Trustee Borthwick: that's the sort of thing where it's like

[3:21:36] Trustee Borthwick: And like, obviously, like, and as Steve Warren from DCA was saying yesterday, you know, the map is not a territory.

[3:21:46] Trustee Borthwick: The quote that I have been using a lot about this and that has been coming to mind is a George Fox quote who's a British statistician, which is, all models are wrong.

[3:21:56] Trustee Borthwick: Some models are still useful.

[3:21:59] Trustee Borthwick: And I just like that in general.

[3:22:01] Trustee Borthwick: That's the nature of thinking.

[3:22:03] Trustee Borthwick: like any any there's lots of really yeah there's a lot a lot of good reading about like model things

[3:22:08] Trustee Borthwick: and the infection models i totally appreciate that the model that that currently exists within

[3:22:14] Trustee Borthwick: the suitable analysis tool has real big hopes of it and i'm not against its existence i'm not

[3:22:22] against this further development later on uh

[3:22:25] Trustee Borthwick: but as it is it's i i can't support it as a part of

[3:22:30] Trustee Borthwick: this project and i can't support applying it to our land use decisions until it is considerably

[3:22:35] Trustee Borthwick: better um that's just i didn't yeah yeah

[3:22:42] Voice 4: so with respect for that i think it is important for um

[3:22:45] Voice 4: for the ltc to consider what kind of data you would like to be uh included in in your decision

[3:22:51] Voice 4: making so let me say that there's another there's a there's a well there's there are data there's

[3:22:58] Voice 4: different points of data in the suitable land analysis there's the conservancy data and we

[3:23:03] Voice 4: are going to be receiving a fair amount of data from the comox yeah

[3:23:08] Trustee Borthwick: absolutely and this is all

[3:23:09] Trustee Borthwick: very valuable but none of this including the suitable analysis tool as it exists does not

[3:23:14] Trustee Borthwick: preclude us from a duty to consult the the or not even not a duty but the opportunity to consult

[3:23:20] Trustee Borthwick: those other points of data and currently the data that exists within that does not

[3:23:26] is at a point where it's, yeah, sorry, I interrupted a little part of it here.

[3:23:33] No, that's fine.

[3:23:34] Yeah, I mean, we can look at ways of presenting that

[3:23:38] Voice 4: data

[3:23:39] Voice 4: as a unified kind of perspective.

[3:23:42] Trustee Borthwick: Sure.

[3:23:43] Trustee Borthwick: I mean, this is supposed to be a tool for our community

[3:23:48] Trustee Borthwick: and a tool for our planners.

[3:23:50] Trustee Borthwick: You know, those are supposed to, like, and planners, I think,

[3:23:52] Trustee Borthwick: are in theory like ideally going to be people who are looking at it with the most frequency

[3:23:57] Trustee Borthwick: probably um this i would much rather a planner looks at a version of the dca map

[3:24:03] Trustee Borthwick: than it looks at our sla as it stands right now uh and and if if the dca and the comox want to

[3:24:10] Trustee Borthwick: you know combine some sort of things and if there's you know or if we have to overlay those

[3:24:14] Trustee Borthwick: maps and look at them in two separate windows that's fine i think i've said all things like

[3:24:24] Trustee Borthwick: And it's not that I don't really appreciate the work that's gone into it or the initiative

[3:24:30] Trustee Borthwick: and the idea of it.

[3:24:33] Trustee Borthwick: What currently exists doesn't work for me.

[3:24:37] Trustee Gray, a suitable

[3:24:38] Voice 4: land use analysis.

[3:24:39] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:24:39] Voice 4: Well, I totally agree that the two last layers of just the BCA groundwater mapping and their

[3:24:48] Voice 4: expertise in groundwater using of that data.

[3:24:50] Voice 4: and i'm really excited to see first nations first nations show us on their map i presume that they

[3:24:57] Voice 4: will include those areas that are registered with its original cultural mapping to show where those

[3:25:04] Voice 4: special areas are and i'm pretty sure they'll be able to satisfy i hope their most of their

[3:25:10] Voice 4: concerns uh on any density increases in those areas because i wasn't really anticipating

[3:25:23] Voice 4: I don't think it's going to be a problem. I think those two layers would be really useful.

[3:25:32] Not so much. I

[3:25:33] Voice 4: mean, I think even the consultant admitted it.

[3:25:36] Voice 4: Well, they just imported data. So there was, you know,

[3:25:40] Voice 4: import data. You just assume the data is pretty good, and maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

[3:25:44] Voice 4: But yeah, these other two layers are

[3:25:47] Voice 4: very, very useful.

[3:25:47] Voice 4: are closer to being realistic and useful.

[3:25:51] Voice 4: Do we have a lead on any of that?

[3:25:54] Voice 4: So where we're landing is the trustees are supporting motions 1 and 2.

[3:26:00] Voice 4: We're still going through that.

[3:26:02] Voice 4: But number 3, are you not interested,

[3:26:08] are you interested in modifying that motion, or do

[3:26:11] Voice 16: you want to land on a third motion?

[3:26:16] Voice 17: I'm struggling

[3:26:27] Trustee Borthwick: that within our project charter

[3:26:30] Trustee Borthwick: or we're involving the Senate suitable land analysis

[3:26:33] Trustee Borthwick: as it exists.

[3:26:35] Trustee Borthwick: And I, you know, I am not engaged in existing.

[3:26:39] I think the promise of it is real,

[3:26:43] but I really don't want to spend time on it.

[3:26:48] And I know, and I realize that it is separate

[3:26:50] Trustee Borthwick: from your time in general on this project.

[3:26:53] Trustee Borthwick: And I want to involve the nation's data and all this stuff,

[3:26:57] Trustee Borthwick: whatever data they're willing to share with us,

[3:26:58] Trustee Borthwick: which as we know, there's layers to that.

[3:27:01] Trustee Borthwick: Not everything is on the table to be shared, nor should it be.

[3:27:06] Trustee Borthwick: I don't think that that is the home for the data currently.

[3:27:10] Trustee Borthwick: It doesn't work for me to be the home for the data.

[3:27:13] Trustee Borthwick: And I have broader concerns, and this goes to the tool more broadly,

[3:27:17] Trustee Borthwick: and this is stuff that I'll talk about at the Regional Planning Committee.

[3:27:22] Trustee Borthwick: That's the home for this broader discussion.

[3:27:24] Trustee Borthwick: second um but as a as a local trustee i i don't want that tool to be involved in our venues

[3:27:32] Trustee Borthwick: planning until it until i see something better and i like that you know trustee graham at our

[3:27:40] Trustee Borthwick: last meeting made a really good point about not getting distracted by other bits and pieces and

[3:27:44] Trustee Borthwick: i know that this has been a part of the process we've been moving towards this and i i appreciate

[3:27:48] Trustee Borthwick: that I can't I can't vote in favor of anything that as a part of this housing project that

[3:28:01] that relates to this so I just you know that's that's why so

[3:28:04] Voice 16: currently speaking the criminal

[3:28:06] Voice 16: land use analysis is not part of this project charters are correct it

[3:28:11] Voice 11: uh it's a tool that's

[3:28:13] Voice 11: being developed by the trustees that can be used as a tool.

[3:28:21] Voice 4: My question is, if it's not, by not doing the

[3:28:27] Voice 16: third recommended motion,

[3:28:29] Voice 16: that sort of aligns with the way the trustees are, is this don't use it within this project?

[3:28:37] Voice 11: What's intended with the resolution is that

[3:28:41] Voice 11: that there would be some

[3:28:44] Voice 4: support from this project

[3:28:47] Voice 4: to support

[3:28:49] Voice 11: the updating of that tool with additional data.

[3:28:54] Voice 11: So it's using the same platform,

[3:28:56] Voice 11: which I'm hearing is what you're concerned with,

[3:28:58] Voice 11: but it's not using,

[3:28:59] Voice 11: the use

[3:29:00] Voice 4: of the data is not what you're concerned about.

[3:29:02] Voice 4: It's

[3:29:02] Voice 11: in that form and additional time spent

[3:29:04] Voice 11: to integrate the data into that particular format

[3:29:09] Voice 11: that is what is of a concern time

[3:29:11] Trustee Borthwick: and funding that is part of this project charter but uh

[3:29:16] Trustee Borthwick: in my view should not go towards suitable analysis based on what i've seen so far

[3:29:21] Trustee Borthwick: i would rather conserve that that time and energy for the rest of moving our violence forward and i

[3:29:28] Trustee Borthwick: the question of what happens to the suitable land analysis on a trust wide level is original

[3:29:33] Trustee Borthwick: the Regional Planning Committee question.

[3:29:35] Trustee Borthwick: And I'm happy to have that discussion there

[3:29:38] Trustee Borthwick: and talk about further about it there.

[3:29:40] Trustee Borthwick: And I'm willing to talk to Director Cermak

[3:29:41] Trustee Borthwick: and there's a lot of other discussion

[3:29:42] Trustee Borthwick: that needs to happen there.

[3:29:43] Trustee Borthwick: But in terms of, and I would hope that if that work

[3:29:48] does continue, that absolutely this data

[3:29:50] will be incorporated, 100%.

[3:29:52] Trustee Borthwick: Absolutely want to support that from that level.

[3:29:55] Trustee Borthwick: From this project target, if there are resources,

[3:29:57] Trustee Borthwick: if this book is going to mean that there are.

[3:30:00] Trustee Borthwick: Is there any kind of contributing from this project charter to the suitable land analysis? I can't vote in favor.

[3:30:06] Voice 7: Through the Charter, I was just going to say like this data exists and we have it, so we use it all every day.

[3:30:12] Voice 7: Like this data from the Covance Nation, we have all of it available in our internal staff mapping.

[3:30:17] Voice 7: So we

[3:30:18] Voice 7: would use it. So

[3:30:18] Voice 7: this, I think, was just including this data in the suitable land analysis map.

[3:30:23] Voice 7: Would you

[3:30:24] Trustee Borthwick: otherwise not use that data?

[3:30:27] Trustee Borthwick: Like if we don't make that motion today, would you not use that data?

[3:30:30] Trustee Borthwick: No, we do. We use it.

[3:30:33] Voice 7: It's just layers that we click on our mapping system and then just putting it on.

[3:30:38] Trustee Borthwick: But that won't stop data that you've gathered from this from potentially being added to the super map.

[3:30:43] Voice 4: Well, I don't know.

[3:30:44] Voice 4: So what I'm hearing, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you don't want time or money to be taken

[3:30:51] Voice 4: from this

[3:30:51] Voice 11: project to support the update of the suitable land analysis. You're not opposed to

[3:30:56] Voice 11: us using all of the data that we've discussed, and maybe at a future point in time or at a

[3:31:03] Voice 11: trust-wide

[3:31:03] Voice 4: level, you're not necessarily opposed to that work continuing, but what you're not

[3:31:08] Voice 4: wanting is is is the time the the staff resources and the additional funding coming

[3:31:14] Voice 11: out of this

[3:31:14] Voice 11: project specifically for the use of that tool yeah that that specific platform yeah

[3:31:19] Trustee Borthwick: and and that tool

[3:31:21] Trustee Borthwick: and i think i think in terms of like conversations that i've had with you know people who who are

[3:31:26] Trustee Borthwick: very interested in this data and who are who are involved with this process there's a lot of

[3:31:30] Trustee Borthwick: concerns about that tool being applied to this process in specific and i i don't want to kind

[3:31:36] Trustee Borthwick: watch the tool i think if that continues to develop then that's good it has real potential

[3:31:42] Trustee Borthwick: it is not there currently and i don't want it to i don't want it to to be used to inform those

[3:31:47] Trustee Borthwick: decisions and and especially as we we continue to say this is not a tool that is going to make

[3:31:53] Trustee Borthwick: or break anyone like an application right it should be used to inform that decision

[3:31:59] Trustee Borthwick: but if it's not an imperative so it's if we're not if we're not saying oh this is going to be

[3:32:04] Trustee Borthwick: the way to do it then it's if it's an optional thing i can't justify uh involving an optional

[3:32:13] Trustee Borthwick: an option that currently is not functional into our decision-making process that's that's

[3:32:20] Trustee Borthwick: if

[3:32:21] Voice 11: i'm hearing you correctly

[3:32:23] Voice 4: the tool needs work and you know you don't want to be using a tool

[3:32:29] Voice 4: that still needs some work in this existing project yeah you know opposed to the tool

[3:32:33] Voice 4: itself and that potential work being done outside of this project but not for this project and maybe

[3:32:39] Voice 4: you know when it's this

[3:32:41] Voice 11: awesome thing it's been worked on it'll find a place in the projects but

[3:32:46] Voice 11: not not now

[3:32:47] Trustee Borthwick: yeah and also in in this in in this motion because i'm not like uh i'm not trying to

[3:32:53] Trustee Borthwick: be dense about this either this is

[3:32:55] Trustee Borthwick: also about sending a message to the regional planning team

[3:32:59] Trustee Borthwick: that there's an LCC that

[3:33:01] Trustee Borthwick: lacks confidence in this, and that there's

[3:33:03] Trustee Borthwick: something that needs to be watched and looked at.

[3:33:05] Trustee Borthwick: And this is part of how I use my voice.

[3:33:07] Trustee Borthwick: I can also use this to talk to somebody. I can talk to

[3:33:09] Trustee Borthwick: their register, and I can have these conversations.

[3:33:11] Trustee Borthwick: The most valuable way

[3:33:13] Trustee Borthwick: that my voice is

[3:33:15] Trustee Borthwick: useful in the trust is through how

[3:33:17] Trustee Borthwick: I vote. And I can't vote

[3:33:18] Trustee Borthwick: to support this.

[3:33:22] That's important.

[3:33:23] Thank

[3:33:23] Voice 4: you.

[3:33:25] Voice 4: My only concern is if we

[3:33:27] Voice 4: If we don't pass this, do we lose the opportunity for staff to engage with local environmental conservation groups to at least incorporate their data into a layer that is accessible to climate partners?

[3:33:42] Voice 4: Yeah,

[3:33:43] Voice 11: I would say you don't lose that.

[3:33:47] Voice 11: but if you want to ensure

[3:33:49] Voice 4: it and have it written

[3:33:50] Voice 11: down that you support it then then I have some

[3:33:54] Voice 11: some language that you might want to consider and that would be that the Denman Island land

[3:34:00] Voice 11: Denman Island local trust committee requests staff consider the

[3:34:08] Voice 4: data from the Comox

[3:34:10] Voice 4: statement and then the denman constituency association in analysis of uh of options for

[3:34:16] Voice 4: the housing project yeah so those the first the first uh one and two as part of that motion

[3:34:24] Voice 4: i actually like because those are the two layers that i think are most useful and will have most

[3:34:32] Voice 4: practicality and i'm also concerned that a lot of the other layers that we should show

[3:34:37] show you know they're not as useful as those two layers there's nations

[3:34:41] Trustee Borthwick: layers and the dc of theirs

[3:34:44] Trustee Borthwick: i'm happy to have those electric data incorporated i don't know it was for the lights of the ss

[3:34:49] Trustee Borthwick: but basically

[3:34:49] Voice 16: yeah yeah yeah we're going to treat it was just points one and two so you know

[3:34:58] Voice 16: precursor yeah but just say that the demand

[3:35:00] Voice 16: my level aggressively request staff um our direct staff to engage direct staff just just replace one

[3:35:10] Voice 16: or two yeah no no no

[3:35:12] Voice 16: yeah i mean i think that's it

[3:35:14] Voice 17: yeah a little bit yeah yeah

[3:35:16] Voice 16: just because the

[3:35:17] Voice 16: warnings there are easier than doing it on the fly so yes

[3:35:21] Voice 17: are

[3:35:22] Voice 16: we ready to move the motion

[3:35:24] Voice 16: between when we do one or two and then we can start with three sure uh

[3:35:30] Trustee Borthwick: do you want me to start

[3:35:30] Trustee Borthwick: sure uh i move that the devon island local trust committee endorsed next steps for phase 2a and 2b

[3:35:36] Trustee Borthwick: of the devon housing review as discussed one

[3:35:39] Voice 4: thing is we have to discuss this i actually need

[3:35:41] Voice 4: okay sorry

[3:35:42] Voice 4: go ahead hold on sorry i

[3:35:45] Voice 11: mean i would suggest maybe you want to move you want to move

[3:35:50] Voice 11: the third recommendation while it's in your head so let's do

[3:35:53] Voice 17: that i mean

[3:35:54] Voice 11: you could even

[3:35:54] Voice 3: You can

[3:35:54] Voice 11: do this second as well if you want,

[3:35:56] Voice 11: but there are a few things

[3:35:56] Voice 4: I need from you.

[3:35:57] Voice 4: Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.

[3:35:59] Voice 11: I know,

[3:35:59] Voice 4: I know, I know, I'm gonna get this first.

[3:36:04] Voice 17: Um, so, I guess I...

[3:36:19] So, if we're gonna use points,

[3:36:21] continue to keep points one and two,

[3:36:24] we can say that the Deadman Island Local Trust Committee

[3:36:28] requests that staff engage with

[3:36:30] Voice 4: local...

[3:36:34] Voice 11: yeah stuff yeah engage with local like

[3:36:37] Trustee Borthwick: number one yeah i think i don't think i was on the verge

[3:36:42] Trustee Borthwick: there but you know you're thank you that helped me get up uh i the devon island local trust committee

[3:36:48] Trustee Borthwick: requests uh staff uh to engage with local conservation groups to incorporate additional

[3:36:55] environmental data sets and that they engage uh with first nations uh on incorporating restricted

[3:37:03] restricted access data, such as archeological sites,

[3:37:06] culturally significant sites, areas of potential,

[3:37:09] and including any relevant public access data

[3:37:14] to support analysis of First Nations primaries.

[3:37:17] Okay, is that good?

[3:37:18] For the reception, let's call the motion carried.

[3:37:21] It ended, I'm sorry, I had minutes,

[3:37:23] I hope we got that,

[3:37:24] Voice 16: I apologize.

[3:37:27] Voice 16: Yeah, I think we're doing good

[3:37:28] Voice 16: because we brought out the screen,

[3:37:29] Voice 16: so I think that helps that.

[3:37:31] Voice 16: So motion number two.

[3:37:34] Voice 11: You could move right into that if you want to, or we can just quickly go through that.

[3:37:38] Voice 11: We can just quickly go through it.

[3:37:39] Voice 11: Yeah, if you want to go through it.

[3:37:41] Voice 11: Okay, so I know you both read

[3:37:44] Voice 4: the details of the report, so I won't go into any specific,

[3:37:52] Voice 11: whatever the word is.

[3:37:56] Voice 11: I won't go specifically into the details, except for I do need some direction.

[3:38:01] Voice 11: So, and, you know, and the direction could be to move to the special meeting. If you don't feel like thinking about it now.

[3:38:10] Voice 11: So we're on page seven now so up to page seven, there aren't any decisions. Page six.

[3:38:19] Voice 11: Page six.

[3:38:20] Voice 4: Number 14, you're looking for the direction on the expansion of secondary suite permission.

[3:38:26] Voice 4: Oh, that's right. Water switch areas. Yes. And thank you. Thank you for suggesting that.

[3:38:30] Voice 4: I was kind of ambivalent when you suggested that, but now you've got further data.

[3:38:34] Voice 4: I personally would be quite happy to take that off or move it to a further exploration,

[3:38:42] Voice 4: which may or may not have this to do.

[3:38:45] Voice 11: Yeah, so we we could move it into phase three.

[3:38:48] Sure. Page 2C

[3:38:49] Voice 4: and then and then discussion at that point to just remove it entirely. Yeah.

[3:38:53] Voice 4: yeah that's that's right no i'm happy with that yeah great okay so i will just um

[3:39:00] Voice 4: um then you have the top of page seven so that was uh that's page seven um so

[3:39:07] Voice 11: now page seven

[3:39:08] Voice 11: that's one well you

[3:39:09] Voice 4: just hang on because you're you've got an alt bu paragraph yeah that's where

[3:39:14] Voice 11: i

[3:39:14] Voice 4: was just i was just um indicating identifying some of the conversation that had that was had

[3:39:20] Voice 4: have yesterday, just a note that with respect to domestic water supply, there needs to be

[3:39:29] Voice 4: some consideration of what that oversight would be for rainwater, because we've had

[3:39:33] Voice 4: this conversation a little bit, and we can provide some more details around that if needed.

[3:39:42] Voice 4: Still think that your last statement there is not accurate. I appreciate where you're

[3:39:48] Voice 4: coming from but staff note that in the absence of building permanent farm the quality of drinking

[3:39:53] Voice 4: water from wells and rainwater systems is limited i disagree that it's limited but anyway well unless

[3:39:59] Voice 11: it's unless it's a uh an action so if it's a uh approved by health itself there are systems that

[3:40:07] Voice 11: are approved by island health yeah um

[3:40:11] Voice 4: and so if island health continues to provide an insight

[3:40:16] Voice 4: There's no limitations, but if you don't have a building, I mean,

[3:40:22] Voice 3: so I

[3:40:23] Voice 4: guess that would be your

[3:40:23] Voice 11: oversight piece.

[3:40:24] Trustee Borthwick: But we don't think that Mountain Health is about to give up that oversight imminently, so that it's not, I guess, is that right, David?

[3:40:34] Trustee Borthwick: it yeah

[3:40:35] Voice 4: and also i mean for decades land owners have taken the responsibilities that they have to

[3:40:42] Voice 4: do for the whatever quality of the water that might have the blood of the ground or collect

[3:40:47] Voice 4: off the roots to make it audible so we don't need any more oversight because we are the ones that

[3:40:55] Voice 4: are drinking it if i choose to drink unfiltered water that's my responsibility if i choose to

[3:41:00] Voice 4: spend ten thousand dollars on various unique filters and filters and this that and the other

[3:41:05] Voice 4: thing that's also my choice i just at a certain point regulations start to become a truce in the

[3:41:14] Voice 4: way of the way we want to live and i'm always going to be pushing back on this since i know

[3:41:19] Voice 4: i'm probably uh voice in the wild there but this is i just have to do that just as you have to do

[3:41:25] Voice 4: you're like i have to do my well just like we haven't we haven't we have a limitation for that

[3:41:29] Voice 4: absolutely so i don't get

[3:41:31] Voice 4: you too i don't think we're going to

[3:41:32] Voice 11: have to don't offer this

[3:41:35] Voice 4: i

[3:41:35] Voice 7: was just gonna through the chair point out that i think that that works well when it's your own

[3:41:41] Voice 7: home but when you start talking about being a landlord and renting to tenants that can be in

[3:41:45] Voice 7: very vulnerable situations and there are situations where the landlords are not providing them a

[3:41:49] Voice 7: pot of water and that's what the extra labor yes i think it's totally fine if you want to drink

[3:41:54] Voice 7: water that is not properly filtered but if you're providing that to your tenant who has no other

[3:41:59] Voice 7: means to but does the tenant not

[3:42:01] Voice 4: have the ability through the tenancy act to have some control over

[3:42:05] Voice 4: how the services are being provided some

[3:42:08] Voice 7: are in very vulnerable situations so maybe they're

[3:42:12] Voice 4: legal

[3:42:13] Voice 4: i agree the

[3:42:14] Voice 4: legal ones have no real we're trying to legalize these records so that they do have

[3:42:19] Voice 4: and control their lives but I'm just wondering does a tenant not have some

[3:42:24] Voice 4: protection as to the quality of the water that comes out of the tap I think

[3:42:29] Voice 4: so I think so it's not very hard to prove

[3:42:32] Voice 11: but yes and again I think where

[3:42:36] Voice 11: where you have a tendency to be in a new place.

[3:42:40] Voice 4: But I can also agree with that.

[3:42:42] Voice 4: I'm curious.

[3:42:44] Voice 17: Thank you.

[3:42:47] Voice 17: We do have,

[3:42:51] Voice 4: just one brief thing is normally

[3:42:53] Voice 4: we don't have public participation as far as we can.

[3:42:55] Voice 4: This is something we've talked about on health.

[3:42:57] Voice 5: So generally speaking,

[3:42:59] Voice 5: they know that there are thousands of illegal water,

[3:43:03] Voice 5: are non-water systems in the Comox Valley area. If you live with someone in a house and there are

[3:43:10] Voice 5: different postals, this is people in the same house, you need a small water system according

[3:43:15] Voice 5: to BC provincial law. So if they're in the same house, you're in a separate building on the same

[3:43:21] Voice 5: lot, you need that. There are thousands of people just in the Comox Valley that they don't comply

[3:43:28] Voice 5: and they don't want to know about it.

[3:43:30] Voice 5: BHA does not want to be informed of any of these people.

[3:43:34] Voice 5: So when you talk about what's happening on Denman,

[3:43:39] Voice 5: there are hundreds of people,

[3:43:42] Voice 5: if not more than half of the population,

[3:43:45] Voice 5: doing something illegal right now with water

[3:43:48] Voice 5: because they're not conforming

[3:43:50] Voice 5: to the BC Provincial Water Act as administered by BHA.

[3:43:54] Voice 5: So practically, and this is the point I really can make,

[3:43:57] Voice 5: make is trying to put something in the items trust wording about water and that getting in the way of

[3:44:04] Voice 5: legal housing would be frustrating for people that live on 10 because if you're making it harder so

[3:44:11] Voice 5: somebody else doesn't make their their that suite legal if they won't go through a fifteen thousand

[3:44:18] Voice 5: dollar small water system set up plus 25 hours to you know 200 hours a year of work you're just

[3:44:25] making another hurdle in the way

[3:44:28] Voice 4: of getting legal, conforming housing.

[3:44:31] I

[3:44:31] Voice 4: was just trying to make it very targeted and important.

[3:44:34] Voice 4: Okay, a worthwhile comment. So now that we've gone over what they said,

[3:44:37] Voice 4: because I know this is what you're dealing with, the direction of this, the reason it's locked up.

[3:44:42] Voice 11: We're moving now? Yeah, that's the lockers. Yeah, sorry, there's actually two questions I have for you.

[3:44:45] Voice 11: Like, one is related to, oh, there's three. Do you want to do it?

[3:44:52] Voice 11: but I think yes, because you put it down there.

[3:44:55] If we're going to go there, what sizes?

[3:44:58] And when you think about size,

[3:45:00] are you thinking

[3:45:01] Voice 11: about single dwellings

[3:45:03] Voice 11: or are you thinking of combined

[3:45:07] Voice 11: or for all dwellings?

[3:45:08] Voice 11: And also accessory buildings,

[3:45:10] Voice 11: if you want to consider accessory buildings.

[3:45:13] Voice 11: So I've just

[3:45:13] Voice 4: thrown some numbers in there really nearly

[3:45:17] Voice 4: just for conversation's sake.

[3:45:19] Voice 4: So I brought this up because this,

[3:45:21] Voice 4: I've been looking at a lot of coverage percentages, and they just seem large to me.

[3:45:26] Voice 4: And we're getting a lot of quite authentic pushback.

[3:45:31] Voice 4: Like, if you're going to add more density, you need to address the effect on the natural environment.

[3:45:37] Voice 4: Though I would argue there's not a lot of natural environment on a residential lawn.

[3:45:41] Voice 4: There's lawns, marchers, gardens.

[3:45:43] Voice 4: That's not the natural environment.

[3:45:45] Voice 4: But accepting that it's something.

[3:45:48] Voice 4: I was just suggesting that we reduce that percentage. I wasn't actually thinking about

[3:45:54] doing what you've done here. I think this is something separate. This is where you're taking

[3:45:59] flex housing, for instance, and I certainly wouldn't be talking about worrying about accessory buildings,

[3:46:06] how big they are. I was just generally looking at our land use bylaws and specifically

[3:46:13] specifically lot coverage percentages and reducing them to show the community that though we may

[3:46:18] Voice 4: increase the residential impact of that lot, we've expanded the amount of the property that can't be covered by buildings, which, in effect, helps a sort of natural or modified apartment and you've gone a little bit further.

[3:46:34] Voice 11: Yeah, so I guess that's just another way of looking at it. And so, yeah, so Maine Island has done the flex county, which is multiple, and Hender Island has done whatever maximums for dwellings.

[3:46:50] Here would be another approach. We could take a bit more analysis,

[3:46:54] Voice 4: I think, on our part to kind of identify what that means.

[3:46:57] Voice 4: means because, I mean, you know, 10% on acres is massive, 10% on, you know, smaller lot is much smaller. So you may have to, it may get more, I mean, you may decide, yeah, I mean, it's up to you.

[3:47:17] how you want to go about it we haven't we haven't

[3:47:19] Voice 4: how are they determined origin i'm not sure like

[3:47:22] Voice 4: this is a chart or something that we just have access to that

[3:47:26] Trustee Borthwick: well would doing it five percent

[3:47:29] Trustee Borthwick: make it harder for our planners to calculate we're not every 10

[3:47:35] Voice 11: percent now yeah yeah not

[3:47:37] Voice 11: necessarily we're able to do that yeah

[3:47:39] Trustee Borthwick: i mean i'm definitely in favor of um you know that we've

[3:47:43] Trustee Borthwick: talked a lot about max confinement combined floor area and all that sort of stuff and i think there's

[3:47:47] Trustee Borthwick: There's really some value in making some serious reductions to that, not least as an anti-gentrification

[3:47:55] tool.

[3:47:56] If you can't build your 7,000-square-foot house,

[3:48:00] Voice 4: you might look somewhere else.

[3:48:02] But, yeah.

[3:48:03] Voice 4: But I'm not saying that those are two separate-

[3:48:06] Voice 4: No, no.

[3:48:06] Voice 4: Yeah, yeah.

[3:48:07] Voice 4: It can't be.

[3:48:08] Voice 4: I was looking at the overall reduction in lot coverage percentages and how a landowner

[3:48:13] Voice 4: chooses to cover that lot.

[3:48:15] Voice 4: you could add well as far as residential equipment is we have an ax on and then you can say well we

[3:48:23] Voice 4: have flex depending on the size you've got some flexibility here but i know for a fact if you

[3:48:29] Voice 4: build a tiny house you build a bigger workshop yeah that's just the nature of being a human

[3:48:34] Voice 4: yeah so there's a lot of coverage yeah without worrying about the uh accessory buildings but

[3:48:42] Voice 4: certainly I like I love the flex housing really works well with limiting the residential footprint

[3:48:49] Voice 17: and

[3:48:50] Voice 4: almost right suggestions that we put in there pulling from Maine maybe they work for

[3:48:55] Voice 4: Denton although and you can have both right that's because you can you can I think as long

[3:49:00] Voice 4: as the reduction in law coverage percentage is it's not too large yeah

[3:49:05] Voice 7: they're different for

[3:49:07] Voice 7: different zones, right? So the first three zones

[3:49:09] Voice 7: is 5%, whereas like an R2 is 25%.

[3:49:15] Voice 7: So I think

[3:49:15] Voice 4: that it works. So if you

[3:49:18] Voice 11: were to do that, so not in that case you wouldn't necessarily

[3:49:20] Voice 11: need to consider

[3:49:21] Voice 4: accessory building size at all. You could

[3:49:23] Voice 11: consider, so Maine has the maximum for

[3:49:28] combined, that's how a tender has specific dwellings, but in addition they still keep

[3:49:34] Voice 4: their

[3:49:36] Voice 4: percentage. So yes, you can have a bigger barn and a smaller house scenario.

[3:49:41] Voice 4: And you

[3:49:42] Voice 7: do have that in the agricultural zone.

[3:49:44] Voice 4: Yes. So it's a

[3:49:44] Voice 7: lot higher percentage.

[3:49:45] Voice 7: That same old thing. It

[3:49:47] Voice 4: came down from the province.

[3:49:50] Voice 4: Well,

[3:49:50] Voice 7: it came down from the province, but then the LTC chose to restrict it further.

[3:49:54] Voice 7: Yes. It did, didn't it? That

[3:49:55] Voice 4: was the previous. But a lot of people aren't even aware of that.

[3:50:00] Voice 4: We haven't broadly shared that knowledge with them.

[3:50:04] Trustee Borthwick: it was a big discussion with it was there yeah i remember i sat in on one of those

[3:50:11] Voice 11: are you um do you have numbers up in your head or do you want stuff out i'd

[3:50:17] Voice 4: like you guys to

[3:50:18] Voice 4: apply your expertise and what percentages we could accommodate and maybe you don't want to

[3:50:23] Voice 4: touch the r1 load zones at all as far as maybe the lock coverage in an r1 is as small as you

[3:50:29] Voice 4: want to go people still need a septic field that that doesn't count but a house in a garage in a

[3:50:35] Voice 4: plotting studio in a you know

[3:50:36] Voice 4: inside studio right do you know larger lots i think we could reduce

[3:50:41] Voice 4: from 25 percent yeah that's a massive amount of land so there's a consensus

[3:50:46] Voice 11: here to look at the

[3:50:48] percentage yeah yeah okay and do you do you still want to consider for maximums for residential yeah

[3:50:59] It would be so in this case, it can be

[3:51:03] Voice 11: both right, you can be looking at the maximum for a single unit and and flex housing. So in Maine's case, they haven't they haven't identified a maximum for dwelling and so it's going to this next step right now

[3:51:16] Voice 4: if we do that, we're going to trip up a whole bunch of people gigantic houses. So now, then, legally, that's right, okay. So there may be some perspective gigantic. So we have to be looking at the maximum for a single unit and flex housing.

[3:51:26] Voice 4: And

[3:51:27] Voice 11: for them, it may be that they can't have an additional, well, that's the other thing that we need

[3:51:32] Voice 4: to think about those consequences, right? Because maybe you do want the large house to be able to...

[3:51:38] Voice 4: It's tricky.

[3:51:39] Voice 4: Yeah, so we can...

[3:51:40] Voice 4: But can they not get a debt and development variance permit?

[3:51:42] Voice 4: Not for, not for density.

[3:51:45] Voice 4: No, but they could, if they were allowed to have...

[3:51:49] Voice 4: If they were allowed.

[3:51:49] Voice 4: Well, if they had maxed out on

[3:51:51] Trustee Borthwick: the floor area...

[3:51:52] Trustee Borthwick: You

[3:51:52] Voice 4: can get a variance permit.

[3:51:54] Voice 4: Yeah, yeah.

[3:51:54] Trustee Borthwick: yeah then it's a case by case but and i think that's a better way to go

[3:51:59] Trustee Borthwick: and my concern is more like what are the future big houses that we can guide the development of

[3:52:04] Trustee Borthwick: and curtail the sprawl of i'm sure again so in this chart the top three amounts that's what's

[3:52:13] in maine's bylaw right now and then maine doesn't have anything for what's above five vectors um

[3:52:20] Yeah.

[3:52:21] Voice 4: So that's a starting point for conversation.

[3:52:24] Voice 4: Okay. Yeah. That's what I was going to suggest.

[3:52:28] Voice 4: I mean, I was just like,

[3:52:31] Voice 4: okay, well,

[3:52:31] Voice 11: we seem to be going up by increments.

[3:52:34] Trustee Borthwick: Yeah. I lived in a little over 500 square feet for the first year.

[3:52:40] Trustee Borthwick: 2500 is wild.

[3:52:42] Voice 3: Well, that's, I mean, that's if you're considering that there might be a couple more, three, you know.

[3:52:46] Voice 3: Okay, for

[3:52:47] Trustee Borthwick: sure. I have two very large cans. They take up a lot of space.

[3:52:53] Voice 4: Okay, so we'll leave that there. So that will go into the draft dialogue and discussion.

[3:52:59] Voice 11: Okay, we're good on, oh, okay, so on page eight, there's a couple of things here.

[3:53:08] Voice 11: So, interestingly, so these were actually, these two actions are related specifically to

[3:53:16] Voice 4: housing that is, sorry, lots that are donated for houses to be built by NGOs going through the first stages.

[3:53:27] Voice 4: So, the

[3:53:28] Voice 11: number 16, we brought back, because you brought back last time.

[3:53:34] Voice 11: and number 17 I'm suggesting you reintroduce so let me explain so in number

[3:53:42] Voice 4: 16 you with respect

[3:53:44] Voice 4: to the minimum parcel size to facilitate donation so the reduction of minimum parcel size if you're

[3:53:54] Voice 4: donating to an NGO

[3:53:56] Voice 11: for example so if your minimum block size for subdivision is whatever it is two

[3:54:00] Voice 11: hectares or whatever it's quite large and a larger thing that allows you to carve up a little extra

[3:54:05] Voice 11: so

[3:54:05] Voice 4: right now you will you do allow that for both for multi-family affordable so it would just

[3:54:09] Voice 4: really in the case be removing multi-family and just keeping affordable housing so that

[3:54:14] Voice 4: allows for um like the project the um the project that was done by uh the denman

[3:54:21] Voice 17: green

[3:54:23] Voice 17: Green?

[3:54:23] Voice 4: Not them in green, but the Denmanland.

[3:54:27] Voice 4: Oh, Pepper Lane.

[3:54:28] Voice 4: No, no, the small unit.

[3:54:29] Voice 4: There's one unit that was-

[3:54:30] Voice 4: Oh, up in the ridge there.

[3:54:32] Voice 4: That sort of, yeah, the ridge.

[3:54:34] Voice 4: That's what it was called,

[3:54:34] Voice 11: the ridge project.

[3:54:35] Voice 11: So that would allow for that kind of a thing.

[3:54:40] Voice 4: But in the past, we've always just done a spot zoning

[3:54:43] Voice 4: so that we've tailored the zone.

[3:54:45] Voice 1: You've

[3:54:45] Voice 4: gotta go through a rezoning process.

[3:54:47] Voice 4: So this

[3:54:48] Voice 4: would allow that to be-

[3:54:49] Voice 4: That would be something-

[3:54:50] Voice 4: I'll write allow it in the OCP.

[3:54:54] Voice 4: So it would cost the non-profit.

[3:54:57] Voice 4: They wouldn't have to go through the rezoning.

[3:54:58] Voice 4: Oh, that makes sense.

[3:54:59] Voice 4: So what

[3:54:59] Voice 11: they have to do is they have to rezone to

[3:55:01] Voice 4: subdivide.

[3:55:02] Voice 4: So that's an additional step in the process.

[3:55:06] Voice 4: Yeah, and like I say, you already allow it for multifamily,

[3:55:10] Voice 4: so why not allow it for smaller?

[3:55:12] Voice 4: So that's what number 16 is about.

[3:55:14] Voice 4: Okay.

[3:55:14] Voice 4: What number 17 is about is to allow that subdivision

[3:55:20] Voice 4: to happen for non-profit organizations, First Nations and government agencies

[3:55:24] Voice 4: where there currently isn't subdivision,

[3:55:28] Voice 4: subdivision may not be allowed. It kind of allows

[3:55:32] Voice 4: that for those under those

[3:55:35] Voice 4: properties.

[3:55:38] Voice 11: Yeah, so if

[3:55:41] Voice 11: you're in an area and

[3:55:45] Voice 4: subdivision isn't allowed because it's already been

[3:55:48] Voice 4: it's already been subdivided or like you know the plot average or the size or whatever

[3:55:55] Voice 4: you just don't or it's just not you're just not permitted to have an additional

[3:55:59] Voice 4: um subdivision this would allow for that in this particular in a particular case that we've got

[3:56:06] Voice 4: on the other hand maybe that's not where we should be building quality unit portal housing

[3:56:13] Voice 4: It's already maxed out. The community's already said, well, we'll allow that subdivision, but we don't want any more subdivisions.

[3:56:20] Voice 4: Is that what you're talking about? Now an opportunity comes to develop that portion, which has already been looked at by the community for no more subdivisions.

[3:56:28] Voice 4: And we're saying, oh, no, we can we can use this. Yeah.

[3:56:32] So

[3:56:32] Voice 4: you can you can remove it entirely or you can move it to the discussion.

[3:56:36] Voice 17: discussion. Yeah, I would remove the version. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[3:56:42] Voice 4: It was already removed. I just brought it back.

[3:56:47] Voice 4: So you agree that it's going to double check.

[3:56:51] Voice 4: That's good.

[3:56:54] Voice 4: Okay, so we're right now we're

[3:56:58] Voice 4: this. Yeah, so that's all. That is all of them for all the ones

[3:57:06] Voice 4: where you've already agreed previously to get out some new files that have been provided in

[3:57:11] Voice 4: language previously so um it's just moving forward with that at this point in time yeah um

[3:57:18] Voice 4: I actually again like I you know if you want to add um uh not permitting ground groundwater

[3:57:28] Voice 4: pit goals to your list this is maybe your opportunity and we can add that to these

[3:57:35] Voice 4: Right now we have nothing in our by-laws which gives us an opportunity to say no to it, right?

[3:57:41] Voice 4: We can say no to casinos.

[3:57:43] Voice 4: Yeah, as far as I know, I mean, I've read it through and...

[3:57:46] Voice 4: Yeah, yeah.

[3:57:47] Voice 4: Unless I missed something.

[3:57:48] Voice 4: And that's just a waterfront block, is it?

[3:57:50] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:57:50] Voice 4: So, quite likely the Comox First Nations has some concern about digging a giant bunny

[3:57:56] Voice 4: gate hole through...

[3:57:57] Voice 4: Oh, yeah.

[3:57:58] Voice 4: I have one of the...

[3:57:59] Voice 4: That should be...

[3:58:01] Voice 4: Oh, okay.

[3:58:02] Voice 4: here yeah they should be they shouldn't be uh they should absolutely be uh getting out

[3:58:10] Voice 4: yeah yeah i

[3:58:12] Trustee Borthwick: there are instances in which i can see like i i i can i can imagine that there are

[3:58:21] Trustee Borthwick: arguments for having pools here uh but i

[3:58:26] Voice 11: don't want to see a lot of people there's a difference

[3:58:30] Voice 11: between a groundwater like a pool and a rainwater i've seen rainwater well i've seen one rainwater

[3:58:35] Voice 11: fed pool on um belpander built

[3:58:38] Voice 4: by an architect entirely water fed so it is impossible it is

[3:58:42] Voice 4: possible and there's lots of above ground tools which you know would disturb the layers of

[3:58:48] cultural media but but likewise could be groundwater

[3:58:52] Trustee Borthwick: fed absolutely it's still a use of

[3:58:54] Trustee Borthwick: water that seems kind of unconscionable to me but but they're also there's a

[3:58:58] Voice 16: lot of pools there's

[3:59:00] Voice 16: salt

[3:59:00] Trustee Borthwick: water oh yeah well but again there's issues with taking i mean taking water from those that's

[3:59:06] Trustee Borthwick: that that can be problems too that's that's pretty common yeah yeah i know so

[3:59:11] Voice 11: the question is do you

[3:59:12] Voice 11: do you want that to be included on your list yeah

[3:59:15] Voice 15: i definitely think it's something we should ground

[3:59:17] Voice 11: water fed pools yeah yeah

[3:59:20] Voice 11: and i think that like again the digging into ground should be captured

[3:59:26] Voice 11: Well,

[3:59:27] Trustee Borthwick: still, we can, I think we can put in something into our bylaws or in our pools in general, I think it's probably may take a little more yeah and

[3:59:38] Voice 11: then how does this fit in with housing? It's because the water and housing are directly.

[3:59:44] Voice 16: Yeah, yeah.

[3:59:45] Voice 16: Or you can probably just copy a piece of the other house.

[3:59:47] Voice 16: That's

[3:59:48] Voice 4: exactly what I was thinking, it's just a copy-paste for me.

[3:59:50] Voice 4: Did we pass your definition of affordable housing, which is on page 9?

[3:59:58] Voice 4: Page 9.

[4:00:00] Voice 4: You've got a definition for affordable housing.

[4:00:01] Voice 4: Yeah,

[4:00:02] Voice 11: so the definition is evolving.

[4:00:04] Voice 11: It would be great to have your perspective.

[4:00:06] Voice 4: Well, what's missing, that 30% is great,

[4:00:10] Voice 4: but if you make $300,000 a year, the 30% is meaningless.

[4:00:15] Voice 4: So you also have to have in there some statement

[4:00:18] Voice 4: that talks about the average income in the area.

[4:00:22] Voice 4: I think the Denver Housing Organization has a really good definition

[4:00:26] Voice 4: on portable housing because they looked at all the various um situations and aspects of performance

[4:00:33] Voice 4: yeah

[4:00:33] Voice 11: and actually there are some other definitions that because we've been looking at

[4:00:37] Voice 4: a variety of

[4:00:37] Voice 4: so i can pull them in today just notice this one because you didn't say it yeah okay

[4:00:43] Voice 4: any

[4:00:46] Voice 11: Any other comments on the SEPTA section, the phase 2a and 2b?

[4:00:55] Voice 11: Where are you?

[4:00:57] Voice 11: I'm now on page 11, so I'm kind of in between the pages here.

[4:01:02] Voice 4: Okay, hi. 22 to 25? Is that where we are?

[4:01:09] Voice 11: That's right, yeah. So these are all the phase 2c, so this is everything, you know, a lot of what was discussed this morning.

[4:01:20] Voice 11: Yeah, so it's the opportunity for that.

[4:01:22] Voice 17: This is the meat.

[4:01:23] Voice 11: Yeah, so one

[4:01:24] Voice 11: of the questions I was going to sort of raise for you as a result of this morning conversation is, if you would like, so assuming that you're interested in a special meeting to discuss process,

[4:01:39] Voice 11: I

[4:01:40] Voice 4: was going to suggest that that process include an engagement plan,

[4:01:47] Voice 11: so I can bring that forward and I think the resolution as it reads, to schedule a special minute meeting to discuss, I would say to discuss phase 2c actions process

[4:02:02] Voice 4: and related items just so that we get the process piece in there, because

[4:02:05] Voice 4: I feel like I feel like it would be important to

[4:02:11] Voice 4: So there's two things I want you to include in your research prior to this.

[4:02:15] Voice 4: One is coming from the San Juan Islands, and they control traditional dwelling units with a lottery.

[4:02:23] Voice 4: So they allow a certain number. If they have too many applications that year,

[4:02:28] Voice 4: then they actually do a lottery to choose who gets the who gets the permit.

[4:02:33] Voice 4: it um do we have that ability in the trust area to in other words it's not you know it's not an

[4:02:40] Voice 4: allowable use across the board it's an allowable it's an opportunity to try and get these and yet

[4:02:49] Voice 4: and then every year the local trust committee would decide based on uptake and the comfort

[4:02:55] Voice 4: of the community how many additional buildings it's just a thought because i'm hearing

[4:03:00] And

[4:03:00] Voice 4: thank you for digging up the number of lots that would be affected with the TEP.

[4:03:07] Voice 4: It's almost 300.

[4:03:08] Voice 4: So some people will say, oh, my God, immediately there will be 300 houses built tomorrow.

[4:03:13] Voice 4: And others will say, hardly anybody

[4:03:15] Voice 4: wants to do that because we wouldn't dare to get away from that.

[4:03:18] Voice 4: But if we had some control, people would feel more comfortable.

[4:03:22] Voice 4: Well, I think that was the original reason the TEP.

[4:03:26] Voice 4: Yeah, it

[4:03:27] Voice 11: worked so well.

[4:03:28] Voice 4: I

[4:03:28] Voice 11: mean, it's an interesting thing.

[4:03:30] Voice 11: I mean, it's an interesting concept. We can have a look at it because I think it also connects with the

[4:03:34] Voice 3: density

[4:03:35] Voice 11: cap conversation.

[4:03:37] Voice 11: So,

[4:03:38] Voice 4: I mean, if there's a mechanism, we

[4:03:42] Voice 11: can look at it.

[4:03:42] Voice 11: I mean, like, I think we, yeah.

[4:03:45] Voice 4: How come San Juan on its computer?

[4:03:48] Voice 4: Yeah, I

[4:03:49] Voice 3: mean, so, yeah, let's let us think about that.

[4:03:52] Voice 3: I mean, I think there's some administrative considerations.

[4:03:57] Voice 4: The other

[4:03:58] Voice 4: thing I wanted you to consider was, and I know we've been told by the planning department and the administration staff that there's no way they can manage housing agreements on an individual basis.

[4:04:11] Voice 4: But if we were able to say, yes, you're going to have an additional one if you enter into a housing agreement.

[4:04:17] Voice 4: And that was a recommendation from the Outreach and Classroom Planning Commission, not unanimously supported because they understood that that's also another burden, another expense to go through.

[4:04:28] Voice 4: But it was a simpler way that we could administer something that would ensure that the rent charge was going to be affordable.

[4:04:37] Voice 4: Yeah, and

[4:04:37] Voice 4: again, this is a really

[4:04:39] Voice 11: challenging one because there's two layers of consideration here.

[4:04:44] Voice 11: one is the actual development right and then there's the management and enforcement piece

[4:04:52] Voice 11: of it which becomes very difficult when you're working with uh single property owners um because

[4:04:58] Voice 11: when you're a good organization it's

[4:04:59] Voice 4: much easier it's part of their system and all of that sort of

[4:05:02] Voice 4: thing um with so it

[4:05:05] Voice 11: would probably require setting up some kind of a system again you know i mean we

[4:05:09] Voice 11: We've talked about it many times, so I can further that conversation.

[4:05:14] Voice 11: But what if the island itself set up the regulatory

[4:05:18] Voice 4: body as a non-profit, as part of their tenant housing?

[4:05:22] Voice 4: Right. Yeah. What if they took it on as the administrator?

[4:05:26] Voice 4: They would receive the application to have a new tenant and just like sign off on the rent fee to the church.

[4:05:32] Voice 4: It would be pretty minor. It's something that happened a lot.

[4:05:35] Voice 4: but that's that's something but rather than labor the you know yeah

[4:05:42] Voice 11: well again um see if he was

[4:05:45] Voice 11: looking i know they are

[4:05:47] Voice 11: yeah so i'll check in and see if they've advanced with their because

[4:05:52] Voice 11: they were doing they were all the limitations and i i think um

[4:05:56] Voice 4: yeah some of that work has been done

[4:05:58] Voice 4: so i'll check in with see if a non-profit can also yeah i'm not sure i mean i don't know if

[4:06:04] Voice 4: they've gone there but i mean it's an interesting question well um we live yeah volunteerism drives

[4:06:10] Voice 4: this island yeah

[4:06:10] Voice 11: yeah it's an interesting question so i've

[4:06:13] Voice 4: put it i've

[4:06:13] Voice 11: written on my list i think we

[4:06:14] Trustee Borthwick: shouldn't leave it in the nuance just because that's difficult there's potential like that's

[4:06:19] Trustee Borthwick: a potentially a good tool we shouldn't not do this because ultimately

[4:06:24] Voice 4: the housing agreement

[4:06:37] Voice 4: that I would appreciate, but I recognize

[4:06:39] Voice 16: it's seriously impossible to do this. It would be

[4:06:42] nice to know of the 281 or both things that we're potentially creating, how many of those

[4:06:48] in legal dwellings

[4:06:50] Voice 15: right now, is

[4:06:52] Voice 16: that that's sort of like because if you're saying 160

[4:06:58] Voice 16: of those already have illegal dwellings on them, that will be the potential gender violence,

[4:07:02] Voice 16: then that's not such

[4:07:04] Voice 4: a massive expansion of the communities.

[4:07:07] Voice 4: Yeah,

[4:07:07] Voice 17: and there's

[4:07:08] Voice 4: a possible data set.

[4:07:09] Voice 4: It's not going to come forward.

[4:07:12] Voice 4: Let's find the fact that we've publicly regarded in our laws we're not enforcing

[4:07:17] Voice 4: it's still there. Don't trust the government.

[4:07:22] Voice 4: But I think somehow in messaging

[4:07:25] Voice 16: when we talk about a large number, we have to acknowledge that there's

[4:07:29] Voice 16: going to be a lot of existing. So it's not exactly opening up opportunities.

[4:07:35] Trustee Borthwick: It's legalizing. We're going to have to try

[4:07:37] Trustee Borthwick: and do our best to create a situation in which that can happen

[4:07:41] Trustee Borthwick: without having all of the data. And that's okay.

[4:07:45] Trustee Borthwick: Okay.

[4:07:45] Trustee Borthwick: Okay.

[4:07:46] Voice 4: Marlos, you didn't include the ALR loss

[4:07:48] Voice 4: in that figure, did you?

[4:07:50] Voice 4: No.

[4:07:50] Voice 4: Darn it.

[4:07:52] Voice 4: We could have taken those out, yeah.

[4:07:53] Voice 4: Okay.

[4:07:54] Voice 4: All right.

[4:07:56] Voice 4: Then you've got, are we at the moment

[4:07:59] Voice 4: where it talks about another cocoa type development?

[4:08:02] Voice 4: Is that what you're asking?

[4:08:04] Voice 11: Yeah, but again, I think that was just put in there

[4:08:08] Voice 11: as an example of things to be discussed,

[4:08:13] Voice 11: as part of the whole package of things to be discussed.

[4:08:16] Voice 11: I mean, that's something that's come up a lot

[4:08:18] Voice 11: from this conversation is,

[4:08:20] Voice 11: and I think

[4:08:21] Voice 4: the community too,

[4:08:25] Voice 4: more co-hosts.

[4:08:26] Voice 4: The

[4:08:26] Voice 9: interesting thing is like

[4:08:27] Voice 4: our bylaws,

[4:08:29] Voice 4: OCP and LUB actually support another co-op

[4:08:32] Voice 4: right now with no changes

[4:08:34] Voice 4: because we embedded almost all of the co-op requirements

[4:08:37] Voice 4: in our OCP.

[4:08:39] Voice 4: Yeah. Well, the question is whether you want to include it in this, in this project, which means if there are, if there are company owners that come forward and say, we wanted to do another co-op, you could pre-zone that as part of this project with the both sides of each other.

[4:08:54] Voice 4: Yeah.

[4:08:55] Voice 4: Yeah.

[4:08:56] Voice 4: Yeah.

[4:08:58] Voice 4: Yeah, there's that opportunity. So for example, you know, on the Rio, something that they're contemplating is that they're looking at specific, specific properties to proactively zone through that process, when the owner is amenable to that, the owners amenable communities amenable, you know, and again, this is where using data becomes useful, because

[4:09:26] Voice 4: then you can say well it's along the coast and it's right in a village site you know

[4:09:30] Voice 4: that wouldn't be suitable but if it's you know somewhere else where a cute free zone does the

[4:09:36] Voice 4: community have the opportunity to really dig into the specifics of the application and let their

[4:09:42] Voice 4: feelings so it would be part of the larger project so if you're having a conversation about the

[4:09:47] Voice 4: larger

[4:09:48] Voice 11: project so these are these will be options right there are a couple of options you could

[4:09:53] Voice 11: And I think you may be getting into a few different options with this project.

[4:10:00] Voice 11: It could be part of this project.

[4:10:01] Voice 11: It could be another piece of this project, potentially, right?

[4:10:04] Voice 11: So, I mean, there were a few ideas that came up here.

[4:10:07] Voice 11: Like there was the idea of, you know, identifying where the existing properties are that have illegal and legalizing bills specifically.

[4:10:15] Voice 11: Well, that could be another piece of this project.

[4:10:20] Voice 11: Looking at properties that could be the next co-host and proactively zoning for those could be another

[4:10:29] Voice 4: piece of this project.

[4:10:30] Voice 4: It's definitely going to roll into the next, trust me.

[4:10:34] Voice 4: Or

[4:10:34] Voice 11: it could be all together. So if there's like, absolutely, this is a place we've always thought would be fabulous for that.

[4:10:42] Voice 11: Don't know why it's never happened before. Let's just go ahead and zone it.

[4:10:51] Voice 11: So anyway, there's that opportunity within this project to do that,

[4:10:58] Voice 17: and at

[4:10:59] Voice 4: the very least allowing the OCP, like removing anything that may make it difficult.

[4:11:07] Voice 4: Well, as I said, we have really strong policies in the OCP which speak specifically to another coal project.

[4:11:13] Voice 4: yeah so like i said i mean there's an opportunity to just

[4:11:21] Voice 17: so ready to go for motion sir yeah i am okay yeah that's the other one

[4:11:32] so i'll

[4:11:34] Trustee Borthwick: go further than we're doing we're done yeah we're doing one uh i moved the

[4:11:40] Trustee Borthwick: devon island local trust committee endorsed next steps for phase 2a and 2b of the devon

[4:11:44] Trustee Borthwick: housing review as discussed for the discussion of a question all in

[4:11:49] Voice 4: favor that carries and i move

[4:11:53] Voice 4: that the amendment on the local trust committee request staff will schedule a special meeting

[4:11:57] Voice 4: prior to the may local trust committee meeting to discuss them and housing review phase two

[4:12:02] Voice 4: seat actions and other related items second all questions all in

[4:12:07] Voice 4: favor that carries cool thank you

[4:12:09] Voice 4: Yes. So that special meeting, that's in person? You could come in file soon. Yeah, I would suggest that be in person.

[4:12:21] Voice 4: But it might be difficult. I

[4:12:23] Voice 17: mean,

[4:12:24] Voice 4: it could be online.

[4:12:26] Voice 4: So if we're just talking about process, I mean, it could be online.

[4:12:31] Voice 16: Figure out what works best for you guys and how this plan is required.

[4:12:51] Yes, and I'm going to rely on staff a little bit here, and we talked

[4:12:58] Trustee Borthwick: briefly about this

[4:12:58] Trustee Borthwick: the other day so uh the last year we were given the opportunity last no uh not last

[4:13:07] november but november before um the province uh rolled out uh bill 44 which had a number

[4:13:17] of provisions for um uh

[4:13:21] Trustee Borthwick: housing and other other components they're designed to to drive

[4:13:26] Trustee Borthwick: drive hazard potential. One of those was, we were advised at the time by staff to sit

[4:13:36] Trustee Borthwick: on, which was the primary residence requirement for STVRs, which I believe was as an annual

[4:13:46] opt-in. I think I'm thinking of the right stuff.

[4:13:50] Trustee Borthwick: We were advised to sit on it and see

[4:13:51] Trustee Borthwick: how things go um i guess i i apologize for not sort of pumping this to you guys a couple weeks

[4:14:01] Trustee Borthwick: ago and getting this on your radar sooner but i i remembered uh in my when when i was still in

[4:14:07] Trustee Borthwick: planning for trust council uh that i was like oh it's march by the end of the month um

[4:14:14] Trustee Borthwick: so i i guess i i would like to ask if staff have any sense of how that's going on other

[4:14:20] Trustee Borthwick: heavens and gabriela did often uh i can't remember if anywhere else did um i know that we obviously

[4:14:28] Trustee Borthwick: have a lot of further differences around stvrs in general but i think this is yet another layer

[4:14:33] Trustee Borthwick: of that sort of stuff that we could use to sort of and then the province crucially in the enforcement

[4:14:39] on this i think that was the part that i would think was really interesting uh it may give us

[4:14:44] another another boot for that um

[4:14:46] Trustee Borthwick: i don't think it harms us to to opt in to request to opt in

[4:14:52] Trustee Borthwick: um but i i would welcome some some feedback from staff and you know the opinions of my fellow

[4:14:57] Trustee Borthwick: trustees but i would be happy to

[4:15:01] Voice 4: do that so i'm i'm sorry i i'm not that familiar with what these

[4:15:08] Voice 4: these provincial and stevie are. So is this is this so for islands that allow us to be ours to have a problem.

[4:15:17] Is this for us that you don't

[4:15:20] Voice 4: allow us to be ours in the province to bring force this way. I just need some background on this.

[4:15:27] Voice 4: So, Bill 44 was like quite a large housing bill that was passed, I guess, over a year now, almost two years.

[4:15:40] Voice 11: And so it included a number of different things that don't apply to the islands.

[4:15:48] Voice 11: things around

[4:15:49] Voice 4: increasing density around transit, allowing additional, you know, requiring

[4:15:55] Voice 4: secondaries across the province, all this kind of thing. In addition to that, there was

[4:16:02] Voice 4: regulations around short-term vacation rentals, so that allowed, that's, so that's all kinds of

[4:16:09] Voice 4: short-term vacation rentals from bed and breakfast, bed and

[4:16:12] Voice 4: breakfast, all the way to sort of room in

[4:16:15] Voice 4: your house to uh you know separate units um and the so outright and what what uh the piece of it

[4:16:26] Voice 4: that does apply to this trust is the short-term rental registry so anybody who's operating uh

[4:16:32] short-term rental

[4:16:34] Voice 4: um even in the other stress has to be tends to register the um the pieces that

[4:16:41] Voice 4: that are optional for the main piece,

[4:16:46] Voice 11: that the piece that's optional for the Islands Trust

[4:16:48] Voice 11: is that provincial principal residence.

[4:16:52] Voice 11: It's the principal residence requirement.

[4:16:56] Voice 11: So that

[4:16:56] Voice 4: means that you can only be renting your space

[4:17:04] Voice 4: if it is your principal residence.

[4:17:07] Voice 4: residents and so essentially the B&B scenario and that's really the key piece so like a number of

[4:17:17] Voice 4: islands and I mean even the way that the Denman bylaw is written it's not necessarily written

[4:17:23] Voice 4: that it must be the principal residence it somebody needs to be living there so it could be

[4:17:28] Voice 4: you know somebody could be living there as a just as a manager or something but the

[4:17:34] Voice 4: then the principal residence of the owner could be elsewhere right um you could just change that

[4:17:40] Voice 4: in your bylaw and then you are essentially adhering to the provincial requirement or you

[4:17:47] Voice 4: could opt into the original requirement which is as sam indicates potentially gives you i mean it

[4:17:56] Voice 4: it gives you that additional provincial oversight but as far as we know um i mean

[4:18:03] Voice 4: there's a limited number of folks that have been hired to do this work and they are looking at the

[4:18:09] Voice 4: entire province and so it's likely that if they're going to do any enforcement it's going to be in

[4:18:15] Voice 4: the major centers so

[4:18:17] Voice 11: that's a consideration it's you know it's you

[4:18:20] Voice 3: know it seems like a potential

[4:18:21] Voice 3: benefit but it may not actually be so you know really yeah you could yeah

[4:18:27] Voice 11: so your options are

[4:18:28] Voice 11: or if

[4:18:28] Voice 4: you opted in that this requirement

[4:18:31] Voice 4: is a provincial requirement,

[4:18:33] Voice 4: or you just make that a requirement in your product.

[4:18:35] Voice 10: Is there going to be feedback from Gabriel?

[4:18:37] Trustee Borthwick: Is there a training in your product?

[4:18:39] Voice 4: No, I

[4:18:40] Voice 11: haven't heard anything.

[4:18:40] Trustee Borthwick: I guess the question I have is,

[4:18:43] Trustee Borthwick: is there a drawback to us not opting into it?

[4:18:46] Trustee Borthwick: Yeah, because if we're also looking at a by-law department,

[4:18:49] Trustee Borthwick: our by-law department would hopefully still be in question

[4:18:53] Trustee Borthwick: when these things are on the line to us,

[4:18:55] Trustee Borthwick: where they can and where they haven't been placed,

[4:18:57] Trustee Borthwick: where all these other staff constraints apply but what's the risk to opting into it so

[4:19:05] Voice 11: i mean it's

[4:19:06] Voice 11: hard to say you know so

[4:19:08] Voice 11: procedurally i mean it's hard to say right because these are all new things

[4:19:15] that the province has initiated

[4:19:18] Voice 11: and and so we don't we don't know what the future looks like

[4:19:23] Voice 11: I mean you know it could be that down the line everybody that applies to will have to do x

[4:19:31] Voice 11: so I'm just I'm just you know stipulating potential um it could be entirely wrong but

[4:19:38] Voice 11: that would be one of the things I think they're like or or I mean they may say but the others

[4:19:41] Voice 11: trust you still like who knows yeah um but they may overlook that piece and so suddenly

[4:19:45] Voice 4: you've got something else applied to you that maybe you know we're not we're

[4:19:50] Trustee Borthwick: not ceding any

[4:19:50] Trustee Borthwick: rights though like our our bible is also it's still fine you

[4:19:53] Voice 11: can still yeah you could yeah

[4:19:55] Trustee Borthwick: you're going

[4:19:55] Voice 11: to that's

[4:19:56] Trustee Borthwick: my thing is we're not we're not giving up control it's the ability

[4:20:02] Voice 16: if the circumstances exist to do a do not force because you you wouldn't be able to

[4:20:08] Voice 16: learn the problem say leave those people alone i can't imagine what those circumstances would be

[4:20:13] Voice 16: yeah yeah and i mean we do have a lot of control locally on that circumstance otherwise i can't

[4:20:20] Voice 4: give

[4:20:20] Voice 16: anything yeah the downside but i also i didn't think i gave it a positive or negative

[4:20:28] um and the planner said you know it might if unfortunately time is short so it can't be done

[4:20:36] but it would probably

[4:20:37] Trustee Borthwick: would have helped to talk to the

[4:20:38] Trustee Borthwick: gabriel trustee

[4:20:39] Trustee Borthwick: i did i mean i didn't consult with trustee yates and she i i don't know that they have a ton of

[4:20:47] data around it but she was certainly very supportive of having done it trustee elliott

[4:20:53] and she were both very keen to do this um so i did talk with

[4:20:58] Trustee Borthwick: with trustee yates about it

[4:20:59] Trustee Borthwick: and she she was you know enthusiastic about it so that's part of where i was

[4:21:05] Trustee Borthwick: um so i i haven't written a specific thing um i don't know i'd have to give me i'd have to

[4:21:15] take a second and sort of try to write something if

[4:21:17] Trustee Borthwick: there's will i don't want to do this this is

[4:21:20] Trustee Borthwick: feels like a waste of time to other trustees but personally would wait and get a little more data

[4:21:25] Voice 4: from and either this opted in to see if there's any

[4:21:29] Voice 17: okay um

[4:21:30] Trustee Borthwick: i may i will try and do that um but

[4:21:35] i would be keen because there is the march 31st deadline to opt in i may request that we do a

[4:21:42] a resolution that i'm making to support that i just

[4:21:46] Voice 4: don't see what it offsets yeah that's all

[4:21:50] Voice 4: i know we have to rewrite our uh vacation rental regulations because they're they're a bit

[4:22:00] Voice 4: totally right now

[4:22:01] Trustee Borthwick: yeah we have to do that regardless the other the other part that comes

[4:22:04] Trustee Borthwick: as part of bill 44 which does not currently apply to us and this is not an opt-in thing

[4:22:10] Trustee Borthwick: that is talking about vacancy taxes.

[4:22:12] Voice 17: Right.

[4:22:13] Voice 17: Which is, there was a,

[4:22:15] I think there was potential for us as trust counsel

[4:22:18] to forward that to the provinces or request to be,

[4:22:21] because we're currently exempted from

[4:22:23] Trustee Borthwick: the vacancy tax.

[4:22:24] Trustee Borthwick: I want to make sure that started in June and January.

[4:22:26] Trustee Borthwick: Yeah, and

[4:22:26] Voice 17: that's something that I will be

[4:22:28] Trustee Borthwick: talking about

[4:22:29] Trustee Borthwick: because I think that's important, but I don't think so.

[4:22:32] Voice 17: Yeah.

[4:22:34] Voice 7: Excellent.

[4:22:35] Voice 7: And I know there was a report that was circulated,

[4:22:38] Voice 7: it would have been probably over a year ago now

[4:22:40] Voice 7: did provide an analysis yeah i remember that i'll be trying to find it and then i'll send it out to

[4:22:45] Voice 7: the lpc

[4:22:46] Trustee Borthwick: just the progression because i was a year ago yeah i've just

[4:22:49] Trustee Borthwick: had way too many things on them

[4:22:51] Trustee Borthwick: the last week including trust council

[4:22:53] Voice 17: i just kind of

[4:22:53] Trustee Borthwick: had time to like i looked through all my files

[4:22:56] Trustee Borthwick: but all right well then in any case we can make that where it is for now but i'll so i'll be

[4:23:04] Trustee Borthwick: be talking to him. All right.

[4:23:08] Voice 17: So moving forward, we have a

[4:23:10] customer service highlights in January 21 25. Or be free

[4:23:15] information. 16.2 page 48 applications report. I don't

[4:23:22] think there's anything too deep in the facts. Basically, they

[4:23:27] said we just skip over the board of

[4:23:28] Voice 4: commons First Nations. So

[4:23:33] Voice 4: sort of an engagement summary but well

[4:23:37] Voice 11: that's part of your i mean that was just introduced

[4:23:40] Voice 11: it's a draft uh so yeah it was just introduced for your information at this point in time it's

[4:23:47] Voice 11: not finalized yet as in it hasn't been through the council so we have your trusting your local

[4:23:54] expense report uh for information on top of policies for your information um work program

[4:24:01] active projects report that's page 64 um before you jump in okay i'm

[4:24:08] Voice 4: sorry uh just the applications

[4:24:10] Voice 4: report if you probably already answered my question on co-host resuming just at what stage

[4:24:15] Voice 4: yeah

[4:24:16] Voice 7: so that this might be a good opportunity to chat about it and just the implications of

[4:24:23] Voice 7: not proceeding with the bylaws 248 249 today so currently there's a land use bylaw amendment

[4:24:30] Voice 7: and housing agreement. So the housing agreement, I've been working with the applicant and their

[4:24:35] Voice 1: lawyer and our

[4:24:35] Voice 7: lawyer, and we're pretty much ready

[4:24:38] Voice 7: to bring that to the LTC for first reading.

[4:24:40] Voice 7: The land use

[4:24:41] Voice 7: bylaw amendment has already come forward for first, maybe even second reading,

[4:24:47] Voice 7: I can't remember, but you've definitely seen a draft of the land use bylaw. And because

[4:24:53] Voice 7: because these bylaws aren't proceeding, 248, 249,

[4:24:58] Voice 7: I think it'd be great if I could get a resolution today

[4:25:01] Voice 7: that directs that requested staff proceed

[4:25:04] Voice 7: with a OCP amendment to an issue.

[4:25:07] Voice 7: Yeah.

[4:25:08] Voice 7: I'll move that.

[4:25:09] Voice 7: Yeah, I can share my screen and put it in the recording.

[4:25:12] Voice 7: I can read it.

[4:25:14] Voice 7: We can read it.

[4:25:15] Voice 7: And then hopefully I can bring that forward

[4:25:17] Voice 7: at the next meeting.

[4:25:19] Voice 7: Awesome.

[4:25:20] Voice 7: And that's for four

[4:25:21] Voice 4: additional runs.

[4:25:23] Voice 4: Yeah.

[4:25:26] Voice 5: I move that the Demanada Local Trust Committee request staff to prepare a draft bylaw to amend the Demanada Official Community Plan 2008 to rezone Lot A, Section

[4:25:37] Voice 4: 17, Demanada, and Manoa District Plan VIP 87456 to enable application DE-R7-2024-21-Triple-Rock-Land-Coach-Hopper.

[4:25:48] Seconded.

[4:25:49] Further discussion? Call the question. All in favor?

[4:25:52] Aye.

[4:25:52] Thanks, Thomas.

[4:25:56] Okay, okay. Sorry, no, no, that was, that was totally appropriate, the appropriate time,

[4:26:03] Voice 16: appropriately, having had the appropriate motion, but we don't get much of a scourge from that.

[4:26:10] Voice 16: So, nothing in that, too. Anything in future projects?

[4:26:14] Voice 16: They're happy, happy, happy. Well, we've reached a conclusion.

[4:26:20] Voice 16: So,

[4:26:20] Voice 4: next, bring in the meeting schedule, bring in the meeting, 20th, 25th, 10 a.m.,

[4:26:30] Voice 17: So we'll motion to adjourn.

[4:26:33] Voice 17: Thank

[4:26:33] Voice 15: you, everybody.

[4:26:37] Voice 15: Thank you.