South Pender Island Local Trust Committee community information meeting, July 4, 2025

[0:00:00] Voice 5: Thank you, Robert. So just noting for members of the public, there are connectivity issues on South Pender, so we're waiting for Trustee Falk to join. So we're just going to keep the meeting. Well, we're live streaming now, but we won't start the meeting until we can hear back from Trustee Falk as to whether he can join.

[0:00:24] Voice 5: that

[0:00:26] Voice 10: also gives members of the public who were hoping to join and going somewhere else to maybe

[0:00:30] Voice 10: find another location oh

[0:00:32] Voice 5: yes oh

[0:00:33] Voice 10: there we go

[0:00:34] Voice 9: good we see you well we don't see you but we see your

[0:00:44] Voice 9: vehicle hi doug

[0:00:45] Voice 3: okay hi i'm can you hear me now or not yeah yep

[0:00:51] Voice 3: yeah i'm i'm driving back because

[0:00:53] Voice 3: the internet isn't working at the hall and there's nobody there so i'll be probably 10 minutes but

[0:01:00] Voice 3: but I'm on, I think the connection is going to last while I'm driving.

[0:01:06] Voice 5: Okay. Thanks so much.

[0:01:12] Voice 5: 10 minutes. I think maybe we could go through the

[0:01:15] Voice 5: preamble and since we're all here

[0:01:24] Voice 5: and go through amendments to the agenda

[0:01:27] Voice 5: and then we'll start the discussion when Trustee Falk

[0:01:32] Voice 5: is settled. How's that?

[0:01:34] Voice 10: Sounds good.

[0:01:36] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:01:37] Voice 10: Sounds good

[0:01:37] Voice 7: to me, yeah.

[0:01:39] Voice 5: Great.

[0:01:41] Voice 5: Well, let's call this meeting to order.

[0:01:45] Voice 5: Aisqwchayl, everyone, good day.

[0:01:48] Voice 5: Thank you for coming to this special electronic meeting of the South Pender LTC, July 4th, 2025.

[0:01:57] Voice 5: 1925. We want to begin by acknowledging that this area, Sudeas, now known as South Pender Island,

[0:02:04] Voice 5: has been home to the Wasaytnich peoples, who are Central Coast Salish peoples and

[0:02:10] Voice 5: Sinshawthin-speaking peoples since time immemorial. And we want to begin by respectfully acknowledging

[0:02:16] Voice 5: that the land and waters on which we gather is within the traditional territory of the

[0:02:22] Voice 5: St. Niche Coast Salish Peoples. I'll make introductions now. This is a special

[0:02:28] Voice 5: meeting of the South Pender LTC with a single purpose. We have with us Trustee Evans. Hello.

[0:02:40] Voice 5: Hello. Trustee Volk is on his way to a location where he can get internet connection.

[0:02:47] Voice 5: and we're joined by staff uh planner kim stockdale good morning everyone supported in the south

[0:02:55] Voice 5: office and our minute taker today is katherine boat and

[0:02:59] Voice 10: just as a heads up we

[0:03:00] Voice 5: lost dagg okay

[0:03:02] Voice 5: that's okay he can rejoin when able um so this is a special meeting that it is also a community

[0:03:15] Voice 5: information meeting. According to the resolution from the May 2nd, 2025 meeting,

[0:03:22] Voice 5: the South Pender Local Trust Committee requested staff to schedule an electronic special meeting

[0:03:28] Voice 5: and to hold a community information meeting. However, we did not make space on the agenda,

[0:03:35] Voice 5: so I'd like to propose an amendment that public comment can be added to the agenda at 4.2.

[0:03:45] Voice 5: And that would be following the main business item, which is discussion on the draft proposed by law number 129 and to provide a review of the referral responses received to date.

[0:04:01] Voice 5: And just a note about the electronic nature of this meeting.

[0:04:05] Voice 5: It is electronic, however, recognizing that there are connectivity issues and challenges on South Pender.

[0:04:12] Voice 5: Your local trustees had made efforts to make a physical location available.

[0:04:18] Voice 5: Always, there is a physical location available, which is typically the Islands Trust offices, which is where staff can be present.

[0:04:27] Voice 5: And so for electronic meetings, the meeting space is the virtual space.

[0:04:31] Voice 5: We typically don't do hybrid meetings.

[0:04:35] Voice 5: In special cases where connectivity is an issue, we have been able to do that.

[0:04:40] Voice 5: However, this is an electronic meeting and that's where the participation is taking place.

[0:04:48] Voice 5: So please do not expect that we will be able to facilitate hybrid meetings in future.

[0:04:53] Voice 5: This is a bit of a, well, it's actually not going to happen since there was no internet at the fire hall where Trustee Falk was headed.

[0:05:02] Voice 5: So this is purely electronic.

[0:05:06] Voice 5: Um, and I should note during the community information meeting, the community is, uh,

[0:05:12] Voice 5: invited to ask questions and make comments.

[0:05:15] Voice 5: Um, we ask that you direct your questions to the LTC and we can ask staff if they're

[0:05:22] Voice 5: technical, uh, questions, or we can answer them if they're more political in nature.

[0:05:28] Voice 5: Let's see, we've got trustee Falk back online now.

[0:05:33] Voice 3: Sorry, I missed that for a bit.

[0:05:35] Voice 5: Nope, it's, it's all good.

[0:05:37] Voice 5: so we were going to amend the agenda by adding a section for public comment at 4.2

[0:05:45] Voice 5: is everyone in agreement with that yes

[0:05:50] Voice 3: fine with me yep yep

[0:05:52] Voice 5: okay so we'll approve the agenda

[0:05:54] Voice 5: as amended and i'll just suggest we take a five minute break to allow trustee fault to

[0:06:04] Voice 5: get back to his location and settle is that all right yeah thank you

[0:06:10] Voice 5: okay of course so we'll

[0:06:11] Voice 5: recess for five minutes everybody but keep the meeting open thank you chair

[0:06:25] Voice 2: for your information

[0:06:26] Voice 2: there are three attendees in the electronic meeting thank

[0:06:32] Voice 5: you robert hey

[0:15:26] Voice 7: there we hear you

[0:15:33] Voice 4: hello trustee falk welcome back thank

[0:15:36] Voice 3: you for waiting for me it was uh today is kind of

[0:15:40] Voice 3: of a meeting scheduling hell or something.

[0:15:48] Voice 4: No kidding. It's a challenge for sure.

[0:15:52] Voice 5: So, so you attempted to open the fire hall to,

[0:15:56] Voice 5: to allow members of the public to join, but there was no internet there.

[0:15:59] Voice 3: Correct. Yeah. It's on, but it's not, it's not working. So.

[0:16:03] Voice 5: Yeah. Okay.

[0:16:04] Voice 3: Anyway, it was a nice drive.

[0:16:06] Voice 3: Okay.

[0:16:07] Voice 5: Well, we appreciate you making the effort.

[0:16:09] Voice 5: and um i think in future we'll we'll try to clarify what is you know meant by an electronic

[0:16:18] Voice 5: meeting um but i think what needs to happen for south pender giving the electronic or the sorry

[0:16:24] Voice 5: internet issues is to have all meetings in person which would mean the two local trustees could be

[0:16:32] Voice 5: in person the chair can still join electronically and staff can support either in person or

[0:16:38] Voice 5: electronically and um but then if the situation arises again that the fire hall doesn't have

[0:16:44] Voice 5: internet i'm not sure what we do in that case recess and probably tell everyone to go home and

[0:16:52] Voice 5: postpone so we'll do the best we can um thank you everyone and members of the public for bearing

[0:16:58] Voice 5: with us uh just want to recognize that there are three attendees and i don't think i need to go

[0:17:08] Voice 5: through the opening spiel again but just for everyone's information we did amend the agenda

[0:17:14] Voice 5: to add item 4.2 public comment and i apologize on behalf of our team that there wasn't a section

[0:17:23] Voice 5: for public comment but the intent of this meeting is to be both a special meeting

[0:17:30] Voice 5: to provide the ltc and the public with the most up-to-date proposed bylaw number 129

[0:17:36] Voice 5: and to provide a review of the referral responses received to date and it is to be a community

[0:17:42] Voice 5: information meeting. So that was according to the resolution last May 2nd and so we were just

[0:17:49] Voice 5: making space on the agenda for that. Remember the public to comment or ask questions and I do

[0:17:55] Voice 5: apologize that we didn't have that space on the original agenda. Okay so with that let's turn to

[0:18:04] Voice 5: item 4.1 and I'll turn it over to you Planner Stockdale.

[0:18:09] Voice 8: Thank you Chair. What I'll do is I'll

[0:18:11] Voice 8: just quickly go over the staff report and provide an overview of where we are in terms of the

[0:18:18] Voice 8: project's charter timeline and just highlight a few things on the project web page. So in terms

[0:18:24] Voice 8: of the staff report, the staff report is to provide the most up-to-date proposed bylaw which

[0:18:30] Voice 8: is bylaw number 129 for the minor land use bylaw amendment project for the south pender ltc

[0:18:37] Voice 8: also the ltc requested staff to report back on two items which are included in the staff report

[0:18:43] Voice 8: and the staff report also includes the referral responses received to date

[0:18:49] Voice 8: so to refresh all of our memories at the may 2nd south pender ltc meeting the ltc did make further

[0:18:57] Voice 8: amendments to bylaw 129 that was in terms of the agriculture section and

[0:19:03] Voice 8: also making the final recommendations on maximum floor area for the rural

[0:19:10] Voice 8: residential zone the agriculture zone forestry and the natural resource zones

[0:19:17] Voice 8: after those amendments were made by resolution the LTC gave the bylaw first

[0:19:23] Voice 8: reading. The LTC also determined that the proposed bylaw is not contrary to or at variance with the

[0:19:32] Voice 8: Islands Trust Policy Statement. The LTC also gave direction to staff to hold a community information

[0:19:39] Voice 8: meeting and public hearing for the bylaw and the LTC gave direction for this electronic meeting.

[0:19:45] Voice 8: so in terms of the web page um the consolidated version of bylaw 129 what that means is the

[0:19:55] Voice 8: amendments in bylaw 29 what does it look like in the current land use bylaw those are on the

[0:20:00] Voice 8: it's on the project web page and it's under folder 6 which is other information

[0:20:06] Voice 8: there's one called the consolidated version and that means the bylaw 129 amendments are fully

[0:20:12] Voice 8: consolidated and the other one is the black line version and that shows kind of where the

[0:20:18] Voice 8: the amendments have been made to the bylaw so there's the two different versions there

[0:20:22] Voice 8: and now I'm just going to go into highlighting two of the items that the LTC wanted for further

[0:20:29] Voice 8: information the first one was in regards to the question was raised when making amendments for

[0:20:36] Voice 8: for the agriculture zone, how many agriculturally zoned properties are actually located in the

[0:20:43] Voice 8: agricultural land reserve, the ALR. And so our GIS staff did do an overlay of that, and they

[0:20:50] Voice 8: determined that all properties or lots that are zoned agriculture are actually located in the

[0:20:55] Voice 8: agricultural land reserve. So that map is attached to the staff report for the LTC to review.

[0:21:02] Voice 8: view. The next section was section 311 of the current land use bylaw, and that was in regards

[0:21:12] Voice 8: to derelict vehicles and the potential of removing that reference to license plate decals

[0:21:22] Voice 8: as decals are no longer required. So I sent that amendment, so the removal of section 3.111a

[0:21:32] Voice 8: to warren digman who's the manager of bylaw enforcement and he had no concerns with removing

[0:21:39] Voice 8: section a and in its entirety uh so if the ltc wanted to make that amendment um

[0:21:47] Voice 8: or actually pardon me i just want to make i can't remember if we've made that amendment or not or

[0:21:51] Voice 8: or if it's still i'll have to double check double check to see if it's already been removed

[0:21:56] Voice 8: pardon me i can't remember if we have or not so i'll come back to that

[0:21:59] Voice 8: that. Sorry to interrupt. I

[0:22:02] Voice 10: froze right when you were just saying that you'd gone to Warren

[0:22:05] Voice 10: Dingman and I didn't hear anything

[0:22:06] Voice 10: after that. Okay.

[0:22:07] Voice 8: He had no concerns with removing that

[0:22:10] Voice 8: Section A. And I'm just going to check now to see if we've actually removed that as part of

[0:22:17] Voice 8: Bylaw 129. And yes, so the LTC has removed Section A. And so I mentioned that Manager

[0:22:26] Voice 8: manager Dingman had no concerns with that amendment. So those were the two items that

[0:22:31] Voice 8: the LTC wanted further clarification on. And moving into the statutory requirements,

[0:22:38] Voice 8: I mentioned that the LTC gave direction to hold a public hearing. And that is currently

[0:22:45] Voice 8: scheduled for the September LTC meeting. And due to the fact that we may have a large turnout from

[0:22:53] Voice 8: community members it's been scheduled to be held at the north pender anglican hall so notices will

[0:22:59] Voice 8: be circulated on south pender the community boards and also on the islands trust web web page and

[0:23:07] Voice 8: circulated through our email subscriber list as a reminder to the date the time and the location

[0:23:14] Voice 8: of that community information meeting and the public hearing and the reason why we hold a

[0:23:19] Voice 8: community information meeting before a public hearing is to allow community members to ask

[0:23:24] Voice 8: those final questions that they may have for the LTC or for planning staff. And the public hearing

[0:23:30] Voice 8: is that formal process or formal time when community members can put their comments on record

[0:23:38] Voice 8: if they support the bylaw or if they do not support the bylaw and reasons why. In terms of

[0:23:46] Voice 8: the referral responses we've received we've received just two and those are included in

[0:23:50] Voice 8: the staff report report and those are from two first nations and both nations have stated that

[0:23:57] Voice 8: they defer comments to any nations whose title or governing authorities are directly affected so

[0:24:03] Voice 8: they have addressed that they're kind of deferring that authority to a more local and first nations

[0:24:12] Voice 8: So, this staff report doesn't provide any recommendations to the LTC because the next step is to hold that community information meeting and that public hearing for September, which staff have had that direction for.

[0:24:25] Voice 8: So, at this point, I can turn it back to the LTC.

[0:24:28] Voice 8: If the LTC has any questions they'd like to ask planning staff, any further clarification, or anything else that the LTC may have.

[0:24:42] Voice 8: Trustee Evans?

[0:24:44] Voice 10: Yes.

[0:24:45] Voice 10: Sorry, I'm just going to move my screen a little bit so I can see.

[0:24:49] Voice 10: So going back to Section 311, I still have a problem because, as it says here, for this purpose, a motor vehicle is unlicensed if it does not display an interim vehicle license pursuant to Motor Vehicle Act's regulation, which means that any licensed vehicle, like if I've got plates on my vehicle,

[0:25:11] Voice 10: For this purpose, it can still be deemed unlicensed, the way that I'm reading this.

[0:25:19] Voice 10: So I still feel that we should keep part of A saying motor vehicle number plates.

[0:25:27] Voice 10: Still feel like that should be kept in there for absolute clarity that motor vehicle number plates mean that you are not unlicensed.

[0:25:39] Voice 10: because I don't have an interim vehicle license on my vehicle because it's licensed because I've

[0:25:45] Voice 10: got the plates. But if we take that out, then this is deemed, you are deemed unlicensed if you

[0:25:53] Voice 10: don't have an interim vehicle license. That's the problem that I'm seeing. I think it absolutely has

[0:26:00] Voice 10: to have the two. Go ahead. Through the chair.

[0:26:17] Voice 8: So if the LTC would like to make that amendment,

[0:26:21] Voice 8: what we can do is you have the option to further amend bylaw 129 to include to add in that section

[0:26:30] Voice 8: or to retain motor vehicle number plates and just remove and the current license year decal.

[0:26:40] Voice 8: I did send it to manager Dingman and I suppose that he felt that bylaw enforcement officer

[0:26:47] Voice 8: interpretation would have no concerns with it, but I do see that it would be worthwhile keeping

[0:26:53] Voice 8: that reference to the actual plates themselves.

[0:26:57] Voice 10: And that was the original request.

[0:27:05] Voice 5: Trustee Falk, do you have any concerns with... Just

[0:27:09] Voice 3: a question to follow up on that. It doesn't,

[0:27:12] Voice 3: the one doesn't say and, or, to A and B, right? So is it both have to be fulfilled,

[0:27:24] Voice 3: filled or is it one of them that can suffice?

[0:27:28] Voice 8: Through the chair so if a bylaw is written with

[0:27:31] Voice 8: an or it's it's one or the other.

[0:27:33] Voice 3: Is is there an or? I don't see an or. At the

[0:27:37] Voice 3: answer. Oh I see

[0:27:39] Voice 3: that's where it put it there or okay I just missed where yeah I was expecting it in the in the text

[0:27:43] Voice 3: above. Okay. And I would

[0:27:52] Voice 10: maybe add valid motor vehicle license plates because those can be

[0:27:57] Voice 10: be checked right

[0:27:59] Voice 3: yeah that's that was kind of my point is that you you can you can let your

[0:28:04] Voice 3: your insurance expire and nobody comes and takes the plates from you you know the plates can stay

[0:28:11] Voice 3: on the vehicle till next time you want to insure it but that vehicle is not insured but it does

[0:28:17] Voice 3: have the plates the plates actually signal well not really they don't really signify much of

[0:28:24] Voice 3: of anything because you can even deregister a vehicle you could sell a vehicle and keep the

[0:28:29] Voice 3: plates and those plates are technically they belong to icbc i guess but you know it doesn't

[0:28:36] Voice 3: prove anything is what i'm saying yeah

[0:28:42] Voice 5: trustee evans uh

[0:28:44] Voice 10: yeah so my point would be like the

[0:28:46] Voice 10: vehicles that are licensed and that do have motor vehicle plates by removing that they're deemed

[0:28:53] Voice 10: by this bylaw as unlicensed so that's why i'm like we have to add that layer of clarity

[0:28:59] Voice 10: by saying and i'd like to add in the word valid so valid motor motor or valid motor vehicle license

[0:29:05] Voice 10: number plates those can be checked um so if if it's deemed if it's if it's uh suspected that

[0:29:12] Voice 10: it's a derelict vehicle or or um yeah so derelict vehicles is the term being used here then you can

[0:29:19] Voice 10: request that it be scanned and then it'll show is it valid or is it not. But I don't want this

[0:29:29] Voice 10: to be open that any vehicle can be can be deemed a derelict vehicle because it's only got current

[0:29:36] Voice 10: vehicle license plates on it and somebody just doesn't like the way that it's been parked.

[0:29:46] Voice 5: Any issues with this Kim?

[0:29:51] Voice 8: Not that I can see right now. So we can certainly add that in.

[0:30:00] Voice 8: And I could also see if Warren is available to jump in this discussion too, because he is the one that actually uses the section in the land use bylaw. Planners, you know, we don't necessarily refer to it, so I don't have the offhand knowledge of it. So he could perhaps help us provide further clarification if needed.

[0:30:23] Voice 5: Well, I guess the bylaw has to be clear enough that it can be interpreted by future staff, even if it isn't Warren, so he can give his view of it. But we do have to make sure that the language is clear and not ambiguous. I do see there is potential ambiguity if that whole thing is removed. But yeah, good catch.

[0:30:51] Voice 5: Maybe you can ask Warren, and we can move to any other issues in the meantime.

[0:30:56] Voice 3: Can I make one more comment?

[0:30:59] Voice 3: We have a comment from somebody that one unlicensed motor vehicle is quite restrictive,

[0:31:11] Voice 3: and that they were expressing that in certain situations when you're switching a vehicle,

[0:31:17] Voice 3: vehicle. You have two vehicles, but you keep one licensed and that sort of thing. And the

[0:31:24] Voice 3: purpose for that kind of managing of your cost of your insurance is that means that

[0:31:32] Voice 3: you would uninsure one vehicle and insure the other, and then you would swap it back

[0:31:36] Voice 3: and say you went every six months and did something like that, and that this would create

[0:31:40] Voice 3: a hardship for that sort of situation. And I think that there might be some that feel

[0:31:45] Voice 3: like it's in today's world you know having just one unlicensed vehicle may not be really that

[0:31:52] Voice 3: practical and so i'm i'm making this comment because i want the public who is listening

[0:31:59] Voice 3: to make comments on this issue if they feel like it's an issue that they're concerned about for

[0:32:06] Voice 3: for the reasons that i said or for any other reason so we get that feedback and that would be

[0:32:13] Voice 3: for the public hearing, of course, and or today.

[0:32:19] Voice 5: I guess a question to staff, and maybe Warren could speak to this.

[0:32:26] Voice 5: If the intent of the section is to address derelict vehicles,

[0:32:32] Voice 5: and in the view of a community member, you know,

[0:32:35] Voice 5: there's two derelict vehicles and they make a complaint,

[0:32:40] Voice 5: but the property owner, you know, is in that situation,

[0:32:45] Voice 5: that Trustee Fault just described,

[0:32:50] Voice 5: then they could make the argument to bylaw enforcement

[0:32:54] Voice 5: that this is, you know, these vehicles are not derelict.

[0:33:01] Voice 5: They're both in use.

[0:33:03] Voice 5: So does this bylaw or this section really constrain

[0:33:07] Voice 5: and would require enforcement,

[0:33:10] Voice 5: that would require that one of those vehicles is,

[0:33:14] Voice 5: you know becomes licensed or is enclosed in a permanent building or structure or could it be

[0:33:19] Voice 5: interpreted that okay these are not actually derelict they're just in the process of using

[0:33:25] Voice 5: them seasonally because I know bylaw enforcement do have the power to interpret and if the purpose

[0:33:32] Voice 5: of the bylaw is to minimize derelict vehicles but they're not actually derelict what would be the

[0:33:40] Voice 5: scope of that interpretation. Please go ahead. Sorry, I'll keep my mic on. Go ahead, Trustee

[0:33:57] Voice 5: Evans.

[0:33:58] Voice 10: Oh, and I was just going to say for clarity for community members as well, this is not a

[0:34:09] Voice 10: section in the bylaw that was just...

[0:34:12] Voice 3: You froze there for a second. Can you please repeat?

[0:34:15] Voice 10: Oh, yeah. I was just saying this is for the community members' clarity. This is not this

[0:34:23] Voice 10: trust committee, your LTCs, creating a new section, we're doing a little bit of housekeeping

[0:34:31] Voice 10: due to an issue that was noted. And we're just trying to create clarity,

[0:34:38] Voice 10: not necessarily change an existing situation. I think we should have some elevator music.

[0:35:00] Voice 10: That's

[0:35:01] Voice 5: exactly what I was thinking.

[0:35:02] Voice 5: thinking let's not um perhaps we could is there another issue or does anybody else have any

[0:35:11] Voice 5: comments on draft bylaw yeah

[0:35:15] Voice 3: yeah trustee i had a question on the um unless i missed you maybe

[0:35:21] Voice 3: already said it but um the the two first nations that we have got a response from uh and they're

[0:35:28] Voice 3: both saying defer to any nations whose title and governing authorities are directly affected

[0:35:33] Voice 3: what number of nations like how many are they and uh what stage is that process in with them

[0:35:44] Voice 3: the referral process

[0:35:47] Voice 8: through the chair so we um we as in islands trust staff we receive

[0:35:53] Voice 8: our consultation list from the province um who um have an up-to-date list of the first nations that

[0:36:00] Voice 8: that have authorities around or directly on South Pender.

[0:36:07] Voice 8: And so we have a list of those.

[0:36:08] Voice 8: And those are the First Nations that we send our official referral to.

[0:36:15] Voice 8: So those have been sent out to all First Nations identified on that list.

[0:36:21] Voice 8: And in most cases, we don't get a response from all First Nations

[0:36:26] Voice 8: or we get responses similar to what we have received.

[0:36:31] Voice 8: I would hope if a nation does have a concern

[0:36:34] Voice 8: or wants to be further engaged, that they would comment.

[0:36:40] Voice 8: But as a reminder, we also send out our public hearing notice again

[0:36:45] Voice 8: to First Nations, so that also provides another opportunity for comment.

[0:36:52] Voice 8: So I'll leave it at that.

[0:36:53] Voice 8: I hope that answered your question.

[0:36:54] Voice 8: But in terms of the responses we haven't received yet, that seems to be quite typical that we don't hear from every nation.

[0:37:02] Voice 3: Okay.

[0:37:03] Voice 3: Yeah, thanks for the clarity.

[0:37:05] Voice 3: Just out of interest, how many are on, or approximately at least, how many are on that provincial list?

[0:37:12] Voice 8: I can pull that up right now.

[0:37:14] Voice 8: And it should have been included in a previous staff report, but I will check here.

[0:37:17] Voice 8: and i i can include that on the screen if necessary but we have 14 okay

[0:37:34] Voice 3: um since we're

[0:37:36] Voice 3: talking so much about um reconciliation and uh consultation is this a good process uh where

[0:37:45] Voice 3: if we don't hear from you you you agree is like maybe we're not going to go there today i'm just

[0:37:54] Voice 3: just raising it as a future potential discussion maybe to be had maybe not at this level but you

[0:38:00] Voice 3: know it seems to me a good consultation actually is an interaction between two parties with a with

[0:38:08] Voice 3: a response such as what we got that's an example of a response saying acknowledge we got your

[0:38:13] Voice 3: referral and we don't have an issue versus just silence it's kind of like not phoning people back

[0:38:20] Voice 3: when they apply for a job you know yeah

[0:38:22] Voice 8: through the shared no it's not perfect and there there

[0:38:26] Voice 8: needs there is room for improvement and that's something that islands trust the local planning

[0:38:32] Voice 8: services and also trust area services is actively working on and my understanding is we're in the

[0:38:38] Voice 8: process of putting together some protocol agreements with some of these nations and in

[0:38:44] Voice 8: in the future I hope that we have protocol agreements with all nations so we can you know

[0:38:50] Voice 8: early on identify their interest and have that engagement early on in the process but

[0:38:57] Voice 8: it's not perfect it's better than what it was but there is room for improvement and we shouldn't

[0:39:04] Voice 8: assume though if we haven't heard from that and heard from a nation that there isn't any concerns

[0:39:10] Voice 8: Absolutely. Yeah. What I've heard

[0:39:13] Voice 5: is specifically that the referral process is problematic from many nations' perspectives, because they get all the referrals about every bylaw, whether it's in their territorial, well, it is in their territory.

[0:39:28] Voice 5: but as we've just seen with these two First Nations who've given a response they're saying

[0:39:34] Voice 5: this is not our it's not going to affect their title and governing authority and so they defer

[0:39:42] Voice 5: to other First Nations and so this is part of the process of evaluating how we can do this better

[0:39:50] Voice 5: and that's been an outstanding project I think for a year and a half to evaluate our referral

[0:39:56] Voice 5: process and to ask, how can we do it differently? What is, but this is what's required by the

[0:40:04] Voice 5: province to demonstrate that there has been consultation and engagement. But I would like

[0:40:11] Voice 5: to speak to the, so the issue, it's not an issue. So some of your community members have done a lot

[0:40:23] Voice 5: of good work with with St. Niche elders and bringing back the reports to the LTC

[0:40:34] Voice 5: of what's been happening in community and acting as community liaison. So we

[0:40:39] Voice 5: were asked if it would be appropriate if community members would be able to share

[0:40:47] Voice 5: the staff reports and the information about this draft bylaw with

[0:40:53] Voice 5: WSATENich elders who are not necessarily part of the referral administration of WSATENich

[0:41:02] Voice 5: Leadership Council. And so we did actually just spoke with staff this morning and had quite a bit

[0:41:11] Voice 5: of back and forth to get a better understanding of how to address this. And so what it comes down

[0:41:24] Voice 5: to is we're we're in a process of evolving how this happens luckily or fortunately sorry rather

[0:41:34] Voice 5: with satanage leadership council has asked for a protocol agreement with islands trust

[0:41:39] Voice 5: and that as we're moving into that it's probably going to change how we do referrals and how we

[0:41:45] Voice 5: We learn what the nations in Wasatch Leadership Council, how their interests are considered

[0:41:54] Voice 5: and sort of who can speak to the processes and give comments.

[0:42:08] Voice 5: So it isn't a government to nation engagement if community members are conveying information

[0:42:17] Voice 5: to other community members, such as Wasaytnich elders, who do not represent the Wasaytnich

[0:42:24] Voice 5: Leadership Council. And the feedback from those elders and their views absolutely

[0:42:30] Voice 5: will be taken into account and considered as part of the overall public hearing.

[0:42:39] Voice 5: And so I was informed that it is not likely a problem for the legislative process

[0:42:45] Voice 5: If community members who have relationships with elders who are community members, but not representing the government of a nation can convey information to those elders, that is not a problem.

[0:43:03] Voice 5: so we already have direction from executive committee to work with the elders council

[0:43:10] Voice 5: and with satanage leadership council um on an agreement for how to work together that

[0:43:16] Voice 5: protocol agreement it's still in evolution and we're hoping that this summer will provide

[0:43:20] Voice 5: um uh the opportunity to meet and to to work that through but just for everyone's information

[0:43:29] Voice 5: It doesn't appear to be a problem for community members to share what has been shared with the LTC and members of the public with elders who do not necessarily represent the formal leadership referral process.

[0:43:45] Voice 5: So I just want to distinguish between those two pieces. We're not in a position to ask staff to do extra referrals to people who are not recognized through the formal referral process. Does that make sense?

[0:44:03] Voice 5: Kim, I did not say it very well, but if you want to clarify anything, please do.

[0:44:11] Voice 5: Trustee Evans?

[0:44:11] Voice 5: Oh,

[0:44:13] Voice 10: I didn't mean to go into the flow. I'll leave that for staff to answer first, and then I can have my comment. No? Okay. I was just saying, it's great to hear that there's a protocol agreement in the works. That's really good news. So I'm looking forward to hearing more about that and finding out a little bit more. So, yay.

[0:44:40] Voice 5: Trustee Falk?

[0:44:42] Voice 3: Yeah, I'm just wondering in the short term, which of the nations on the provincial list have title and governing authorities that are affected on South Pender? Do we know that? Because for me, if I had that information, that's what I would kind of zoom in on. Those are the ones that I would make more attention to making sure there was a consultation happening.

[0:45:08] Voice 8: Through the chair, I don't have that information. And I'm not sure if the province has that information as well. But no, I don't have it, unfortunately.

[0:45:22] Voice 3: Do we know how to gather that? It seems like it's pretty important.

[0:45:26] Voice 3: It's

[0:45:27] Voice 5: all still typically in negotiation. So because many nations come from families in which their territories overlapped, the agreements, tripartite agreements between federal provincial governments and a nation's government to establish who has sort of primary rights and title,

[0:45:53] Voice 5: or who has interests that might be affected it's that second part that we as a local government

[0:46:01] Voice 5: need to address anyone whose interests might be affected by a proposed bylaw has the right

[0:46:08] Voice 5: to speak to the development of that bylaw and be included in the public process

[0:46:13] Voice 5: But we don't have, as a local government, the nation to government relationship that the province does. And it's the province that will be working with nations to negotiate whose rights and territorial interests are sort of recognized in what order.

[0:46:38] Voice 5: And I think that's all very much what's happening right now. And it might be 10 or 20 years or more as these things settle out. So we have a different relationship and our responsibility to consult and engage is delegated by the province, but we don't have that same nation to government relationship that the province does to work those things out.

[0:47:04] Voice 5: So my understanding is the province lets us know as these things are settled and agreements made clear.

[0:47:12] Voice 5: Trustee Evans?

[0:47:13] Voice 10: Sorry, completely different topic.

[0:47:15] Voice 10: I was just wondering if we'd heard back from staff Dingman yet.

[0:47:22] Voice 8: Through the chair, he is unavailable today, but we can go back and talk about that section if the LTC is ready.

[0:47:29] Voice 8: because I was actually just drafting a draft motion to propose to the LTC.

[0:47:37] Voice 8: If we're ready to go back to that discussion, I can launch into it,

[0:47:40] Voice 8: but I'm going to pause there to see what the chair would like to do.

[0:47:44] Voice 5: Well, do we have any more questions or comments on the referral process to First Nations for now?

[0:47:52] Voice 5: Okay. Let's move back to unlicensed vehicles, or derelict vehicles rather. Thanks, Kim.

[0:47:59] Voice 5: Yeah,

[0:48:01] Voice 8: I'm taking a look at it. And I think it is important that we somehow ensure that a motor vehicle references the plates in some sort of a way. So what we can say that a motor vehicle is unlicensed if it does not display valid and current motor vehicle number plates.

[0:48:27] Voice 8: okay and then or at that interim vehicle license okay so if the LTC would like I can spend just a

[0:48:38] Voice 8: few minutes drafting a motion when a bylaw is amended after first reading the LTC makes

[0:48:46] Voice 8: amendments to that proposed bylaw and then has to give second reading a second reading is always

[0:48:52] Voice 8: always given after amendments are made after it's been given first reading so what we can do

[0:48:59] Voice 8: is I'll start making a list of any amendments the LTC wants to consider and then we can do that

[0:49:05] Voice 8: I think when the LTC is ready with all the amendments if there's any further amendments

[0:49:10] Voice 8: to the bylaw.

[0:49:15] Voice 5: Thank you Kim.

[0:49:24] Voice 3: I have a question if we're going through anything kind of

[0:49:32] Voice 3: um yeah uh we we spent a lot of time on um trying to sort out the issue of uh legally

[0:49:45] Voice 3: non-conforming by going to one table and a lot of work was done by trustee evans do you care to

[0:49:56] Voice 3: uh comment um on how well that is working to to fulfill the the needs that we sort of set out to

[0:50:05] Voice 3: to fulfill the resolving concerns around the legal non-conforming issue for some residents.

[0:50:17] Voice 5: Who are you asking, Trustee Falk?

[0:50:20] Voice 3: Trustee Evans, I'm particularly interested in your satisfaction with where we've landed.

[0:50:31] Voice 10: For myself, I think we've talked about this quite a bit. I've worked closely with staff

[0:50:42] Voice 10: as well in the drafting to make sure

[0:50:45] Voice 10: that we were meeting what we needed to meet.

[0:50:50] Voice 10: And I think the sort of

[0:50:55] Voice 10: the area that we landed based on recommendations

[0:51:00] Voice 10: from the EPC and from what we heard

[0:51:04] Voice 10: from the public, which started with

[0:51:09] Voice 10: we couldn't stay where we were and we couldn't go back to

[0:51:13] Voice 10: where we had been and just working our way through a process to reach somewhere where

[0:51:19] Voice 10: the majority of people could live with where we landed. I would say that

[0:51:32] Voice 10: what I've been hearing back, what we've seen in the written responses, what we've heard at the

[0:51:41] Voice 10: the meetings. I think we're at a stage where people can live with it. Some people aren't

[0:51:49] Voice 10: happy with where it is. They would obviously like more or less, but they can live with where we are.

[0:51:56] Voice 10: And that is where we've been aiming to get to. So I think we've achieved the goal of reaching a place

[0:52:07] Voice 10: where the community can live with with this solution. I don't really know how to answer

[0:52:19] Voice 10: your question.

[0:52:20] Voice 3: You just did. Thanks. That's

[0:52:24] Voice 5: great. That's a good way to phrase it. Can people live

[0:52:28] Voice 5: with it?

[0:52:32] Voice 10: And that is a definition of consensus.

[0:52:35] Voice 5: Oh interesting. Okay so Planner Stockdale just

[0:52:41] Voice 5: for the public's information uh put a draft um resolution in the chat here so we can look at that

[0:52:50] Voice 5: if we want to go back to it do we want further discussion on the table and the way that the

[0:52:59] Voice 5: total floor area limitations or allowances are presented my only issue was with clarity whether

[0:53:10] Voice 5: whether the table provided sufficient clarity to future planners and staff to interpret the bylaw.

[0:53:17] Voice 5: And so my question is actually to Planner Stockdale, whether this creates more ambiguity

[0:53:24] Voice 5: or it's going to allow staff to interpret bylaw in future without having to tear their hair out and do a bunch of complicated math.

[0:53:36] Voice 8: Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yeah, no, I think that it is quite clear.

[0:53:40] Voice 8: and it actually removes the ambiguity and it removes that despite clause which I know

[0:53:45] Voice 8: quite a few community members had concerns so you know I've read this section a number of times

[0:53:50] Voice 8: I've looked at the consolidated bylaw and I think it flows well and there there shouldn't be too

[0:53:56] Voice 8: many interpretation questions and we haven't it's actually been silent from community members so

[0:54:03] Voice 8: So again, silence doesn't mean support,

[0:54:07] Voice 8: but I would hope that if there are community members

[0:54:09] Voice 8: who still have concerns that they would certainly write in,

[0:54:12] Voice 8: but it has been quiet on that front.

[0:54:18] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:54:23] Voice 10: Question?

[0:54:24] Voice 7: Yeah.

[0:54:24] Voice 7: So

[0:54:25] Voice 5: the

[0:54:26] Voice 10: draft motion that you just popped in the chat

[0:54:31] Voice 10: that basically captured exactly what you said,

[0:54:34] Voice 10: that will be read when we get to the next meeting in September

[0:54:38] Voice 10: when we're when we're hoping to do second reading?

[0:54:42] Voice 8: It can be or it could be read now if you like

[0:54:45] Voice 8: the LTC as I stated in the staff report is one of the alternatives or options the LTC has the

[0:54:52] Voice 8: option to amend the bylaw now and then give second reading and then that would allow community

[0:55:00] Voice 8: members to take a look at it I can post that to the website as soon as we can so community members

[0:55:07] Voice 8: can see that amendment integrated into the land use by-law.

[0:55:12] Voice 8: Or if the LTC wants to hold off,

[0:55:15] Voice 8: you have that ability to do that and wait till September.

[0:55:24] Voice 3: Trustee Filk?

[0:55:26] Voice 3: Yeah.

[0:55:27] Voice 3: Are there any implications that we should be aware of

[0:55:31] Voice 3: of having, going through the second reading today?

[0:55:34] Voice 3: Like is there anything gained or lost

[0:55:35] Voice 3: other than what we're talking about?

[0:55:40] Voice 8: Nothing gained or lost.

[0:55:41] Voice 8: Really, it's more of a technical nature. So if you do amend the bylaw and then give second reading, when you go to the meeting in September, if you want to make any amendments to the bylaw that wouldn't affect use or density, you, I'm just trying to think now, you, now this is a question for Robert, it'd be more technical in nature.

[0:56:10] Voice 8: I think we may have to repeal second reading, amend it, and then give it second reading.

[0:56:15] Voice 8: I would have to double check with Robert.

[0:56:17] Voice 8: I'm sorry.

[0:56:18] Voice 8: I thought I knew that.

[0:56:19] Voice 8: And now I'm questioning myself.

[0:56:20] Voice 8: So it's very technical in nature.

[0:56:23] Voice 3: So there may be a reason to hold off.

[0:56:26] Voice 3: That's what I'm hearing.

[0:56:28] Voice 8: Yeah, I know Robert is in the office, so I can quickly send him a message and ask that.

[0:56:34] Voice 8: I should know that, but I'm second guessing myself for a reason.

[0:56:38] Voice 8: So I apologize.

[0:56:40] Voice 5: Thanks for that.

[0:56:40] Voice 5: Good question, Trustee Fulton. Trustee Evans?

[0:56:44] Voice 10: Yeah, I think I would be in favour of holding off until September.

[0:56:48] Voice 10: We have the wording.

[0:56:52] Voice 10: We'll just put it in. And at that point as well, we can hold

[0:56:55] Voice 10: a brief discussion on the reasoning again when we have

[0:57:00] Voice 10: more members of the public available so that it remains a little bit more

[0:57:04] Voice 10: transparent. I would be more comfortable with that.

[0:57:07] Voice 10: so through the chair

[0:57:25] Voice 8: if the LTC agrees with that what I can do is take that wording I'll save it

[0:57:32] Voice 8: and then include it in the staff report for September and then that also allows the community

[0:57:38] Voice 8: members will be able to see that in the staff report of what the LTC is considering for September

[0:57:43] Voice 8: right

[0:57:44] Voice 4: okay

[0:57:46] Voice 5: any other issues going through the draft bylaw or questions from trustees

[0:57:53] Voice 5: not from me I'm good

[0:58:01] Voice 5: excellent okay so in summary we are not going to proceed with second reading

[0:58:12] Voice 5: today but rather give direction to amend section 3.11 on derelict vehicles

[0:58:22] Voice 5: and we're in agreement that the agriculture zone and ALR are congruent

[0:58:29] Voice 5: with the map and trustees have no further questions about the proposed draft bylaw number 129

[0:58:39] Voice 5: or on the referral process. So we do need to give direction to, I would suggest we hold off on the

[0:58:51] Voice 5: direction for making the further amendments until we hear from community members and we'll do that

[0:58:59] Voice 5: at the end of the meeting okay all right so with that i will turn to item one uh one point

[0:59:09] Voice 5: what did i say 4.2

[0:59:11] Voice 5: 1.2 4.2 uh 4.2 uh public comments and we'll open the floor

[0:59:18] Voice 5: to members of the public who wish to address either local trust committee or ask questions

[0:59:23] Voice 5: through the local trust committee to the planner we ask that you keep your questions and comments

[0:59:28] Voice 5: on the issues within the draft bylaw or the process itself and keep your comments respectful

[0:59:39] Voice 5: speaking to issues not people and reminder that this is a workplace for staff and we want to

[0:59:46] Voice 5: maintain a safe and respectful workplace for everyone robert you have come on screen are you

[0:59:54] Voice 5: letting us know that people are to raise their hands if they wish to be recognized.

[1:00:00] Voice 5: and then we'll promote them to speaker that's

[1:00:03] Voice 2: correct chair thank you one person has raised

[1:00:07] Voice 2: their digital hand and the other two people have that ability to raise their digital hand

[1:00:12] Voice 2: and I'm not too sure if they know how to do that so I could always allow them to speak as well if

[1:00:19] Voice 2: you prefer sure

[1:00:21] Voice 5: why don't we give once we've recognized and promoted Paul Petrie to speak

[1:00:27] Voice 5: We can do the same for the other two attendees if they wish to address the local trust committee.

[1:00:33] Voice 2: All right.

[1:00:34] Voice 2: I've allowed Paul Petri to speak as he's the individual that has his digital hand raised.

[1:00:42] Voice 6: Thank you, Robert.

[1:00:44] Voice 6: Hello, Paul.

[1:00:45] Voice 6: Please go ahead.

[1:00:46] Voice 1: Thank you, Chair Elliott.

[1:00:50] Voice 1: And also thank you for providing the link to the May 2nd meeting minutes.

[1:00:57] Voice 1: It's very helpful to have those minutes in advance of a meeting.

[1:01:02] Voice 1: In the minutes, the minutes show that a member of the public stated that the reduced side lot setback and increased house size allowances erode the official community plan goals of maintaining the community's rural character and protecting the natural environment.

[1:01:20] Voice 1: And the minutes note that the existing bylaw protects privacy, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and ensures that growth is gradual and sustainable.

[1:01:32] Voice 1: They note that staff have indicated the existing bylaw does not create any legal non-conforming situations with regard to dwelling maximum floor area or setbacks.

[1:01:44] Voice 1: The final point in that question in the minutes, trustees have not provided clear rationale for increasing house sizes and changing setback allowances.

[1:01:57] Voice 1: My question to the trustees through the chair is specifically how did the proposed Bylaw 129 changes with respect to house size and setbacks better comply with our OCP goals than our current bylaw?

[1:02:17] Voice 1: And I would ask that trustees refer to specific OCP goals, which were otherwise absent from the minutes of the May 2nd meeting. There was little discussion about the rationale for creating Bylaw 129.

[1:02:37] Voice 1: And in particular, there's been a lot of focus on legal non-conforming and staff have made it clear that with respect to these two issues of house size and a side lot setbacks, that there's no legal non-conforming situations that exist.

[1:02:55] Voice 1: So I would appreciate trustees' comments on both the OCP goals and the so-called legal nonconforming. Thank you.

[1:03:12] Voice 5: Thank you for your questions. Do trustees want to take it in turn?

[1:03:20] Voice 5: Maybe we can have a moment to gather our thoughts. Let me just go to the OCP. Trustee Evans, go ahead.

[1:03:29] Voice 10: I can start. And I do believe that this was addressed at that meeting as well.

[1:03:34] Voice 10: With regards to why the house sizes were being increased and why the side lot lines were being

[1:03:42] Voice 10: reverted back to their previous size. This was based on the current policy statement,

[1:03:51] Voice 10: current policy statement, not the South Pender OCP, which states that we have to

[1:03:58] Voice 10: we have to allow for diverse families. We have to account for various lifestyles as well.

[1:04:08] Voice 10: And I'm trying to gather my thoughts as I'm speaking to this again.

[1:04:14] Voice 10: Due to the hardships that were realized through the passing of the bylaw under the previous term,

[1:04:23] Voice 10: At the end of the previous term, with the side setbacks being set, being doubled in size, where there are existing homes and on narrow lots, of which there are quite a few on South Pender, if there was an average of 120 feet wide, and there are some that are narrower right where I am as well, you're knocking 40 feet off due to setbacks, which is leaving you approximately 60 feet to build.

[1:04:53] Voice 10: in and given house sizes and accessibility areas for those that need wheelchair accessible homes

[1:05:04] Voice 10: that have to be on a single level. That really limits where you can place a home without having

[1:05:12] Voice 10: to go and apply for a variance, which in itself would create a hardship, especially when you're

[1:05:19] Voice 10: building on the topography that we have on south pender as well these things were taken under

[1:05:23] Voice 10: consideration seems

[1:05:34] Voice 5: trustee evans you've frozen you froze it these were taken under consideration

[1:05:40] Voice 5: oh trustee evans you

[1:05:42] Voice 5: froze after you said these were taken into consideration oh

[1:05:46] Voice 10: i forgot what i

[1:05:47] Voice 10: said um so these were taken into consideration i can't remember where i said that and what i said

[1:05:55] Voice 10: afterwards um i don't know can you say what else i had said just before that um as i i think i was

[1:06:15] Voice 10: just saying i know that how sizes has been a controversial topic this has undergone an

[1:06:20] Voice 10: extremely long process with this community to reach a place that where people can can live

[1:06:27] Voice 10: with where we have wound up um this was and i think you're asking why this was brought in

[1:06:34] Voice 10: This was brought in because this was a controversial topic during the previous term, and it was under this topic that we were elected. So we knew that this was still a controversial topic, and we gave the community lots of opportunity to pick the topic that they wanted us to deal with, and this was a topic that was raised.

[1:06:55] Voice 10: So this is why we've gone through this process. I don't know if I answered your question, but these are some of the reasons, obviously not all of the reasons, and I would need a little bit more time to go and find the rest of the information. Thank you.

[1:07:12] Voice 5: Thank you. Trustee Falk, do you feel able, wanting to answer, or do you want me to go?

[1:07:18] Voice 3: If you want to go first, that's fine with me.

[1:07:21] Voice 3: yeah um

[1:07:23] Voice 5: so in my limited experience uh although i do have the honor and privilege of sitting on

[1:07:30] Voice 5: five ltcs um one of which is going through an ocp review right now on gabriola in my home community

[1:07:38] Voice 5: um and these policies are they are meant to be interpreted in the context of the day

[1:07:51] Voice 5: and I do see that policies that relate to a community's goals need to have enough

[1:08:02] Voice 5: breadth so that they can be interpreted in a way that is appropriate as circumstances and times

[1:08:11] Voice 5: change and the reason I say this is because a lot of the land use plans in terms of lot sizes

[1:08:19] Voice 5: where lots were laid out, the terrain and topography of each community

[1:08:26] Voice 5: was not done with the latest scientific nor with Indigenous knowledge

[1:08:33] Voice 5: and understanding of harvesting areas.

[1:08:36] Voice 5: And so there's a lot of imperfection in how lots are laid out.

[1:08:42] Voice 5: And so we're working with a very imperfect system.

[1:08:45] Voice 5: And so saying that smaller house sizes would 100% meet the OCP's goals of maintaining the island's rural character, protecting the natural features and biological diversity, ensuring land use development is compatible with the rural island character, all of those goals, that is a matter for the community to interpret in the day.

[1:09:12] Voice 5: And that's why we're having these conversations. I cannot say 100% that 500 square feet, larger or smaller, is going to uphold all of those goals. It's, in essence, very much a compromise, I think, because we are undertaking land use planning in sort of an already set up system.

[1:09:35] Voice 5: And there are some community expectations that, you know, Trustee Evans referred to some of them, but I'll just speak to my own, that are diverse.

[1:09:47] Voice 5: I personally, from my own set of values and who I am as a person and not actually a landowner, I have a value on smaller houses.

[1:09:57] Voice 5: And I think allowing a diversity of homes that are smaller and clustered, as our policy statement is embracing, is a potential for allowing housing for diverse community members.

[1:10:15] Voice 5: That is not going to be the view of everyone.

[1:10:18] Voice 5: And as Trustee Evans said, there are other community members who have different needs with larger houses and intergenerational living.

[1:10:25] Voice 5: And so I can't for sure say that larger or smaller house sizes meet any of the goals of the OCP.

[1:10:36] Voice 5: Personally, I think how each person lives within the context of the land in which they have chosen to build a home is going to be much more important in protecting the natural features and the biological diversity than the house size itself.

[1:11:01] Voice 5: So it's not a very satisfactory answer. But I will also note that the OCP, those goals were set and ratified in 2011. And then, presumably, 2018 was the last land use bylaw to reduce the house sizes.

[1:11:26] Voice 5: and so since that time we've heard that it's causing concern or hardship and so this is

[1:11:35] Voice 5: an attempt to address some of that while still meeting the goals of the community's OCP but as

[1:11:42] Voice 5: I said it's a matter of interpretation and I don't think it's going to be satisfactory to everybody

[1:11:47] Voice 5: everybody that's why we're in this process thank you

[1:11:54] Voice 3: yeah thank you paul for the question i think

[1:11:58] Voice 3: you've asked it before as well and i'm thinking a lot about trying to satisfy you know give a

[1:12:05] Voice 3: satisfactory answer to that um so the way i can do that i think uh best is to give you my backdrop

[1:12:19] Voice 3: backdrop kind of evaluation points that I consider for each proposal that we've been

[1:12:26] Voice 3: discussing. So for environmental impact, I ask, you know, does the proposal further protect the

[1:12:40] Voice 3: environment or does it harm it? You know, that's kind of an evaluation point that I've applied to

[1:12:45] Voice 3: to every discussion around house sizes and setbacks.

[1:12:51] Voice 3: How big is the impact?

[1:12:53] Voice 3: Is it serious or is it negligible compared to things

[1:12:56] Voice 3: we do every day without really thinking about it?

[1:13:00] Voice 3: You know, we have to like talking about interpreting

[1:13:03] Voice 3: the OCP in the day that we live in.

[1:13:06] Voice 3: That's what I kind of getting out there

[1:13:09] Voice 3: using a little different language,

[1:13:10] Voice 3: but we do so many things that are certainly not perfect

[1:13:14] Voice 3: for the environment.

[1:13:16] Voice 3: and yet we do them and many of the things we do are required by law to be done

[1:13:23] Voice 3: and they're still not perfect they're still concerns that individuals certainly can have

[1:13:29] Voice 3: and so but we do that and you know we drive cars we use fuel we you know we heat our houses you

[1:13:35] Voice 3: know there's a number of things we all do and so if I would call something or consider something

[1:13:41] Voice 3: more in the negligible range if it's kind of in a similar category or impact as those things like

[1:13:50] Voice 3: that that we do every day. When it comes to rural character, I think for me, and rural character has

[1:13:59] Voice 3: always been a term that, you know, probably every person is going to have a different

[1:14:05] Voice 3: viewpoint on and I can only go with my own viewpoint on that um and to me I've just got some

[1:14:15] Voice 3: uh ways of describing what's important for me to to achieve uh rural character I mean

[1:14:21] Voice 3: a positive rural character you know uh variety like to me uh uniformity is is not something that

[1:14:31] Voice 3: would consider a rural character like a whole row of houses all identical with the same color

[1:14:37] Voice 3: and the same roof line and the same architecture. So I like to see variety in buildings

[1:14:45] Voice 3: and the way driveways or things are laid out like if everything is completely uniform to me that

[1:14:52] Voice 3: would not be a rural character. A rural environment, a place that has a rural character

[1:15:00] Voice 3: has room for all types of people and there's an appreciation and tolerance for our differences

[1:15:07] Voice 3: and that's kind of a it's a welcoming feature to a to a rural community is people expect others to

[1:15:15] Voice 3: be different perhaps even eccentric and there's an appreciation for that uh another aspect of

[1:15:23] Voice 3: rural character is that no one size fits all there's some people have larger needs some people

[1:15:28] Voice 3: have smaller needs, some people have different situations that require different sizes,

[1:15:34] Voice 3: for instance of a dwelling, and you know we've had so many discussions about the house size

[1:15:43] Voice 3: and one of the things that has come up is the aging in place and multi-generational

[1:15:51] Voice 3: use of a dwelling. And I think about the First Nations that lived, you know, in the territories

[1:16:00] Voice 3: that our Southern Gulf Islands are in. And their traditional housing included longhouses. And there

[1:16:08] Voice 3: were, you know, sometimes seven, eight, nine, even 20 families living in one longhouse.

[1:16:14] Voice 3: They were large, large buildings, and they didn't always have individual buildings or dwellings for each individual family. They solved that, you know, through their culture by co-living or co-op living or what, you know, I don't know what we would call it now.

[1:16:33] Voice 3: And so to me, that would be part of a rural character, to allow for people to make their own choices on what kind of family and living, even if it's friends, co-living together.

[1:16:47] Voice 3: If that's a format that people want to choose, to me, that is something we should not be getting in the way of.

[1:16:55] Voice 3: uh for another thing in a place that has a good rural character people behave decently

[1:17:06] Voice 3: and fairly and are as consistent as possible so there's there's no bigotry there's no name

[1:17:13] Voice 3: calling there's no you know those things are are addressed immediately if they happen

[1:17:17] Voice 3: and strive for decent behavior.

[1:17:24] Voice 3: And my last comment on the rural character

[1:17:27] Voice 3: is it's community-minded.

[1:17:29] Voice 3: It builds goodwill in community,

[1:17:32] Voice 3: in the community and for the visitors.

[1:17:35] Voice 3: Like the goodwill in the community

[1:17:42] Voice 3: is a welcoming feature for visitors

[1:17:45] Voice 3: and it's also a guiding feature for visitors

[1:17:47] Voice 3: Because how we live to people who live on the islands, we're hoping at least will influence and reflect back on the visitors so they maybe learn more about the ways that we treat our island and hope that they also help us treat the island in the same way.

[1:18:05] Voice 3: Okay. Now, with this whole exercise of being a trustee and making changes to bylaws, one of the things that I recognize that we can't get away from is that we have to make compromises.

[1:18:22] Voice 3: We have to embrace the notion of making compromises.

[1:18:27] Voice 3: But to me, the questions with compromises is, can people live with it?

[1:18:35] Voice 3: That's the bar for me.

[1:18:37] Voice 3: You know, if we make, propose a change, and there's a number of people that really can make a case that they can't live with it, you know, that's going to so negatively affect their life on the island that they can't live with it.

[1:18:52] Voice 3: If we're strongly negatively affecting their ability to live with something, I think that that's kind of a line that we have to really address and try to avoid crossing that line.

[1:19:05] Voice 3: and the same goes for or not being able to live with it. And another thing that I consider is

[1:19:16] Voice 3: norms. I think we've looked at how we live and what the situation is on South Bender and I think

[1:19:26] Voice 3: we also look at and consider other islands similar sized in the Gulf Islands and even other places

[1:19:36] Voice 3: to see how they are solving some of the problems or issues that challenges that we have and with

[1:19:43] Voice 3: some of the things we see we may want to learn from it and maybe even use it as models to move

[1:19:49] Voice 3: in a similar direction for ourselves and with some things we may want to stand out and be the leader

[1:19:55] Voice 3: in a different way or hold fast to an old way that hasn't been changed and say no we don't

[1:20:01] Voice 3: want to change that so I you know all of these things are the things that I consider and of

[1:20:07] Voice 3: Of course, the biggest challenge of all is,

[1:20:10] Voice 3: we have to address all the needs in the community,

[1:20:14] Voice 3: all the comments, all the viewpoints,

[1:20:15] Voice 3: all the good arguments and concerns.

[1:20:20] Voice 3: We have to consider all of it in a balanced way,

[1:20:23] Voice 3: and we have to balance all those different things.

[1:20:27] Voice 3: And all the impacts on the,

[1:20:30] Voice 3: you know, what I call the evaluation points

[1:20:32] Voice 3: that I just went through,

[1:20:34] Voice 3: we have to balance all of these.

[1:20:36] Voice 3: and that's going of course have to lead to some kind of compromise and and it also means that

[1:20:44] Voice 3: we can't just take our personal preference and say hey here it goes right now when chair elliott

[1:20:52] Voice 3: spoke saying that she you know isn't a landowner and her personal personal preferences for small

[1:20:59] Voice 3: house dwellings i live in a house that's uh 1200 square feet with no plans to make any addition

[1:21:07] Voice 3: and i think for my personal choice that is the best way to go i'm i'm happy that we were able

[1:21:14] Voice 3: to find a place that wasn't large larger than what we have i prefer frugal kind of living

[1:21:21] Voice 3: i prefer a low footprint and that's the choice that i make in my life and but i also believe

[1:21:32] Voice 3: that just because I choose that I should not make choices for other people that may have

[1:21:38] Voice 3: different ways of looking at things and maybe different needs so that's why I don't take my

[1:21:46] Voice 3: personal preference on this I put that aside and say I've listened to everyone and really put

[1:21:56] Voice 3: put myself as much as possible in the situation to understand what the various viewpoints that

[1:22:04] Voice 3: we've heard what what they mean and really tried to understand it so uh i know that's a lot without

[1:22:13] Voice 3: specifics in terms of what we've what we're talking about in terms of house size and setbacks

[1:22:19] Voice 3: impacts. So some of the issues that we've wrestled with is obviously the house size.

[1:22:29] Voice 3: So some, I'm going to just use like the, there's a range of comments. And so if that's a spectrum

[1:22:37] Voice 3: of comments, on one end of the spectrum, we've been told that houses are too big. And on

[1:22:45] Voice 3: on the other end of the spectrum you know we we've been told we need to have bigger houses than

[1:22:53] Voice 3: than the current bylaw and so somewhere in that range is is where we're talking about right

[1:22:59] Voice 3: and some people think that we should be able to build house sizes how whatever size they want

[1:23:05] Voice 3: kind of thing so those are the kind of considerations or or the wishes that we've

[1:23:11] Voice 3: heard in the community and everything in between and most comments have actually been right in

[1:23:15] Voice 3: in between, they haven't been on either extreme.

[1:23:22] Voice 3: So to me, when it comes to house size,

[1:23:28] Voice 3: the first consideration of the environmental impact,

[1:23:31] Voice 3: which I think is probably the most relevant one

[1:23:34] Voice 3: when it comes to house size,

[1:23:37] Voice 3: I have not been convinced through anything that I've heard,

[1:23:42] Voice 3: all the sharing of viewpoints

[1:23:46] Voice 3: on why a smaller house is better for the environment

[1:23:52] Voice 3: than a bigger house,

[1:23:53] Voice 3: I have not been convinced that that's material

[1:23:56] Voice 3: or more than negligible.

[1:24:01] Voice 3: And it's the configuration of the use

[1:24:05] Voice 3: and the layout of the house

[1:24:07] Voice 3: and the use of the land around the house.

[1:24:10] Voice 3: Those are the impacts that I consider

[1:24:12] Voice 3: having large environmental impact.

[1:24:15] Voice 3: impact I I think a little more concrete or a little more building materials is not a serious

[1:24:25] Voice 3: issue the issue isn't that it's how is the house used and if more people live in it for instance

[1:24:34] Voice 3: then the more the extra materials are offset because building another house or build buying

[1:24:44] Voice 3: another property building another house for another family if say two families could share a

[1:24:48] Voice 3: house if it was bigger the net use of building materials is going to be less in the second

[1:24:56] Voice 3: scenario and so to me is how are things put together what's the configuration of the whole

[1:25:04] Voice 3: setup those are the things that would have the possibility of impacting environments i don't

[1:25:12] Voice 3: think i have not been convinced for why simply smaller bigger one is big one is has a bad impact

[1:25:20] Voice 3: and one has a lesser bad impact or a good impact that logic has never been convincing to me so

[1:25:32] Voice 3: that's just the way i see it and i can't help it i'm sorry to those that haven't been able to

[1:25:39] Voice 3: convince me that I wasn't convinced, but that's just where it stands. With setbacks, I think

[1:25:48] Voice 3: we have addressed it. We have listened, and with the setback to the sea, we've agreed

[1:25:55] Voice 3: to leave the increase. We've supported that in the PASS by-law. And some of the issues

[1:26:04] Voice 3: around the side setbacks. It's more around privacy, I see, and I'm not sure if the privacy

[1:26:15] Voice 3: issue fits into rural character. To me, it's not super obvious. It seems a bit of a different issue,

[1:26:22] Voice 3: but anyway. And then, last thing, I know I'm long-winded here, but that's what this meeting

[1:26:31] Voice 3: is for. Legal non-conforming, I feel like we've found a very good solution to address it so that

[1:26:42] Voice 3: no situation is going to be legally non-conforming because of the way, thanks to Christina,

[1:26:52] Voice 3: we got the tables merged and put together the way they were put together, which I thought was

[1:26:59] Voice 3: a brilliant solution beyond my capacity so I'm absolutely thankful for that. I'm happy to answer

[1:27:08] Voice 3: more questions from you Paul if there's anything I've said that triggered anything any further

[1:27:15] Voice 3: follow-up that you want from me so but that's that's it for now thank you.

[1:27:24] Voice 5: Thank you to both

[1:27:25] Voice 5: trustees and to Paul for the very thoughtful questions. Do you have any follow-ups?

[1:27:31] Voice 5: Are

[1:27:33] Voice 1: you asking me if I have any follow-ups?

[1:27:35] Voice 5: Yes, please go ahead.

[1:27:37] Voice 1: Thank you.

[1:27:39] Voice 1: First, thank you for your comments and observations.

[1:27:43] Voice 1: What I'm particularly interested in is having the minutes of this meeting reflect your rationale in response to my question,

[1:27:52] Voice 1: so that others who are not able to attend the meeting

[1:27:58] Voice 1: can appreciate your views and your rationale

[1:28:02] Voice 1: so they can make their own decision on these issues.

[1:28:05] Voice 1: The other thing that I think was really helpful

[1:28:08] Voice 1: in one of the recordings of a previous meeting

[1:28:15] Voice 1: is that you actually had the text below the statement

[1:28:19] Voice 1: so that people could actually read and watch.

[1:28:23] Voice 1: And I think it's important to encourage people

[1:28:27] Voice 1: to fully understand your rationale

[1:28:30] Voice 1: for making the changes that you're proposing.

[1:28:33] Voice 1: So those are by way of follow-up.

[1:28:36] Voice 1: I just want the record to be as clear as possible

[1:28:41] Voice 1: on the issues of your response to the specific OCP goals

[1:28:46] Voice 1: and also on the issue of legal non-conforming situations that right now under the current

[1:28:56] Voice 1: bylaw do not exist for house size and setbacks and why you chose to go through a process to

[1:29:06] Voice 1: address legal non-conforming concerns that don't exist so thank you so

[1:29:15] Voice 5: i'll just note for our

[1:29:16] Voice 5: minute taker if um if you could provide a summary of each each of our responses in the minutes for

[1:29:24] Voice 5: this meeting that would be appreciated yes thanks

[1:29:34] Voice 10: um i just wanted to um if if we're going to go

[1:29:40] Voice 10: on record and with clarity of our uh positions or the reasons that we gave um i just wanted to

[1:29:47] Voice 10: add quickly in with regard to the legal non-conforming. I understand that obviously

[1:29:56] Voice 10: there are a lot of community members that felt that there was no issue. However,

[1:30:00] Voice 10: There were a lot of community members that felt there was an issue, which is why we've

[1:30:04] Voice 10: gone through the process to address their concerns and to come up with a solution.

[1:30:09] Voice 10: The second piece with the setbacks as well, I had somebody, I can't remember who said

[1:30:16] Voice 10: this, but it just, it did resonate with me.

[1:30:20] Voice 10: It's easier to grow privacy than it is to move a house.

[1:30:24] Voice 10: So if there are privacy concerns with regards to the setback, it's easier to grow privacy

[1:30:35] Voice 10: than it is to move an existing house i just thought that was an interesting thing to say

[1:30:39] Voice 10: and i will leave it there and i think with regards to the house size the increase was to address

[1:30:47] Voice 10: concerns raised by community members who could not live with the changes that were made at the

[1:30:52] Voice 10: end of the previous term and this is to address their concerns with regards to diversity of living

[1:30:58] Voice 10: and i think that's that should capture most of my general thoughts and

[1:31:06] Voice 5: and just a i guess a final

[1:31:08] Voice 5: note if from from my point of view um is this in my view we've had so much public comment on this

[1:31:19] Voice 5: and multiple conversations with the apc that this is not should not be considered a trustee driven

[1:31:28] Voice 5: bylaw this was a process to reach a balanced and considered to achieve a

[1:31:38] Voice 5: balanced and considered review of a draft bylaw that in the view of many

[1:31:43] Voice 5: community members was a challenge so I have found it difficult to reopen a

[1:31:53] Voice 5: process that had left many members of the South Pender community in not not feeling heard and not

[1:32:08] Voice 5: feeling that their views were considered and so I do think that that's primarily why we engaged in

[1:32:15] Voice 5: this was to ensure that the process of amending the draft land use bylaw for South Pender was open

[1:32:24] Voice 5: inclusive and that people had the opportunity to express their views and I

[1:32:31] Voice 5: think that's what we have achieved whether it reaches the goals of the

[1:32:35] Voice 5: community's OCP is a matter for the community to interpret and that's what

[1:32:40] Voice 5: we're going to hear in the public hearing there will be voices against and

[1:32:45] Voice 5: voices for it and we'll consider all of those before making a final decision and

[1:32:52] Voice 5: And even then, Executive Committee can turn this back if it's not supported by the policy statement, or in the view of Executive Committee, it does not meet the goals of the Islands Trust.

[1:33:08] Voice 5: trust. And again, the minister can even turn it back, as the minister has done before, if there's

[1:33:15] Voice 5: not sufficient engagement or demonstration that we follow the process to amend the land use bylaw

[1:33:25] Voice 5: in a way that respects the diversity of voices. So we're doing our best. But I hope those answers

[1:33:33] Voice 5: satisfy your questions. Mr. Petrie, do you have any follow-ups

[1:33:38] Voice 5: or any other questions for us?

[1:33:44] Voice 1: The issue that Trustee Evans raised about

[1:33:48] Voice 1: sections of the trust policy statement

[1:33:52] Voice 1: that she relies on for the changes she makes, it would be helpful

[1:33:56] Voice 1: to have those references added to the minutes if that's

[1:34:00] Voice 1: possible. Thank you.

[1:34:09] Voice 5: Okay. So I'll turn to our

[1:34:13] Voice 5: our attendees. If there's no further questions from Mr. Petrie, Susan Taylor, do you wish to

[1:34:20] Voice 5: address the local trust committee or ask any questions, make any comments? I don't see or

[1:34:34] Voice 5: hear anything from you. It's muted.

[1:34:38] Voice 5: No, thank you. Okay. Excellent. Thank you so much for being here

[1:34:43] Voice 5: today. So seeing no other members of the public in our virtual meeting, I'll turn or I'll close

[1:34:55] Voice 5: this section of our agenda, public comments, and we'll return to make any resolutions

[1:35:04] Voice 5: to direct staff on amending the Draft By-law 129. Kim? Thank

[1:35:10] Voice 8: you. Thank you, Chair. So

[1:35:12] Voice 8: So in terms of reporting back on that one section for unlicensed vehicles, no resolution is needed.

[1:35:20] Voice 8: I think it was noted in the minutes that staff will report back to amend section 0.11 of the land use bylaw.

[1:35:28] Voice 8: So I'm happy to do that.

[1:35:30] Voice 8: Unless the LTC really wants to motion forward, you can, but not necessary.

[1:35:40] Voice 5: What would trustees like to do?

[1:35:44] Voice 3: It's fine.

[1:35:45] Voice 3: We don't need to have a motion.

[1:35:47] Voice 10: Okay.

[1:35:48] Voice 10: Yeah, I don't want to make the motion today.

[1:35:50] Voice 10: I'd rather make the motion in the September meeting.

[1:35:53] Voice 10: I thought we had already agreed on that.

[1:35:56] Voice 5: But to direct staff to amend the bylaw to make the motion.

[1:36:01] Voice 10: She said she doesn't need a motion, so we don't need to make a motion.

[1:36:04] Voice 8: Okay.

[1:36:05] Voice 8: Yeah, I don't need a motion to report back with that draft wording is what I meant to say or trying to say.

[1:36:10] Voice 8: Yeah.

[1:36:11] Voice 5: Great.

[1:36:12] Voice 5: great uh so now heading into next steps um the bottom of page five here we are going to continue

[1:36:20] Voice 5: to receive referral responses for the bylaw and kim or staff will be posting the notice for the

[1:36:28] Voice 5: community information meeting and the public hearing which will be in person i believe at the

[1:36:34] Voice 5: the, remind me, the St. Paul's Anglican Church?

[1:36:37] Voice 5: Yes.

[1:36:38] Voice 5: Right, on September 5th, 2025.

[1:36:44] Voice 5: I will follow up with Paul and Monica

[1:36:48] Voice 5: about the providing extra information,

[1:36:53] Voice 5: or sorry, the draft bylaw language and reports

[1:36:55] Voice 5: to those St. Niche elders in an email.

[1:36:59] Voice 5: And I think if there's no further business,

[1:37:03] Voice 5: does that conclude our meeting?

[1:37:08] Voice 5: Kim's looking wide-eyed.

[1:37:12] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:37:13] Voice 5: And if there's nothing further, I'll call for adjournment.

[1:37:16] Voice 5: All those in favor?

[1:37:18] Voice 5: Does your hander say aye?

[1:37:20] Voice 5: I think it's frozen.

[1:37:21] Voice 5: Christina, you froze in the funniest position.

[1:37:25] Voice 10: I think it's frozen.

[1:37:28] Voice 10: I think

[1:37:28] Voice 10: it's back now.

[1:37:29] Voice 10: Everybody's frozen.

[1:37:29] Voice 4: Okay.

[1:37:32] Voice 4: Typical, right?

[1:37:33] Voice 4: Okay.

[1:37:33] Voice 4: We're learning a lot.

[1:37:34] Voice 4: Connectivity, definitely a challenge on South Bender as everybody's frozen.

[1:37:40] Voice 4: We'll adjourn this meeting.

[1:37:41] Voice 4: Thank you, staff.

[1:37:42] Voice 4: Thank you.

South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
July 4, 2025 ADOPTED Page 1 of 5 
 
South Pender Island Local Trust Committee 
Minutes of Special Meeting 
 
Date:  
Location:  
July 4, 2025 
Electronic Meeting 
 
Members Present: Tobi Elliott, Chair 
 Dag Falck, Local Trustee 
 Kristina Evans, Local Trustee 
  
Staff Present: Kim Stockdill, Island Planner 
 Katherine Vogt, Recorder 
Robert Barlow, Meeting Administrator 
  
Others Present: There were three (3) members of the public present 
  
 
1. CALL TO ORDER 
Chair Elliott called the meeting to order at 10:37 a.m.  
2. TERRITORIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
Chair Elliott acknowledged that the meeting was being held on the territory of the Coast 
Salish First Nations. She stated that Trustee Falck was delayed due to connectivity issues at 
the Firehall. She apologised that, by error of omission, it had been left off the agenda that 
this special electronic meeting was also a Community Information Meeting. 
Chair Elliott acknowledged that Trustees had made the effort to have a physical location 
available for members of the public at the Firehall due to connectivity issues around South 
Pender; but advised that hybrid meetings are not typically conducted in the Trust area 
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 
The following additions to the agenda were presented for consideration: 
• Add Item 4.2 Public Comment 
 
By general consent the agenda was approved as amended. 
The meeting was recessed at 10:41 a.m. and reconvened at 10:53 a.m. 
Trustee Falck joined the meeting at 10:53 a.m. 
  
ADOPTED 

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
July 4, 2025 ADOPTED Page 2 of 5 
4. BUSINESS ITEMS 
4.1 Minor Land Use Bylaw Amendments Project Updates – Staff Report 
Island Planner Stockdill reviewed the staff report on Draft Bylaw No. 129 South 
Pender Minor Land Use Bylaw Amendments Project, noting the following: 
• In response to Trustee query, Geographic Information System (GIS) staff have 
determined that all Agriculture-zoned properties are located within the 
Agriculture Land Reserve (ALR) 
• License plate decals are no longer required on derelict vehicles, and Bylaw 
Enforcement Manager Warren Dingman has expressed no concerns with 
removing section (a) in its entirety from Section 3.11 Derelict Vehicles (1) 
• The upcoming Community Information Meeting and Public Hearing on Draft 
Bylaw No.129 is scheduled for September 5, 2025, at the North Pender Anglican 
Hall 
• The two First Nations referral responses that have been received defer to other 
Nations that are directly affected 
 
Trustees asked or noted the following: 
• Regarding Section 3.11 Derelict Vehicles (1)(a) “Valid motor vehicle number 
plates,” should be retained for clarity that plates show licensing 
o A Trustee raised a concern that vehicles with valid license plates would 
be deemed derelict by the revised wording of the bylaw should bullet a) 
be removed in its entirety 
o A Trustee noted that an uninsured vehicle can retain its plates until the 
next time it is insured, and you can sell a vehicle and keep the plates, so 
plates do not prove anything 
o A Trustee noted that a member of the public had commented that 
allowing the storage of only one unlicensed motor vehicle is restrictive 
for people who switch insurance between vehicles 
o More public feedback on this issue would be welcome 
• How many First Nations have received referrals for Draft Bylaw No. 129? 
o The Planner responded that staff had sent fourteen First Nations 
referrals 
o Staff receive up-to-date consultation lists from the province 
o Public Hearing notices are also sent out to First Nations 
o The Planner added that Trust Area Services is actively working on 
improving referral relations with First Nations through protocol 
agreements 
o The Chair noted that the referral response process is problematic for 
First Nations because they get all the referrals for all the Bylaws 
regardless of their governing authority 
o There has been a request from First Nations Elders to receive 
information informally from Islands Trust community members, outside 
of the formal Leadership Council process, which the Islands Trust 
Executive Committee has deemed not to be a problem 
• Which First Nation(s) has governing authority on South Pender Island? 

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
July 4, 2025 ADOPTED Page 3 of 5 
o The Chair responded that governing authority is still being negotiated 
between the Province, the Federal Government, and First Nations due to 
families and territories overlapping 
o Local governments do not have the nation to government relationship 
that the province has; but the province has delegated to local 
governments the responsibility to engage First Nations in the referral 
process 
• Have legally non-conforming issues been adequately resolved by the table of 
maximum lot coverage of all buildings/maximum floor area of a dwelling? 
o A Trustee responded that, based on public feedback, it seemed that 
most people could live with where the table landed, though some 
people think it could be improved 
o The Planner responded that the table provides improved clarity 
 
The wording for a draft motion was considered by Trustees and deferred for staff 
consideration and inclusion in the next staff report for the upcoming September 5, 
2025 LTC meeting. The discussed wording was that South Pender Island Local Trust 
Committee amend proposed Bylaw No. 129 by amending Section 2.12 by deleting 
the wording and replacing it with: “Section 3.11-Derelict Vehicles, by deleting Article 
3.11 (1) (a), and replacing it with: ‘(a) Current and valid motor vehicle number plates, 
or”. 
 
4.2 Public Comment 
Members of the public had the following questions or comments: 
• A speaker stated that the Official Community Plan (OCP) goals are to maintain 
rural character and protect the natural environment and the existing Bylaw did 
not create any legal nonconforming issues, so the speakers asked if Trustees 
can provide clear rationale at this meeting for their support of larger house sizes 
and reduced setbacks, so this rationale can be included in the minutes? 
o Trustee Evans responded that the current Island Trust Policy statement 
supports allowing for diverse families and various lifestyles 
o Side setbacks being doubled on narrow lots was restrictive for 
wheelchair accessible homes that need be on a single level, for 
example, while having to apply for a variance may create a 
hardship and topography may be problematic 
o House size restrictions were a controversial issue from the 
previous term that the public wanted resolved 
o Chair Elliott responded that policies need to have sufficient breadth to 
accommodate changing circumstances 
o Chair Elliott acknowledged that lot layouts have been done 
imperfectly, without the latest scientific or indigenous 
knowledge and understanding 
o Smaller house sizes may not support diverse needs or 
intergenerational living 
o How people choose to live on a property will have more impact 
on the natural environment than their house size 

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
July 4, 2025 ADOPTED Page 4 of 5 
o Trustee Falck responded that he evaluates issues by attempting to 
determine to what extent they protect or harm the environment and if 
their impact is serious or negligible 
o He regards positive rural character as including variety in 
buildings and design, room for all types of people and tolerance 
and appreciation of differences, that no one size fits all, that 
aging in place and multigenerational or friend co-use of 
dwellings, such as indigenous use of longhouses for example, is 
worthwhile; and that people behave decently, fairly, and 
consistently with community mindedness that builds goodwill to 
locals and visitors so that visitors learn more about how to better 
treat the environment 
o He expressed that Trustees need to make compromises that 
people can live with and avoid crossing a line into situations that 
people cannot live with 
o Trustees need to address all the needs, concerns, and 
arguments within the local community in a balanced way to 
come up with a compromise 
o Trustees need to put their personal preferences aside to 
understand other’s preferences 
o The argument that larger house sizes have an environmental 
impact that is more than negligible has not been convincing 
o The layout and use of the house and the use of the land around 
the house has a greater environmental impact; and it is not 
apparent that privacy issues around setbacks is a rural character 
concern 
o It is well resolved now that no situation will be legal non-
conforming under the new Bylaw  
o The Chair requested of the minute taker that a summary of all LTC 
responses to the member of the public’s question be included in the 
minutes 
o Trustee Evans added that many community members rationalized that 
there was no legal non-conforming issue with the original Bylaw while 
other members felt that there was an issue, which is why Trustees 
attempted to address concerns with a reasonable solution 
o Regarding setbacks, a member of the community had resonantly stated 
that it is easier to grow privacy than to move an existing house 
o Chair Elliott added that the draft Bylaw should not be considered Trustee 
driven; rather, it was a balanced and reasonable Trustee review of a 
challenging previous Bylaw and process that had left many community 
members feeling unheard 
• A member of the public supported the use of adding text to the videos of LTC 
meetings to enhance clarity 
• A speaker commented that it would be helpful if those sections of the Islands 
Trust Policy Statement referenced by Trustee Evans in her comments could be 
included in the minutes 
 

 
South Pender Local Trust Committee 
Special Business Meeting 
July 4, 2025 ADOPTED Page 5 of 5 
The Chair considered next steps and offered to follow up on providing draft Bylaw 
reports by email to First Nations Elders. 
 
5. ADJOURNMENT 
By general consent the meeting was adjourned at 12:12 p.m. 
 
 
_________________________ 
Tobi Elliott, Chair 
 
Certified Correct: 
 
_________________________ 
Katherine Vogt, Recorder