Islands Trust Council regular meeting, September 4, 2025

[0:00:05] Voice 4: Okay. Well, good morning. Good morning, trustees. Are you ready to go?

[0:00:10] Voice 4: I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the Gabriel O'Rourke Trust Committee.

[0:00:17] Voice 4: We always begin with acknowledging how fortunate we are to be meeting here

[0:00:20] Voice 4: and live in the territories of the Sonoma First Nations.

[0:00:27] Voice 4: This summer, or in the August long weekend, I joined the

[0:00:32] Voice 4: the Pernillicate March for Children Week, and

[0:00:35] Voice 15: after the march there were many presentations

[0:00:41] Voice 15: including the updated data on the grave sites on the island, and many of the speakers spoke

[0:00:53] Voice 15: about really how important the truth part is. We can't do reconciliation without truth,

[0:00:59] Voice 15: without hearing impacts

[0:01:01] Voice 16: of what was done to

[0:01:09] Voice 4: Indigenous people.

[0:01:12] Voice 4: And I even look at the Islands Trust.

[0:01:14] Voice 4: When we started, there was still that Cooper residential school

[0:01:18] Voice 4: was still operating when the Islands Trust was created.

[0:01:22] Voice 4: And so it's so important for us to understand what

[0:01:29] Voice 15: all of this means

[0:01:32] Voice 15: so that we can move on together and do the good work

[0:01:36] Voice 15: that needs to be done to steward the settlement.

[0:01:46] Voice 4: I'd like to make some introductions.

[0:01:48] Voice 4: I'm Laura Patrick, I'm elected on Salt Spring

[0:01:50] Voice 4: and chair of this local trust committee.

[0:01:52] Voice 4: With me is Trustee Dobie Elliott and

[0:01:55] Voice 4: Trustee Susan Yates

[0:01:56] Voice 4: and

[0:01:56] Voice 15: together we make up the local trust committee.

[0:01:59] Voice 15: The staff with us today...

[0:02:01] Voice 4: i'm sorry i'm talking to me uh i'm the new bda okay shall we yes well nice that you're joining

[0:02:13] Voice 4: us today and i'm so sorry i always put names down but i

[0:02:16] Voice 15: was not paying attention we have steven

[0:02:18] Voice 15: and i know that we have ian cox will be joining us uh online and we have lisa millard that's

[0:02:24] Voice 4: meticulously taking the minutes and helping us with this meeting so thank you for being here

[0:02:29] Voice 4: today so this meeting is an official forum for your local trust committee to make decisions

[0:02:34] Voice 4: decisions about land use planning matters and discuss relevant business this is also a place

[0:02:38] Voice 4: of employment our

[0:02:40] Voice 15: staff have the right to a safe and respectful workplace um so trustees we have

[0:02:46] Voice 15: an agenda before us are there any additions or changes to the agenda not for me

[0:02:52] Voice 3: all right can

[0:02:54] Voice 15: we approve the agenda through general consent thank you very much um we've always begin our

[0:03:00] Voice 15: meetings

[0:03:00] Voice 4: with trustee reports oh hi welcome come in find a seat

[0:03:08] Voice 13: morning good morning somebody

[0:03:10] Voice 13: missed the memo

[0:03:11] Voice 15: all right uh we're gonna go ahead which one would like

[0:03:16] Voice 4: to go first

[0:03:16] Voice 4: when you arm wrestle that one i'll go first because it's really short

[0:03:20] Voice 4: i didn't do anything like you you took a break in the last meeting in this one

[0:03:26] Voice 4: on behalf of the local trust committee or even trust council or the trust generally except for

[0:03:33] Voice 4: tangentially um i am looking very much forward to a meeting on september 21st at the invitation of

[0:03:42] Voice 4: mayor andrew leonard's office on bowen island for very dependent communities and i will be attending

[0:03:53] Voice 4: not specifically as a trustee, but I'll be attending as part of our local ferry advocacy community.

[0:04:02] Voice 4: So I am looking forward to that.

[0:04:04] Voice 4: And one other thing that is tangential to the Islands Trust and the local trust community area,

[0:04:12] Voice 4: because it does relate to our official community plan when we look at things like transit routes,

[0:04:18] Voice 4: we are about to get our electric bus which arrived in surrey last week and will be arriving on

[0:04:27] Voice 4: this week and funded this is funded from the world transit solutions fund which gave us a

[0:04:34] Voice 4: grant for not just the two electric buses one's coming down one will be coming soon right they

[0:04:41] Voice 4: were supposed to arrive in april but here they are um and also gave us money for the infrastructure

[0:04:47] Voice 4: to charge the buses and to put in solar panels

[0:04:52] Voice 4: and other necessary infrastructure.

[0:04:55] Voice 4: And the bus, the depot, the stable, is at the old fire hall,

[0:04:59] Voice 4: fire hall number one on North Road.

[0:05:01] Voice 4: So it's pretty central.

[0:05:04] Voice 4: And what else can I say about that?

[0:05:07] Voice 4: Except it's been a long time coming.

[0:05:10] Voice 4: And the community does, we also have to raise money locally

[0:05:13] Voice 4: because like with many grants, we have to have some matching funds.

[0:05:18] Voice 4: And we're doing that. And we have had huge support from our management director, Vanessa Craig.

[0:05:25] Voice 4: So I was kind of hoping she'd be here today just to say thank you, which of course we have done.

[0:05:31] Voice 4: Lots of support from our director. Getting very excited about that electric bus.

[0:05:39] Voice 4: That's great. Well, right now we just sold one, we just sold Pegasus because we can't keep three.

[0:05:47] Voice 4: we need we need to keep two as one one's coming and we need to have two running all the time and

[0:05:54] Voice 4: we always need one as a spare also for charters so we're keeping two of the diesel buses and

[0:06:00] Voice 4: getting a new electric and then when we get the second electric bus we will then sell

[0:06:05] Voice 4: another um diesel bus and we've had requests or inquiries from the plamus nation

[0:06:12] Voice 4: I was on Cortez earlier in August and met with the community economic development person there, Kate Madigan, and we talked about buses and ferries and investment cooperatives, which we have one on Gabriel.

[0:06:32] Voice 4: your luck how to start your local investment so there we go not directly related to the trust but

[0:06:40] Voice 4: certainly tangential to our work

[0:06:43] Voice 3: yeah thank you

[0:06:46] Voice 4: shortest report ever by trust

[0:06:49] Voice 4: thank you for that i continue to meet um as a member of culturally committed

[0:07:02] Voice 4: I've been a member for three years, I guess, in September, and there's just been immense

[0:07:08] Voice 4: value in being able to sit with Coast Salish mentors, many from Staminas, Hualt, Cowattson,

[0:07:18] Voice 4: First Nations, and each month it's a community call, so we share, we have introductions,

[0:07:27] Voice 4: and then there's typically one or two questions waiting for them to answer.

[0:07:33] Voice 4: So for example, it's really simple, a question like how, you know, we often talk about opening

[0:07:40] Voice 4: meetings in a good way or doing things in a good way.

[0:07:43] Voice 4: What does that mean?

[0:07:44] Voice 4: What are the implications?

[0:07:45] Voice 4: And it led to a 45 minute discussion that was so rich with cultural understandings and

[0:07:54] Voice 4: and an Indigenous worldview of how to,

[0:07:57] Voice 4: like what you bring to a meeting

[0:07:58] Voice 4: and when you're introducing yourself.

[0:08:01] Voice 4: And it was just an example of what a simple query,

[0:08:05] Voice 4: because we're so sort of stuck in our Western ways

[0:08:10] Voice 4: of doing things, like even in the construction

[0:08:12] Voice 4: of this agenda and trustee reports and such,

[0:08:15] Voice 4: starting the meeting in a good way would have meant

[0:08:18] Voice 4: we had provided personal introductions,

[0:08:20] Voice 4: you know, what territory you're from,

[0:08:22] Voice 4: where your family is, you have good intentions, you come in peace, but you also set up protocols

[0:08:30] Voice 4: to have a good meeting. And so yeah, I'm really finding such value in that and looking forward

[0:08:38] Voice 4: to the cultural safety training that the Islands Trust has directed, will provide. We just discussed

[0:08:47] Voice 4: the executive committee yesterday there'll be 10 trustees invited and 10 staff to participate in

[0:08:53] Voice 4: cultural safety training before the end of term with the focus on trustees who are running for

[0:08:58] Voice 4: re-election but um just to set that baseline of what is cultural safety at the audience trust

[0:09:07] Voice 4: and what's it look and feel like um oh you probably have updates on the policy statement

[0:09:14] Voice 4: um financial planning committee you know if we can share how much it's there's a it's going to

[0:09:24] Voice 4: be a big wrestle with wrestling match with the budget this year um most of it i think a lot of

[0:09:30] Voice 4: it is legal defense is a big election year and it's an election year that's right um so there

[0:09:38] Voice 4: are some very big cases that um we have to defend and there's no choice there's no choice about

[0:09:44] Voice 4: that so um right there at that meeting but it's no but that's interesting because i actually have

[0:09:51] Voice 4: had someone say to me well your bylaws are and i've seen this written too your bylaws are only

[0:09:56] Voice 4: as good as your so

[0:09:58] Voice 5: sadly

[0:10:04] Voice 4: creation of bylaws and holding um regional planning committee will meet not next monday

[0:10:13] Voice 4: I think the sixth and it's just a special meeting to consider business

[0:10:18] Voice 4: cases that would advance for the 2026-2027 budget. Regional Planning Committee is

[0:10:27] Voice 4: going to look at this joint project with Trust Programs Committee for a very

[0:10:37] Voice 4: large project that is about the indicators of health and we will need to

[0:10:42] Voice 4: certainly hire a consultant it's it's related to mapping and ecosystem

[0:10:48] Voice 4: protection and community health as well so what are the indicators metrics

[0:10:54] Voice 4: through which the Islands Trust can gauge you know how are we doing we set

[0:11:00] Voice 4: out these policies with your bylaws or waste programs but so it's tracking all of that and

[0:11:08] Voice 4: making it transparent to the public so that's a very ambitious project it's coming out of the

[0:11:13] Voice 4: current strategic plan direction um but also we're going to be considering a resolution to support

[0:11:21] Voice 4: the unstressed conservancy resolution which was mirrored by executive committee and financial

[0:11:27] Voice 4: planning committee to prioritize resources for both us and the geography because it's really key in

[0:11:38] Voice 4: everything. So the freshwater mapping, groundwater mapping that we're doing on all the islands,

[0:11:43] Voice 4: the Atlas that's being created, for the public to access GIS maps,

[0:11:50] Voice 4: maps um properties um mapping is just critical in everything um but we need to keep investing

[0:12:01] Voice 4: in it and that is just if you don't have the mapping and the information there you can't

[0:12:07] Voice 4: really make good land use planning decisions um finally I did participate in one one meeting over

[0:12:13] Voice 4: the last month it was a very quiet month for me as well uh it was a heritage conservation act

[0:12:21] Voice 4: stakeholder information a webinar for just local government officials

[0:12:27] Voice 4: and lots of packages of information on the heritage conservation act transformation project

[0:12:33] Voice 4: and proposed legislative amendments which really the act or the act is what 30 years old

[0:12:43] Voice 4: and it has been done with deep consultation with first nations so they are not considered

[0:12:54] Voice 4: I don't think it goes far enough in terms of heritage protection but it's a the proposed

[0:13:00] Voice 4: changes are a vast improvement um and that's not going to go out for public opinion I think

[0:13:05] Voice 4: until they finish this round of stakeholder engagement and Islands Trust we did bring

[0:13:12] Voice 4: an executive committee that will come to trust council um well how how can we engage in that so

[0:13:19] Voice 4: So if you can provide an update of what that's going to look like at Trust Council, it's a very important piece.

[0:13:26] Voice 3: That's

[0:13:26] Voice 4: it for me. It's been a very quiet one.

[0:13:30] Voice 4: Well, that's wonderful.

[0:13:31] Voice 15: Well, I'm going to give my report. I'm going to focus mine on Downs Trust Policy Statement.

[0:13:37] Voice 15: It was given first reading back at the end of July.

[0:13:40] Voice 15: line. You should have received a little mail out, hopefully, to your homes and has a lot of

[0:13:46] Voice 15: information in there as to this

[0:13:49] Voice 4: next engagement phase that we're going to be entering, because

[0:13:51] Voice 4: we do want to hear from you now. This is really the phase we're in. Doors are open,

[0:13:57] Voice 15: ears are open.

[0:13:58] Voice 15: There's also a survey. There's a survey form that you can fill out for those of you who haven't

[0:14:03] Voice 15: done it yet. The policies are in sections, and there's one comment at the end. You can kind of

[0:14:10] Voice 15: go up and down through the screen as you're filling it out so that as

[0:14:15] Voice 4: you're looking at it

[0:14:16] Voice 4: so don't be frustrated

[0:14:17] Voice 15: that there's only one comment for each section but it lets you linger

[0:14:21] Voice 15: on that page you go up and down and you can type away if you wish to in that comment section

[0:14:25] Voice 15: as you're as you're looking at it so encourage you to do the surveys participate

[0:14:30] Voice 4: on october 9th

[0:14:32] Voice 4: after this or during this local trust committee meeting i think is the uh open meeting on the

[0:14:38] Voice 4: first policy statement for them september 10. september 10th no yeah

[0:14:41] Voice 15: oh september 10th is the

[0:14:43] Voice 15: webinar yeah but i think your local event is on october sorry so yes thank you uh september 10th

[0:14:49] Voice 15: is an evening webinar um that you are welcome to join there's a q a session there and some

[0:14:55] Voice 15: information and stuff on the uh what the policy statement is and then uh here locally there'll

[0:15:01] Voice 15: be an opportunity for you to participate

[0:15:02] Voice 4: as well to be heard and shows up here i think it's a it's

[0:15:08] Voice 4: session within our... Yep, within your

[0:15:10] Voice 4: meeting or any other meeting or tagged on

[0:15:11] Voice 4: the meeting somehow on the 9th.

[0:15:14] Voice 4: People have to pre-register for the

[0:15:16] Voice 4: town hall. For the town hall webinar

[0:15:18] Voice 15: is, yep,

[0:15:20] Voice 15: it's on our website, the

[0:15:21] Voice 15: Islands 2050.

[0:15:23] Voice 15: Should be some information here as well

[0:15:26] Voice 15: on that. And

[0:15:27] Voice 15: we

[0:15:29] Voice 4: do

[0:15:30] Voice 4: have Trust Council coming up here

[0:15:33] Voice 4: beginning on

[0:15:34] Voice 4: the 16th here

[0:15:36] Voice 4: of the haven we'll be here for three days forward to to spending some time here on the island

[0:15:44] Voice 4: and you're always welcome to come at the the

[0:15:48] Voice 15: time i forgot to pay attention to that but that would

[0:15:50] Voice 15: be on the 16th probably later in the day on the 4 p.m yeah um

[0:15:54] Voice 15: so if you're if you do want to come

[0:15:56] Voice 15: and talk to the trust council um about federation issues this is not the place to talk about

[0:16:03] Voice 15: about Gabriela only, but how things or thoughts you have

[0:16:07] Voice 15: about the Federation that

[0:16:08] Voice 4: we do with you all, please come.

[0:16:11] Voice 4: And you can also come and listen to our meetings.

[0:16:13] Voice 4: Really have nothing else better to do for three days.

[0:16:16] Voice 4: Special speaker on Wednesday, the 17th.

[0:16:20] Voice 4: Can you announce that?

[0:16:21] Voice 4: Yeah, so you can, you go ahead.

[0:16:24] Voice 15: You know the

[0:16:24] Voice 4: most on that one, so you can.

[0:16:26] Voice 4: Well, speaking of come and observe the meetings,

[0:16:29] Voice 4: we do, we have the honor and privilege

[0:16:31] Voice 4: privilege of having Colossalton Doug White III, a former Sinead chief who served, I believe,

[0:16:40] Voice 4: two terms and was on council. He's currently the special counsel to the premier on reconciliation.

[0:16:46] Voice 4: And really, if anybody in the province who knows more about constitutional law, Indigenous

[0:16:52] Voice 4: law, Section 35 rights, DRIPA, and he wants to share his knowledge and views about all

[0:16:59] Voice 4: of that as well as um really a vision for um what might governments be like in the trust area and

[0:17:08] Voice 4: and how can local governments uphold the responsibilities under drippa and i think

[0:17:13] Voice 4: it's going to be there'll be some elements of like a challenge to trust council um as well as that

[0:17:19] Voice 4: sort of vision like what's what what can we do that isn't you know locked into this municipal

[0:17:25] Voice 4: construct of what's legislatively possible but if we were to envision real reconciliation enacted

[0:17:31] Voice 4: on the ground especially in land use planning um that's quite a um yeah and how do we get there

[0:17:39] Voice 4: so um so we invited him and he's agreed so wednesday the 17th i believe the address will

[0:17:46] Voice 4: be at 5 p.m

[0:17:47] Voice 4: so and the entire council meeting of course is open to the public right from the

[0:17:52] Voice 4: very beginning and until we do any in-campus sessions all three days are all going to be so

[0:17:58] Voice 4: alive and sometimes the public likes to attend when we do around the table reports yeah to see

[0:18:04] Voice 4: what's happening on all the different ones that's kind of interesting that'll be at the end of the

[0:18:09] Voice 4: meeting on very they get that yeah thanks thanks no that's right no that's uh that's really my

[0:18:16] Voice 4: Am I going to be the focus of my report as we move forward and look forward to spending some time here?

[0:18:23] Voice 4: Okay, we don't have Vanessa, right?

[0:18:26] Voice 4: And we don't have a report from her, so we're going to keep on moving.

[0:18:29] Voice 4: I'm sure she has important things she's doing.

[0:18:32] Voice 4: First Nations reports is that, again, we always get here and we don't have anything.

[0:18:38] Voice 4: We're all in the space.

[0:18:39] Voice 4: Yes, we are.

[0:18:40] Voice 4: As we might.

[0:18:42] Voice 4: So this is our opportunity to hear from the public.

[0:18:47] Voice 15: We want to hear your questions and comments this time, we are discussing two applications later in the agenda. If you're the applicant, you have your own time to speak to us during that time,

[0:18:59] Voice 15: but if you are here to talk about an application, this is your time to do it, as long as you're not an applicant.

[0:19:05] Voice 4: um your comments and questions help us make good decisions and uh please direct your comments to

[0:19:14] Voice 4: the elected trustees not the audience or staff and speak about issues

[0:19:20] Voice 4: they're concise and respectful as i know you will be so uh is there anyone who wishes to

[0:19:27] Voice 4: address us today so i'm gonna go in the i'm gonna start in the back

[0:19:38] Voice 14: So I'm Nancy, and I just wanted to ask a couple of things about actually Kent Mullen's application.

[0:19:47] Voice 14: I didn't write down the page that it's on in the agenda, just so you can find it there.

[0:19:53] Voice 14: It would be helpful if you can get yourself to that. These are two word suggestions about the

[0:20:02] Voice 14: wording and so it might be helpful if you can see what I'm talking about so this is to do with the

[0:20:09] Voice 14: proposed amendment to the OCP um to delete section k that's there and insert a new section k um

[0:20:23] Voice 14: so my first comment is and I'm speaking now as a public reader of of what would be there

[0:20:31] Voice 14: this passes it seems to me it would be simpler to not delete the whole thing

[0:20:38] Voice 14: and put the new one in because the only change as far as RTC is adding a few

[0:20:44] Voice 14: words at the end of what is there now so after the word because it currently it

[0:20:54] Voice 14: ends with multiple dwelling affordable housing and what is proposed to be

[0:20:59] Voice 14: changed is simply adding at the end and to dwellings etc etc so when I especially considering

[0:21:08] Voice 14: the this the amendment which you're planning to have a public information meeting about in a

[0:21:13] Voice 14: public hearing when I see a whole section being proposed to be deleted and something new it makes

[0:21:21] Voice 14: me think there's a lot of changes when in fact there's just one quite straightforward change so

[0:21:29] Voice 14: So I'd encourage you to think about not saying delete and replace, but just say add at the

[0:21:37] Voice 14: end.

[0:21:38] Voice 14: Use this further item.

[0:21:41] Voice 14: That's my first one.

[0:21:43] Voice 14: My second one is quite a, is a grammar question.

[0:21:48] Voice 14: And when I was just going to 50s, well, we learned about prepositions and things like

[0:21:53] Voice 14: that.

[0:21:53] Voice 14: So I'm going to speak to that here.

[0:21:56] Voice 14: here. So the way I read the added words, regardless of how

[0:22:02] Voice 14: you say, I read the added words as in the list of things that is

[0:22:10] Voice 14: after the words affordable housing for there's a list,

[0:22:14] Voice 14: residents, seniors, etc, etc. And so to my mind, the way it's

[0:22:19] Voice 14: worded now, the two dwellings are included in the list after

[0:22:26] Voice 14: that preposition for that relates to the phrase affordable housing therefore

[0:22:33] Voice 14: and the death and affordable housing is in capital letters that means there's a definition

[0:22:39] Voice 14: the definition in the ocp says that a housing agreement is needed so i think that it's

[0:22:49] Voice 14: internally inconsistent by the grammar and my suggestion is either you after the word

[0:23:04] Voice 14: in your new wording after the word housing comma put and for two dwellings with no restriction

[0:23:13] Voice 14: like a new phrase.

[0:23:17] Voice 14: Or else you make the two dwellings, et cetera,

[0:23:22] Voice 14: as section L, like make it totally separate,

[0:23:27] Voice 14: and just batting in section L. This plan only

[0:23:35] Voice 14: supports the realization of residential density

[0:23:37] Voice 14: for two dwellings, et cetera.

[0:23:40] Voice 14: Anyway, one or the other option.

[0:23:42] Voice 14: But the way I read it now, in my understanding and grammar, it doesn't make sense.

[0:23:52] Voice 3: So

[0:23:53] Voice 14: I wanted to offer those two thoughts.

[0:23:56] Voice 14: Thank you.

[0:23:57] Voice 14: Thanks.

[0:23:58] Voice 14: All right.

[0:24:00] Voice 13: I just have a comment as regards to the motorhome that's been parked on the side of the road

[0:24:08] Voice 13: by the village for near a year now.

[0:24:13] Voice 13: It'll be a year in November, and I just wonder if that is what we really want as far as people living in unauthorized places, I believe.

[0:24:30] Voice 13: I just

[0:24:31] Voice 11: don't

[0:24:32] Voice 13: see anything happening there, and I hate to think that it will turn into what we have seen in other places where all of a sudden there's 30 of them.

[0:24:44] Voice 13: and then it's like difficult to make it go away.

[0:24:48] Voice 13: I understand everybody needs a place to live.

[0:24:54] Voice 13: He has a place to live if he's in his van or motorhome,

[0:24:58] Voice 3: but

[0:24:58] Voice 13: I don't think it's in the right spot.

[0:25:00] Voice 13: And I don't know if the Island's Press

[0:25:02] Voice 13: can do something about that.

[0:25:03] Voice 13: It seems like it's going around in circles

[0:25:06] Voice 13: and nobody's in charge of that area

[0:25:10] Voice 13: from just from the outside looking in.

[0:25:15] Voice 4: I can respond with a bit of information.

[0:25:21] Voice 4: with concerns about there was two trailers there outside the village or modern homes I asked the

[0:25:30] Voice 4: people who were contacting me to contact bylaw or I asked them if they reported a concern to

[0:25:36] Voice 4: enforcement they said they hadn't so I know that one person did I think probably multiple people

[0:25:44] Voice 4: have by law enforcement investigated very soon after and that second motor home is removed as

[0:25:52] Voice 4: a result so the way to go about it is to report the concern to by law enforcement um i'm sure

[0:25:59] Voice 4: there's an open file on that and for some reason which i don't know we haven't had a report um

[0:26:06] Voice 4: there might be an issue of why that second one hasn't been removed yet um but i do know it has

[0:26:14] Voice 4: has been reported I don't know what the current status is so um yeah I don't think there's any

[0:26:21] Voice 4: issue over jurisdiction um you know he regulates roadways but let's is it in the roadway it

[0:26:31] Voice 15: could

[0:26:32] Voice 15: be in the right away at the road so I

[0:26:35] Voice 11: know Salt Spring we've had challenges with in in town and

[0:26:39] Voice 4: in places and it was Bodie that had managed it by putting up no parking signs at all until there's

[0:26:47] Voice 4: no parking sign anymore but they did put them up. I wondered how they did the snow plowing this

[0:26:53] Voice 4: winter because that band was there when the clouds came and how do they get around? We

[0:27:00] Voice 4: can follow up

[0:27:01] Voice 4: on our end and yeah always encourage so if you make a um it's on our website

[0:27:08] Voice 4: yeah and just because there is the standing resolution not to enforce against unpermitted

[0:27:14] Voice 4: dwellings it doesn't mean that enforcement doesn't happen uh on dwellings where it's not

[0:27:20] Voice 4: appropriate or there's safety issues or it's i think this one could be seen as you know an

[0:27:26] Voice 4: obstruction or it's in the roadway um i think the issue of jurisdiction is our bylaw enforcement

[0:27:32] Voice 4: can talk to moti and whoever's got the lead would well it's typically us typically island strength

[0:27:40] Voice 4: does um you know the communication and reporting and bring that back to the ltc but i can say

[0:27:46] Voice 4: there's been no direction to not enforce on that particular situation um so i encourage you to

[0:27:53] Voice 4: yeah just share your concerns with file enforcement there's one on the website

[0:27:58] Voice 4: um and any information you have just gets added to the file and they can continue to investigate

[0:28:06] Voice 4: yeah thank you all

[0:28:09] Voice 3: right

[0:28:10] Voice 4: with

[0:28:11] Voice 15: uh no further public comments

[0:28:13] Voice 15: we're gonna move on so thank you very much for your comments they are important and i

[0:28:19] Voice 15: really appreciate you coming today um

[0:28:21] Voice 4: so we're into section 6 6.1 these are minutes from our

[0:28:25] Voice 4: july 31st meeting here for adoption trustees are there any additions or corrections in these minutes

[0:28:33] Voice 4: yeah there's actually this one correction on page five uh first nations reports that

[0:28:39] Voice 4: uh the name of first nation had received 700 acres not seven oh sorry 700 hectares

[0:28:47] Voice 4: rather than 7,000 acres of land and

[0:28:55] Voice 5: see oh

[0:28:59] Voice 4: I guess um I had one suggestion but maybe

[0:29:06] Voice 4: we don't have time to check the actual record to see if it was stated but on the next page

[0:29:11] Voice 4: page seven the second paragraph related to the complaints of trucking and dumping of soil

[0:29:18] Voice 4: have been received the activities not contravention the bylaws there's no

[0:29:23] Voice 4: soil deposit bylaw in place this time but I thought that we did say the

[0:29:27] Voice 4: investigation is continuing the activity is being monitored I don't know if it's

[0:29:35] Voice 4: relevant because it seems to give the impression that there is no

[0:29:39] Voice 4: contravention but the activity itself is being monitored and the invest like

[0:29:47] Voice 4: there's still an open file that's being investigated so it's not not to give the

[0:29:52] Voice 4: impression that that file is closed and that there's just no contravention yeah is that yeah

[0:30:00] Voice 4: know because i think that's i know we didn't say it was over um because i do recall that because

[0:30:05] Voice 4: i also stopped the conversation right um so

[0:30:10] Voice 11: i don't know how you'd like to tell that do you

[0:30:13] Voice 11: suggest lisa if you'd like an amendment to the minute just just yeah i think you can just say

[0:30:18] Voice 15: that i'll just add that okay

[0:30:20] Voice 11: so

[0:30:21] Voice 15: i moved the gear oh do you need to move it or at this point no

[0:30:25] Voice 15: No, just say what it is exactly you want.

[0:30:27] Voice 15: I

[0:30:27] Voice 4: request that it be added not in contravention of bylaw at this time.

[0:30:34] Voice 4: Sorry, at the end of at this time, just add that that investigation by bylaw enforcement is continuing.

[0:30:41] Voice 4: Still ongoing.

[0:30:41] Voice 4: Is ongoing

[0:30:42] Voice 4: and the activity is being monitored.

[0:30:51] Voice 3: Any other changes?

[0:30:53] Voice 4: Just a question.

[0:30:54] Voice 4: So, Trustee Elliott, are you wanting to still leave the thing in there where it says not in contravention of bylaw?

[0:31:02] Voice 4: Because it is in contravention of the land use as far as this small rural residential being used for industrial dumping purposes.

[0:31:15] Voice 4: It does appear to be in contravention of the land

[0:31:20] Voice 4: use bylaw, but it's being invested.

[0:31:22] Voice 4: Well, the challenge that I keep hearing back from staff is there are different elements of the land use bylaw that appear to contradict one another.

[0:31:30] Voice 4: other so it's the moving and trucking of soils on gabriel is not a contravention but the yeah so

[0:31:38] Voice 4: there's aspects that may be in contravention of one aspect but it contradicts the other that's

[0:31:47] Voice 4: i think as long as i think as long as you say the investigation is still ongoing

[0:31:50] Voice 15: i think this is

[0:31:51] Voice 15: at least covers that because it is a bylaw enforcement activity so it doesn't really

[0:31:56] Voice 15: matter what we say it's what bylaw enforcement says right so um i think by just adding what you

[0:32:04] Voice 15: added is probably gonna do okay okay

[0:32:07] Voice 3: um

[0:32:08] Voice 15: all right any other changes to the minutes so can we approve

[0:32:13] Voice 15: through general consent the minutes as amended yes excellent thank you okay so that moves us

[0:32:22] Voice 15: on to the follow-up action list on page 15 of the agenda are there any items staff wish to

[0:32:31] Voice 15: bring to our attention from this list

[0:32:33] Voice 16: no no not this time do

[0:32:39] Voice 4: you have any questions go ahead

[0:32:41] Voice 4: question um the ocp review project are we still looking at a meeting on september 14th

[0:32:48] Voice 4: 4 p.m that's item three is the discussion plan okay excellent any other questions

[0:32:58] Voice 12: the times are one to three p.m in the haven on september 14th

[0:33:03] Voice 12: yep oh

[0:33:04] Voice 4: yeah i noticed we had planner chadley online but there is no section to discuss the

[0:33:13] Voice 4: um this other than right here because we don't have a report on the housing

[0:33:18] Voice 4: project well she happens to be on the

[0:33:21] Voice 15: screen so we can ask her to uh um planner jadwick do you

[0:33:27] Voice 15: have some updates on that for us

[0:33:28] Voice 2: um updates on the uh on the

[0:33:32] Voice 2: engagement yeah um yeah yeah so

[0:33:35] Voice 2: we are working to get um materials related to that engagement up on the website um um by the

[0:33:42] Voice 2: the end of the week hopefully um so that that uh community members can access um some background

[0:33:50] Voice 2: information um the event is focusing on um the idea of of reimagining growth it uh it's which

[0:34:01] Voice 2: is a emerged as sort of a key a key focus of discussions in a lot of our focus groups and

[0:34:09] Voice 2: And in a lot of the feedback that we've gotten from the public, we're really looking at the idea of how to balance the housing interests with preserving and protecting the environment, essentially.

[0:34:25] Voice 2: So it'll be an opportunity for community members to sort of dig in and have some conversation about some of their interests and concerns around that.

[0:34:34] Voice 2: We're designing it in a way where there will be an initial presentation that will sort of provide the lay of the land.

[0:34:41] Voice 2: Again, that information will also be available on the website prior to the meeting.

[0:34:47] Voice 2: So by Monday, I'm expecting we're trying to get it up by tomorrow, but we'll see how that goes.

[0:34:56] Voice 2: And it is it's a two hour.

[0:34:58] Voice 2: We're designing in such a way that people can sort of come and go.

[0:35:01] Voice 2: So there will be a presentation right at the beginning that will lay it out, but there will be opportunity to have a small group discussions on specific topics related to subdivision, rezoning, and the criteria used for those things,

[0:35:23] Voice 2: things as well as secondary suites and the options that are kind of out for discussion

[0:35:30] Voice 2: currently around all three of those so that's kind of a summation of of what to expect

[0:35:38] Voice 2: I'm open to any questions you might have any

[0:35:42] Voice 4: questions for the planner

[0:35:45] Voice 4: just in regard to communication about this workshop so reminding the community that we'd

[0:35:54] Voice 4: asked for this at the end it was intended to do it in summertime fall being a better time when

[0:36:01] Voice 4: everybody's sort of around um i did put an article in the sounder that came out yesterday sort of

[0:36:08] Voice 4: with the key elements most of it was written by staff for the anticipation of presentation

[0:36:15] Voice 4: um so hopefully that gives everyone enough of a heads up but if staff could

[0:36:21] Voice 4: create a social media event that I could then invite people to that would be

[0:36:28] Voice 4: helpful or I can create it that's fine just because not everybody reads the

[0:36:33] Voice 4: sounder and or attend their meetings apparently but this is a really

[0:36:40] Voice 4: important topic I think community there is so much interest in understanding you

[0:36:49] Voice 4: know if we're going to if the community values are to support more housing where is that going

[0:36:55] Voice 4: to be put and then what areas should be protected um and not subject to development so it's really

[0:37:02] Voice 4: that that question of where do we put the remaining densities if or if we're going to

[0:37:07] Voice 4: increase density where we go and what types and forms of housing so it's addressing all those

[0:37:13] Voice 4: those questions and again with the values-based decisions that have come from the OCP anyway sorry

[0:37:19] Voice 4: I didn't mean to go on about it but if we could have some more social media shareable like a

[0:37:25] Voice 4: little poster that would be shareable that would be helpful because the last time we had an in-person

[0:37:30] Voice 4: meeting at the Haven it was well attended it just it wasn't the broadest spectrum of the

[0:37:38] Voice 4: community so we need to use all means available to make sure everybody knows and can attend.

[0:37:46] Voice 4: All

[0:37:46] Voice 2: right any questions? I can just add

[0:37:49] Voice 2: we do have a little poster notice created so we can

[0:37:56] Voice 2: we can send that you're like we can send that to both you and Susan so you can send it out on your

[0:38:02] Voice 2: personal email Facebook I'm not quite sure about I'll talk to Morgana about I'm not sure that we've

[0:38:08] Voice 2: done a social media event uh thing but i'll i can i can talk to morgana about that i

[0:38:14] Voice 4: mean i can do it

[0:38:15] Voice 4: as long as there's a poster and the information yeah okay i can do it too i'm not on facebook

[0:38:21] Voice 4: but i do have many many boobs you're the ultimate networker

[0:38:25] Voice 4: not facebook if we had something that wasn't facebook that'd be right there you go we're

[0:38:32] Voice 4: We're going to cover both ends, Sarah, up to the social media spectrum.

[0:38:37] Voice 4: All right.

[0:38:38] Voice 4: Anything else?

[0:38:40] Voice 4: I think we're up to date on that.

[0:38:41] Voice 4: Any other questions?

[0:38:43] Voice 4: I guess I could ask if you – can we have an update on engagement with Mene Makhir's nation on the OCP review?

[0:38:53] Voice 4: Where are things at with their input?

[0:39:00] Voice 2: Yeah, I think Stephen's in the room.

[0:39:02] Voice 2: he um he he had a meeting uh our most recent meeting with uh with sinemuk and we're moving

[0:39:09] Voice 2: um it's very good relationship that we've developed with uh key staff um and we're working

[0:39:15] Voice 2: together essentially to develop a process together um that will help to facilitate like some very

[0:39:22] Voice 2: rich um input into the ocp process they're they're being brought along sort of in lockstep with our

[0:39:30] Voice 2: our process so they understand everything that we're exploring and um and they are um you know

[0:39:38] Voice 2: we've gathered uh uh we're developing a clear understanding of their interests from a staff

[0:39:44] Voice 2: perspective um they are um um looking to get um sort of sign off from their uh their elected

[0:39:56] Voice 2: council on their key interests so that those can then be shared publicly. But yeah, it's been quite

[0:40:06] Voice 2: a very engaged and I would say, yeah, proactive experience so far. Stephen might want to add a

[0:40:19] Voice 2: little bit more. He's in the room. He was just with, he had a meeting with them just last week

[0:40:24] Voice 2: and i was unable to attend well

[0:40:29] Voice 12: yeah sure i can add yeah i mean we've been meeting with with

[0:40:32] Voice 12: staff regularly throughout the process so they've received a lot of the same community

[0:40:37] Voice 12: uh engagement materials and they're aware of the topics that are being discussed um it's part of

[0:40:43] Voice 12: this ocp review um and and yeah that is one of the next phases as far as you understand is that

[0:40:49] Voice 12: but is having some more official sign-off on what their interests are,

[0:40:56] Voice 12: then we can report out on that and look to incorporate those

[0:40:59] Voice 12: or how they might be incorporated into the OCP.

[0:41:03] Voice 16: Good.

[0:41:06] Voice 16: I

[0:41:06] Voice 4: have one final question related to that, sort of related.

[0:41:14] Voice 4: So item two, just above this one on the OCP review.

[0:41:19] Voice 4: review. So this was tied to the development permit area, GBDP 2021-1. We asked staff to

[0:41:28] Voice 4: engage with the name of rights and title department on whether there was interest to explore heritage

[0:41:32] Voice 4: revitalization agreement tools. But since that application file was closed, is this

[0:41:42] Voice 4: this action captured in our current discussions as a potential tool? I think information was

[0:41:51] Voice 4: shared with them about it. Five planners have been asked, is what I've heard. But I'm just

[0:41:58] Voice 4: noting it says zero and don't know if that action is still, I mean, it's kind of relevant because

[0:42:04] Voice 4: it is a tool that could be useful but is it is it dead because that application is um closed um

[0:42:18] Voice 12: well i can follow up with with planet jupiter on the progress of this um i just didn't know

[0:42:25] Voice 12: i'm noticing on the on the few items it says and report back they'll see for consideration

[0:42:30] Voice 12: of DP decision that decision has been made so that may be why it's not back on your agenda again but

[0:42:38] Voice 12: yeah we can report back and through the fuel and then the future meeting on the status it

[0:42:45] Voice 4: really

[0:42:48] Voice 4: doesn't have to be a separate item because it's sort of captured in the consideration of rezoning

[0:42:53] Voice 4: areas currently zoned for densities. So number four, the heritage areas, like the protection

[0:43:03] Voice 4: tools for heritage areas. And I'm sort of, that should not, I just don't want that tool to be

[0:43:09] Voice 4: lost.

[0:43:10] Voice 2: Yes. So if I may, we are consistently in conversation with them about development of a

[0:43:17] Voice 2: heritage conservation area um and we've shared that information and um it is sort of a key

[0:43:26] Voice 2: kind of focus of of conversation um so i think the intent of that previous action is not not being

[0:43:35] Voice 2: lost thank

[0:43:36] Voice 4: you any other questions in the follow-up questions yes but i i just want to comment i'm

[0:43:43] Voice 4: I'm really glad that you have a good working relationship with this new staff.

[0:43:49] Voice 4: It's just really encouraging.

[0:43:50] Voice 3: Thank

[0:43:51] Voice 4: you for that.

[0:43:53] Voice 4: I had a question about, on page 18, about halfway down, the advocacy initiative to invite Director Craig to sign a joint letter from our chair to NAV Canada and the NIMO Airport Authority.

[0:44:10] Voice 4: any concerns about changes to flight paths directly over the gabriola and the increased

[0:44:15] Voice 4: noise how's that going so

[0:44:19] Voice 12: i believe this is um and i you know i have to look back but so this

[0:44:25] Voice 12: is an advocacy that is not related to land use and it's something that needs to go to executive

[0:44:30] Voice 12: committee and so that is where i don't know that it's gone to executive committee at this point

[0:44:35] Voice 12: But that is a step in this process.

[0:44:40] Voice 4: And so I did have a talk with Director Freider yesterday, who raised this, these two advocacy letters.

[0:44:51] Voice 4: And really, she stated that there is really not capacity right now for trust area services to do LTC advocacy letters,

[0:45:03] Voice 4: we think the policy statement that's happening and everything else which is maxed out um and really

[0:45:08] Voice 4: the for ltcs to write advocacy letters she said that that it really is very narrow it has to be

[0:45:16] Voice 4: related to land use planning so i don't think that either of these two are going to be actioned

[0:45:23] Voice 4: anytime soon by trust area services i would wonder if trustees could individually write a letter

[0:45:33] Voice 4: with as an elected official absolutely this is this is our concern

[0:45:39] Voice 4: so we can't go to the ltc it's unlikely to get addressed anytime soon as an individual trustee

[0:45:46] Voice 4: you may use the letterhead you just have to open up the letter with i am writing on my my own yeah

[0:45:54] Voice 4: representing me not the local trust committee so as long as you clarify that there's nothing

[0:45:59] Voice 4: is stopping you from advocating for any issues yeah so as an individual i mean trustee if we

[0:46:07] Voice 4: want to take action do you want to write a letter on the first one i could write a letter on the

[0:46:11] Voice 4: second one so

[0:46:13] Voice 4: sure and so what about um director craig

[0:46:17] Voice 5: like

[0:46:19] Voice 4: should we be asking her to i i do know

[0:46:24] Voice 15: uh i know because we've been on our island trying to do some joint letterheads work with the

[0:46:30] Voice 15: regional district and that is challenging because you do you do need a resolution then from the

[0:46:35] Voice 15: local trust meeting to do that and then we're back to the advocacy issues and the staff problem so

[0:46:39] Voice 15: as an

[0:46:40] Voice 15: individual trustee you can write a letter you can copy vanessa on it but um having to

[0:46:48] Voice 15: she'd run into

[0:46:49] Voice 4: issues to signing but just you as an individual so yeah and it's interesting

[0:46:52] Voice 4: because we it was a joint letter from Gabriel LTC but inviting only director Craig not the board

[0:47:01] Voice 4: right so um I think if we wrote a letter and then asked that director Craig could just copy her

[0:47:10] Voice 4: could just sign it well it could be from yeah you can you can sort that out but yeah at least copy

[0:47:16] Voice 4: But I think just the interest of efficiency and getting it done would be faster if we did that.

[0:47:22] Voice 4: Yep.

[0:47:24] Voice 4: Okay, good. I'll take that first one on.

[0:47:26] Voice 4: I can do the second.

[0:47:28] Voice 4: Any other questions?

[0:47:30] Voice 4: Go ahead.

[0:47:31] Voice 12: Under the chair then, do you still...

[0:47:36] Voice 12: Should we remove those?

[0:47:37] Voice 12: Yeah, do you want to remove these two items from the pool or do you want them to still happen at some point?

[0:47:44] Voice 4: It's very low-like.

[0:47:46] Voice 4: yeah it is well it'll

[0:47:48] Voice 15: be in the minutes

[0:47:49] Voice 4: it'll be recorded in the minutes that we're removing

[0:47:51] Voice 4: them from the follow

[0:47:53] Voice 15: -up you have we have to have a motion to remove them yeah so you had a motion

[0:47:57] Voice 11: to put them in so if we want to remove those we should have a motion to remove those two items

[0:48:02] Voice 11: i

[0:48:03] Voice 4: move that the gabriel island local class committee requests doc to remove items

[0:48:09] Voice 4: items five and six from the August 28 follow-up action report actually maybe better to state

[0:48:19] Voice 4: the actions like the two advocacy letters of the date no I think you can have the two numbers as

[0:48:25] Voice 4: long as you refer to the date of the meeting but the numbers are there's five and six previous

[0:48:29] Voice 4: pages oh no but it's the date of the July 31st meeting sorry so that's how

[0:48:35] Voice 4: it works yeah okay

[0:48:36] Okay.

[0:48:36] Voice 4: Sorry, I said the August 28th. That was a good date. So from the July 31st, 2025, local trust committee meeting.

[0:48:49] Voice 4: So does that make sense?

[0:48:51] Voice 4: And indicate that individual trustees will write letters.

[0:48:55] Voice 4: So, and then full stop, and then individual local trustees will write appropriate letters of support on

[0:49:07] Voice 5: these two issues.

[0:49:14] Voice 12: Yeah, if they're just removed, that's okay, and then up to the individual trustees to

[0:49:18] Voice 12: decide.

[0:49:19] Voice 4: But there should be something in the minutes to at least say what's happening.

[0:49:24] Voice 4: Right.

[0:49:25] Voice 4: Is there a second to that motion?

[0:49:27] Voice 4: Seconded by Trustee Elliott.

[0:49:30] Voice 4: Is there any discussion?

[0:49:33] Voice 4: I'll call the vote with all those in favor.

[0:49:35] Voice 4: And that carries two less items on the follow-up action list.

[0:49:39] Voice 4: Wait, I got one more question.

[0:49:40] Voice 4: This would be for Planner Vow. The last one on page 19. That arose from a person at our

[0:49:52] Voice 4: LTC meeting asking us if we could do anything at all about the harvesting that appears to

[0:50:01] Voice 4: be over-harvesting on Frick Beach. And so we are trying to follow up with that on seeking

[0:50:09] Voice 4: information from DFO about the shockless survey results that they were supposed to be did in August.

[0:50:17] Voice 4: So how are you doing with that one about?

[0:50:20] Voice 12: So yeah, I have gone through the chair. I have placed a call or point to DFO.

[0:50:27] Voice 12: I've only just started this item and I have not yet reached out to this enabling division.

[0:50:38] Voice 12: Yeah, so that's really where we're at, I have not received any information back yet and

[0:50:45] Voice 12: will report out when I do.

[0:50:48] Voice 12: I don't know, and this is really the question with this item, is we'll report back to you,

[0:50:58] Voice 12: but I don't know how it fits into your work planner as to its information and it's responding

[0:51:05] Voice 12: to a concern that was raised. But I don't, when you receive this information pack, I don't know

[0:51:12] Voice 12: what action you will take with it. And similarly, you know, both aspects of that, you know,

[0:51:20] Voice 12: in terms of reaching out to DFO for that information and then reaching out to City

[0:51:24] Voice 12: and I don't know what we would engage with them on, really.

[0:51:31] Voice 4: Well, I can respond to that.

[0:51:33] Voice 4: Certainly, it is a land use issue.

[0:51:36] Voice 4: It's not directly in our jurisdiction because it's the harvesting of clams,

[0:51:42] Voice 4: which happens to be DFO, but it is part of our foreshore,

[0:51:47] Voice 4: and there's activity on the foreshore that directly affects that shoreline environment.

[0:51:52] Voice 4: environment. And I know from the 1980s and the 1990s, we had the same issue come up and we had

[0:51:59] Voice 4: an MP at that time who was very interested in doing something about it. And he did. And, you

[0:52:08] Voice 4: know, when the public places these concerns in front of us, I don't think we should just shuffle

[0:52:15] Voice 4: them off. I think we should do what we're doing here, what we're trying to do here. And there

[0:52:19] Voice 4: There will be something coming back to us, hopefully, from DFO about that survey.

[0:52:25] Voice 4: And as a local trust committee, we should know if there is a survey happening about the shellfish resources on that beach.

[0:52:38] Voice 4: We should know that just for our own information.

[0:52:40] Voice 4: And even if it's just part of the public record that we've asked about this and we've received a response,

[0:52:47] Voice 4: Certainly, if we get a response, I would be happy to report back to the person who originally

[0:52:53] Voice 4: brought that concern up, because there's more than one.

[0:52:55] Voice 4: It wasn't just the person who spoke in public here.

[0:52:58] Voice 4: There were several people who phoned me and emailed me to say, what's going on down there?

[0:53:03] Voice 4: So if we could go on and say, well, here's what we found out.

[0:53:09] Voice 15: Well,

[0:53:10] Voice 4: I think I'll

[0:53:11] Voice 15: add, as we talk about the indicator project and the things that we're

[0:53:16] Voice 15: doing not all indicators are going to belong within our jurisdiction but they are markers of

[0:53:22] Voice 15: a healthy environment and if the dfo are doing regular checks on various beaches throughout our

[0:53:30] Voice 15: local

[0:53:31] Voice 4: trust area that

[0:53:32] Voice 4: is potentially another piece of information that could help go ahead

[0:53:38] Voice 4: yeah and it's part of gathering information about the name of interests in managing

[0:53:48] Voice 4: within their territory and just as an example it it may not be related to our ocp project but

[0:53:56] Voice 4: regional planning committee for instance was working for quite a long time on eelgrass

[0:54:01] Voice 4: mapping project and whether we should follow up with that we directed staff to inquire whether

[0:54:07] Voice 4: their first what First Nations have done in terms of monitoring or mapping in the um in that area

[0:54:13] Voice 4: and I'll have First Nations and First Nations SEO reported having done recent relevance of

[0:54:19] Voice 4: limited mapping

[0:54:20] Voice 15: um

[0:54:21] Voice 4: and so it's that partnership and sharing information and understanding okay

[0:54:26] Voice 4: what is their intent in that area it was specifically expressed to me by a member of

[0:54:31] Voice 4: the name of marine division they want to take over management of that area where marine division

[0:54:37] Voice 4: wishes to oversee harvesting we don't understand where that conversation might be asked

[0:54:42] Voice 4: but if our community understands this is more of a an area of jurisdictional responsibility

[0:54:52] Voice 4: that's the name of might manage and dfo is got jurisdiction we can communicate that and it's

[0:54:58] Voice 4: maybe that would implicate our marine zoning,

[0:55:01] Voice 4: marine to know that.

[0:55:03] Voice 4: And it

[0:55:03] Voice 4: also relates to the entire Mitten,

[0:55:05] Voice 4: all along that boat area.

[0:55:07] Voice 4: It relates to all sorts of other issues.

[0:55:08] Voice 4: It used to be 30 acres of pine harvesting.

[0:55:11] Voice 4: And it was, yeah.

[0:55:13] Voice 4: It's all right.

[0:55:14] Voice 4: We're going to move on.

[0:55:16] Voice 15: We're going to take the information.

[0:55:17] Voice 15: At least you have various uses,

[0:55:18] Voice 15: I think is what you're hearing.

[0:55:20] Voice 15: All right.

[0:55:21] Voice 15: Are there any other items that follow back just?

[0:55:25] Voice 15: So let's move on

[0:55:26] Voice 15: get on to our applications okay we have two applications before us today the first one is

[0:55:32] Voice 15: item 9.1 it's a rezoning mid-island club staff report that begins on page 20 and i believe we

[0:55:41] Voice 15: have ian cox there he is he's on the screen uh welcome and i think we have the applicant as well

[0:55:46] Voice 15: so um we're going to hear from uh our planner then we'll welcome the applicant to add some

[0:55:53] Voice 15: more words and then we'll have some discussions so go ahead over to you ian thank

[0:55:57] Voice 9: you chair good

[0:55:58] Voice 9: morning trustees i'm sorry to be joining you remotely but i'm just getting over a flu so

[0:56:03] Voice 9: if my voice is uh too quiet or foggy just tell me to speak up if you can't understand me so

[0:56:09] Voice 9: i

[0:56:09] Voice 15: think we'll bring the flu again

[0:56:11] Voice 9: um so i think i'll just go through the report um and deal with

[0:56:17] Voice 9: with yeah deal with give a summary of the report in the main deal with the zoning provisions and

[0:56:24] Voice 9: sort of walk you through those draft bylaws and then we can revisit the recommendations at the

[0:56:28] Voice 9: end so this is regarding the Mid-Island Co-op rezoning application 250091 it's an LEB and OCP

[0:56:39] Voice 9: amendment for propane storage at just behind the co-op and currently at 793 Lock and Bar Lane

[0:56:45] Voice 9: lane which is uh at the moment zoned as institutional uh designated as institutional

[0:56:51] Voice 9: you have a number of recommendations um before you from staff which um as a summary are to

[0:56:59] Voice 9: give first and second reading to both bylaws and refer them out to um first nations and um

[0:57:05] Voice 9: and other agencies um i will off the top just say that the early referral has been sent to

[0:57:11] Voice 9: first nation at the request um and sort of uh normal practices of staff in the request of the

[0:57:17] Voice 9: ltc um that summary is in the report so bylaws 321 and 322 are the ocp and land use bylaw

[0:57:28] Voice 9: amendments respectively or proposed bylaws um we're bringing back um these draft bylaws at

[0:57:37] Voice 9: the request of the ltc you haven't seen this since april of 2025 it's taken a little time

[0:57:43] Voice 9: but here they are the ocp amendment essentially redesignates the property as village commercial

[0:57:54] Voice 9: in the ocp and also includes it in development permit area number seven which is the village

[0:58:00] Voice 9: commercial area so any um you know any development or of buildings or structures and so forth

[0:58:07] Voice 9: would require a development permit um and the land use bylaw amendments are among some

[0:58:16] Voice 9: administrative changes and numbering and so forth uh it's adding to the principal permitted uses

[0:58:23] Voice 9: in this new village commercial for his own um propane storage as a principal permitted use

[0:58:30] Voice 9: There aren't many other alterations, which was per LTC direction and actually the request of the applicant by the application, that the current institutional two uses basically remain, they would remain in the zone and on the property and just essentially add propane storage as a principal prunity use.

[0:58:57] Voice 9: um if we jump now to page 126 which is the beginning of the draft bylaws

[0:59:11] Voice 9: you can see there that um the ocp amendments so this is bylaw 321

[0:59:23] Voice 9: there's a change to schedule b and some mapping there that deals with the designation

[0:59:27] Voice 9: and the inclusion of the property in DPA 7.

[0:59:33] Voice 9: And then scrolling down a bit further,

[0:59:36] Voice 9: we're onto page 130 of the agenda package now.

[0:59:41] Voice 9: Deals with the land use bylaw amendments.

[0:59:46] Voice 9: And I think I can pause for questions here.

[0:59:51] Voice 9: I can start to go through the changes to the land use bylaw.

[0:59:57] Voice 9: this site-specific zone.

[1:00:00] Voice 9: um i'll leave it to the chair to make that decision or trustees he's

[1:00:06] Voice 16: in the line just by

[1:00:07] Voice 4: that question okay so do you have a question yeah um so i just had a question from media about

[1:00:14] Voice 4: whether um there's any consideration of residential density so could you just clarify that the current

[1:00:24] Voice 4: or I guess the existing institutional use

[1:00:27] Voice 4: does not include residential

[1:00:31] Voice 4: and therefore there's no density consideration

[1:00:34] Voice 4: or transfer of density.

[1:00:37] Voice 4: This has always been zoned institutional

[1:00:39] Voice 4: and residential density was never part of that

[1:00:42] Voice 4: is what I just want to clarify.

[1:00:44] Voice 9: Yeah, so through the chair, that is correct.

[1:00:46] Voice 9: If you were to turn to page 22 of the agenda package,

[1:00:52] Voice 9: this is on page original page three of the staff report but page 22 of the agenda package

[1:00:57] Voice 9: um there is a subheading there on density and the existing institutional two zone does not include

[1:01:03] Voice 9: residential density correct and none is proposed to be added as part of the application or the

[1:01:08] Voice 9: draft bylaws as presented okay more

[1:01:14] Voice 4: questions and carry on in okay

[1:01:18] Voice 9: thank you chair um i think

[1:01:20] Voice 9: then we can move to so so this so this new zone then the site-specific village

[1:01:30] Voice 9: commercial zone so VC for village commercial for zone you can find draft

[1:01:36] Voice 9: text bylaw language on page 131 131 the agenda package so we have drafted this

[1:01:49] Voice 9: this, as I say, to essentially mirror the existing institutional zoning in many respects.

[1:01:58] Voice 9: So we'll deal with sections. So the numbering of this zone and the subsections is done in such a

[1:02:08] Voice 9: way that it relates to your other rezoning application that's on this agenda as well.

[1:02:14] Voice 9: There may, depending on the resolutions that the LTC passes, there may need to be some administrative

[1:02:19] Voice 9: of um you know renumbering and so forth but they're not substantive changes so if that were

[1:02:25] Voice 9: to happen depending on the resolutions um the ltc passes at this or subsequent ltc meetings we can

[1:02:31] Voice 9: deal with that um and you know and do any uh explanation necessary but essentially the

[1:02:38] Voice 9: numbering system here relates to the other proposed bylaws that you're going to have before you

[1:02:43] Voice 7: in

[1:02:44] Voice 9: the next application so uh where these two would fit um in your in your land use bylaw so

[1:02:51] Voice 9: page 131 this is village this is proposed village commercial for site specific zone propane storage

[1:02:57] Voice 9: and you'll see that number nine in the principle permitted uses is propane storage so that's been

[1:03:04] Voice 9: added um the buildings and structures essentially remain the same you'll see that in uh scrolling

[1:03:13] Voice 9: down this is on the next page d342 buildings and structures um uh adds um buildings structures for

[1:03:24] Voice 9: the primitive use set out in the zone including tanks and containment systems fencing etc and

[1:03:30] Voice 9: other infrastructure necessary for propane storage so staff felt that it was um it would it's the

[1:03:36] Voice 9: best to clarify that um right there in the building uh section buildings and structures

[1:03:41] Voice 9: section so that it's not ambiguous um that you know partly and we'll get into this a bit further

[1:03:49] Voice 9: but uh partly is related to safety requirements and um other um other authorizations needed from

[1:03:55] Voice 9: the province and or um federal authorities for um fuel storage uh scrolling a little bit further

[1:04:05] Voice 9: Further down, the main large other change to the institutional zoning, the original institutional zoning, is that this section specific to propane storage facilities has been added.

[1:04:18] Voice 9: So it's a conditions of use section.

[1:04:24] Voice 9: D344, this is page 132.

[1:04:26] Voice 9: Um, and essentially what this does is, um, give some, um, criteria when conducting propane storage

[1:04:34] Voice 9: that, that, that needs to be followed. One is, um, compliance with applicable federal and

[1:04:40] Voice 9: provincial regulations, um, that the operator must hold necessary permits and certifications

[1:04:45] Voice 9: prior to installation operation so that, um, you know, if there was to be a different operator in

[1:04:51] Voice 9: in the future that uh that you know the that particular use of fuel storage on that lot would

[1:04:57] Voice 9: be would be ensured to be regulated um somehow that would mean that you know um even if that

[1:05:03] Voice 9: lot was uh changed ownership in the future it's not that um a private owner could just come and

[1:05:08] Voice 9: store fuel on that lot without without the proper um uh authorizations in place uh outdoor lighting

[1:05:17] Voice 9: This is for LTC feedback, but staff felt that including something about outdoor lighting associated with the facility would be best to be shielded or directed downward.

[1:05:33] Voice 9: This is essentially a dark skies principle to minimize light trespass, and that relates to the fact that the adjacent land use is primarily residential.

[1:05:41] Voice 9: confidential. Emergency responses bill containment plans must be prepared and provided to the

[1:05:47] Voice 9: LTC upon request. That has been already fulfilled through this application by the applicant's

[1:05:55] Voice 9: EA2 report, which they were required to produce. And the LTC has already seen this document,

[1:06:01] Voice 9: but it's included in this agenda package also. And then finally, a screening provision to

[1:06:08] Voice 9: to sort of minimize visual impact.

[1:06:10] Voice 9: And this is in addition to what would be required

[1:06:15] Voice 9: to the DPA,

[1:06:20] Voice 9: because there aren't, the DPA-7,

[1:06:24] Voice 9: although it's helpful is more of a form and character,

[1:06:27] Voice 9: but this is really, you know,

[1:06:29] Voice 9: about mitigating some visuals

[1:06:33] Voice 9: on whatever storage structures end up there.

[1:06:42] Voice 9: So I will jump back to...

[1:06:47] Voice 15: Before you go, there's a section D344.

[1:06:52] Voice 15: There's two fours.

[1:06:53] Voice 15: So would we need to make an amendment

[1:06:54] Voice 15: to change the second four to a five?

[1:06:59] Voice 15: There's a typo.

[1:07:01] Voice 16: There's

[1:07:02] Voice 15: two Roman numeral fours

[1:07:03] Voice 15: at the bottom of page 132.

[1:07:07] Voice 9: 132 um i don't think that we would need that at the we could do that um i and apologize for the

[1:07:15] Voice 9: typo i think um it's it's just really we could change that um just for clarity um it's certainly

[1:07:23] Voice 9: an administrative it's not substantive um so um i

[1:07:28] Voice 15: could note that in the minutes we

[1:07:29] Voice 9: could note that

[1:07:30] Voice 9: in the minutes and particularly depending on what subsequent resolutions the LDP asks we may need to

[1:07:38] Voice 9: be re-judging section numbers anyway so thank you

[1:07:44] Voice 9: for that pointing that out.

[1:07:46] Voice 11: I have

[1:07:46] Voice 4: one comment if we could just go ahead

[1:07:49] Voice 4: there's another question here Ian go ahead.

[1:07:51] Voice 4: I just wanted to say I really appreciate having the consideration of the outdoor lighting

[1:07:58] Voice 4: and the screening for the impacts for neighbors on the conditions of use there

[1:08:04] Voice 4: has been quite a bit of discussion through policy statements about dark

[1:08:08] Voice 4: skies initiatives and actually what's coming back to the Trust Council is how

[1:08:12] Voice 4: can we regulate lighting and it really is only through form and character DPAs

[1:08:19] Voice 4: or this is the first time I've seen as a condition of use so I'm appreciative of

[1:08:25] Voice 4: that because our community has

[1:08:26] Voice 3: raised

[1:08:27] Voice 4: that a few times so it's good to see it in in that job

[1:08:31] Voice 4: by law thanks likewise i made a note here thank you uh planner cox it's a really good report and

[1:08:39] Voice 4: um certainly i hadn't even thought of a possible other owner of you know an enormous propane

[1:08:45] Voice 4: storage tank and of course the environmental impact and the hazard and the danger and all

[1:08:51] Voice 4: All of that stuff that we have from Mid-Ireland Co-op is huge.

[1:08:57] Voice 4: Like there's, you know, 100 pages of how they will mitigate any explosions and fumes and all that stuff, which is quite amazing.

[1:09:04] Voice 4: Looking at that big red circle and knowing that I live on the inside of that big red circle and that my kids have a business on the other side of that big red circle.

[1:09:13] Voice 4: So all of that is so helpful.

[1:09:15] Voice 4: But I hadn't even thought of, oh, yeah, what if it's not Mid-Ireland Co-op and there's a new one?

[1:09:20] Voice 4: and there's a giant pooping storage tank so that's super helpful and again on the outdoor

[1:09:27] Voice 4: lights being shielded that's very important and it's not just for residents it's for migrating

[1:09:33] Voice 4: species it's for the environment in general that we have dark sky principles instituted

[1:09:40] Voice 4: where everybody can get them so thank you for that all right so carry on okay thank you

[1:09:47] Voice 9: trustees and thank you chair um one thing so just further to this this uh part of the discussion i

[1:09:54] Voice 9: think it's important to note that um these conditions of use are included in the draft

[1:10:01] Voice 9: um if it if it if at a point there are um so when something's constructed you know um the

[1:10:10] Voice 9: The evaluation of if it conforms to these conditions of use and or if the guidelines of a development permit area 7 are met during an application,

[1:10:23] Voice 9: there will need to be some discretion by the reviewer, either by staff or the LTC, if the DP comes to the LTC, which currently it does.

[1:10:35] Voice 9: there's no delegated dps um that you know there are provincial and federal regulations related

[1:10:40] Voice 9: to fuel storage so the intent is certainly the dark sky principles and the you know and so forth

[1:10:46] Voice 9: however if if if there were if there was something that was absolutely you know required by provincial

[1:10:51] Voice 9: or federal law those things would need to be uh you know perhaps addressed at that time i just

[1:10:58] Voice 9: to point that out because further to the zoning um draft the zone draft um i was going to just

[1:11:08] Voice 9: continue by discussing the addition of a definition in the bylaw for propane storage

[1:11:18] Voice 9: storage. And this is found on page 130. So just the preceding page from what we've been discussing

[1:11:30] Voice 9: here. So you'd be adding propane storage to your bylaw, which describes what that means.

[1:11:41] Voice 9: It's the use of land buildings and restructures for bulk storage containment or handling a propane

[1:11:47] Voice 9: gas, whether in liquid gases form, etc. And again, the clarification that all propane storage must

[1:11:55] Voice 9: comply with applicable federal provincial legislations. And one other pertinent piece

[1:12:07] Voice 9: of the land use bylaw, I think to mention is that under the height regulations in the zone itself,

[1:12:17] Voice 9: in the vc4 zone draft this is page 132 um is that there is a provisional exemption for

[1:12:28] Voice 9: structures that are required for safety um again by other um by other authorities so

[1:12:36] Voice 9: um you know that perhaps the applicant could speak to this uh as well if that's even something

[1:12:44] Voice 9: something that, you know, that would at any time be relevant, you know, if they happen to know.

[1:12:53] Voice 9: But I think that it's important to do that occasionally when property owners are, you know,

[1:13:01] Voice 9: building structures that aren't, A, sort of clearly defined. And

[1:13:07] Voice 9: um any well suffice to say that this this staff feel that this could come up um you know if if

[1:13:16] Voice 9: the if the owner was asked um as i say by the federal authorities to the provincial

[1:13:23] Voice 9: authorities to install something related to safety as it relates to fuel storage that

[1:13:32] Voice 9: that they would be able to do so without needing to apply for a variance for example

[1:13:37] Voice 9: but only in that case and that is why that's specifically included as something

[1:13:42] Voice 9: so

[1:13:43] Voice 4: just a quick follow-up on that planner cox so for example let's say that provincial or federal

[1:13:51] Voice 4: regulation said that you had to store propane vertically rather than horizontally and it

[1:13:58] Voice 4: and it was like 26 feet up in the air is that that kind of what i'm thinking i don't think

[1:14:04] Voice 4: that'll happen but that would come out at the community information meeting too right before

[1:14:09] Voice 4: the before we before this goes ahead well we have the applicant here too so when ian's finished

[1:14:16] Voice 4: we'll hear we'll hear from her all right is

[1:14:21] Voice 15: there more in or uh

[1:14:24] Voice 9: thank you thank you uh chair i think

[1:14:28] Voice 9: I think that I'm I think that we can really much

[1:14:34] Voice 9: stop there well I'll just

[1:14:36] Voice 9: run through the recommendations so staff is recommending first and second reading

[1:14:41] Voice 9: at this meeting and referrals of the bylaws out to First Nations formally and

[1:14:49] Voice 9: and other agencies those referrals are 90 days for First Nations and and and

[1:14:56] Voice 9: and less time for other agencies, we not included,

[1:15:01] Voice 9: and you'll see this in your report

[1:15:04] Voice 9: under the option section, this is 20,

[1:15:06] Voice 9: page 23 of the package, under the consultation section.

[1:15:13] Voice 9: For expediency, there is an option to, you know,

[1:15:18] Voice 9: schedule a CIM and a public hearing at this point

[1:15:22] Voice 9: for the next available meeting

[1:15:24] Voice 9: following the referral period,

[1:15:26] Voice 9: period, which would be January of 2026, it's not included in your recommendations because

[1:15:32] Voice 9: staff didn't know if the LTC would feel comfortable with that.

[1:15:35] Voice 9: The one thing that would need to be taken into consideration is if there were feedbacks

[1:15:42] Voice 9: being heard, then staff would need to bring that forward to the LTC and before that scheduled

[1:15:50] Voice 9: meeting, those scheduled meetings, but it is an option.

[1:15:56] Voice 9: and i think uh i think we'll close there all right

[1:16:01] Voice 15: thank you well i see uh kelly

[1:16:03] Voice 15: garth writes here and uh anything you'd like to add this is your opportunity um

[1:16:10] Voice 1: i think uh thank

[1:16:11] Voice 1: you for letting me speak today i think uh the important part is when we do have that community

[1:16:15] Voice 1: meeting uh we are planning on inviting kevin mckeown who is the um fcl or federated cooperatives

[1:16:23] Voice 1: limited senior health and safety advisor um when it comes to propane and he is actually the one

[1:16:29] Voice 1: that helped to draft the safety um proposals that you've seen there as well so he is planning on

[1:16:35] Voice 1: attending and will be able to answer any and all um of those questions much better than i could

[1:16:42] Voice 1: all right

[1:16:42] Voice 15: thank you thank

[1:16:44] Voice 1: you all

[1:16:45] Voice 15: right well we're going to open up for discussions or maybe

[1:16:47] Voice 15: questions for you or in so trustees any further questions for the applicant or

[1:16:51] Voice 15: in just

[1:16:53] Voice 4: a quick technical question it's already been we've had early referral to

[1:16:58] Voice 4: First Nation that piece Nanaima does that still require a 90-day referral

[1:17:05] Voice 4: period for general referral if they've already had early referral it doesn't

[1:17:12] Voice 4: But that doesn't all be the 90-day referral, like the general referral afterwards.

[1:17:19] Voice 4: Ian, can you answer that?

[1:17:21] Voice 9: I can.

[1:17:22] Voice 9: My understanding is that, I mean, my understanding, we can check with Island Planner Baugh about this,

[1:17:26] Voice 9: but because I don't believe RPM Gem Rat is in attendance.

[1:17:31] Voice 9: The early referral to Cinevo specifically is, you know, per the protocol agreement and the LTC's relationship with the, you know, with the nation.

[1:17:40] Voice 9: um but it doesn't preclude the need to um give the nation a chance to for full response in the

[1:17:48] Voice 9: 90-day referral period per um trust council policy i believe um but that could that could be

[1:17:58] Voice 4: yeah or i don't know you probably have information but it's only once the bylaws

[1:18:03] Voice 4: draft and give the first reading that they have the formal referral so the early indication is

[1:18:09] Voice 4: here's the scope and um it'd be advised the violence is coming but yeah planter ball probably

[1:18:15] Voice 4: well

[1:18:16] Voice 12: through the track i could just add that it's also um the recommendation here is is to refer to

[1:18:22] Voice 12: multiple personations and i believe the early referral was just just an impersonation so

[1:18:28] Voice 12: there's other other organizations you may um oh yeah and maybe in the 90 days

[1:18:38] Voice 9: So that's correct. Thank you, Planner Baugh. The consultative area for other First Nations

[1:18:47] Voice 9: is considered as part of these formal referrals.

[1:18:53] Voice 4: I don't have any questions. It's a really

[1:18:56] Voice 4: good report. Yeah, very good report. Thank you, Planner Cox. Especially suggestions following

[1:19:02] Voice 4: following second reading about CIMs and public hearings.

[1:19:07] Voice 4: Oh, right. And so maybe a question about the public hearing. So we're only having a public hearing because there's an OCP amendment. Is that correct?

[1:19:19] Voice 4: Because under the new legislation, if there's an LUP amendment that's consistent with the OCP, you don't need to hold a public hearing, but because there's an OCP amendment?

[1:19:31] Voice 12: I don't know if Planipa wants to respond, I can if it's on.

[1:19:36] Voice 15: Go ahead, Ian.

[1:19:37] Voice 9: Yep, through the chair, that's correct.

[1:19:39] Voice 9: Yes, OCPM requires public hearing.

[1:19:41] Voice 15: Okay.

[1:19:43] Voice 9: Yep.

[1:19:44] Voice 4: Any other questions?

[1:19:47] Voice 4: Well, I guess consideration of whether the community information meeting and the public hearing should be separate or combined.

[1:19:53] Voice 4: Are you wanting feedback on that right now or not yet?

[1:19:59] Voice 4: Well, it's one of the resolutions.

[1:20:00] Voice 4: one of the suggestions that we can follow the rest of the recommendations

[1:20:06] Voice 4: so through

[1:20:07] Voice 9: the chair staff chav is just presenting um and perhaps it's not clear so apologies if

[1:20:11] Voice 9: that's the case there it's there is an option to do a combined cim in public it's possible to do

[1:20:17] Voice 9: that legislatively in one meeting whether the ltc wishes to or not is another matter depending on

[1:20:22] Voice 9: how it feels that you know its comfort level with the bylaws and what it's heard from community and

[1:20:27] Voice 9: and so forth. So it's an option to sort of, you know, move the process along, but it's certainly

[1:20:32] Voice 9: not a requirement. And it's, you know, the LTC could certainly choose to do to schedule one or

[1:20:38] Voice 9: the other or schedule none at the moment, it just will push the timeline a bit further into the new

[1:20:42] Voice 9: year. Is that is that clear?

[1:20:45] Voice 4: Yeah, and that is clear. Thank you. So what I was thinking is that

[1:20:50] Voice 4: we could do the community information meeting and the public hearing at the same time,

[1:20:56] Voice 4: And if we waited until we got, until after the referral period and we had comments back from the agencies and from the first nations, then it would kind of make sense like, oh, okay, well, we know this.

[1:21:11] Voice 4: We could probably do the CIN and the public hearing.

[1:21:14] Voice 4: You can't, you must wait until after

[1:21:17] Voice 15: the referral period closes because you cannot make any further amendments or receive any other information after the public hearing.

[1:21:24] Voice 15: So, the timing-wise, it has to happen

[1:21:26] Voice 4: after the report closes, and you consider that information.

[1:21:31] Voice 4: I apologize, that's not in the motion.

[1:21:33] Voice 4: Any information meeting, but that's the next report.

[1:21:36] Voice 4: All right.

[1:21:37] Voice 4: We're good.

[1:21:37] Voice 15: So, we have a lot of motions here that we have to get through.

[1:21:42] Voice 15: Are we

[1:21:43] Voice 4: ready to proceed with those?

[1:21:45] Voice 3: Yeah.

[1:21:46] Voice 4: Thank you.

[1:21:47] Voice 4: Who would like to go first?

[1:21:48] Voice 4: I'll go first.

[1:21:48] Voice 4: First, I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee

[1:21:51] Voice 4: by-law number 321,

[1:21:53] Voice 4: cited as Gabriela Official Community Plan,

[1:21:56] Voice 4: Gabriela by-law number 166, 1997,

[1:22:00] Voice 4: amendment number 1, 2025, be read a first time.

[1:22:04] Voice 4: So there's seconds by Trustee Elliot.

[1:22:06] Voice 4: Any discussion?

[1:22:07] Voice 4: All the vote.

[1:22:08] Voice 4: All those in favor?

[1:22:09] Voice 4: That carries.

[1:22:10] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee

[1:22:12] Voice 4: by-law number 322,

[1:22:14] Voice 4: cited as Gabriela Island Land Use by-law 1999,

[1:22:19] Voice 4: Second.

[1:22:21] Voice 4: Seconded by Trustee Yates.

[1:22:23] Voice 4: Discussion?

[1:22:23] Voice 4: Call the vote.

[1:22:24] Voice 4: All those in favour?

[1:22:25] Voice 4: That carries.

[1:22:27] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee By-law number 321, cited as Gabriela

[1:22:32] Voice 4: Official Community Plan, By-law number 166, 1997, Amendment number 1, 2025, be read a

[1:22:39] Voice 4: second time.

[1:22:41] Voice 4: Seconded by Trustee Elliot.

[1:22:42] Voice 4: Discussion?

[1:22:43] Voice 3: Call the vote.

[1:22:44] Voice 4: All those in favour?

[1:22:45] Voice 4: Carries.

[1:22:46] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee By-Law No. 322,

[1:22:50] Voice 4: Saturday's Gabriela Island Land Use By-Law 1999, Amendment No. 1, 2025 be read in second time.

[1:22:56] Voice 4: Second.

[1:22:56] Voice 15: Section 9, Trustee Yates.

[1:22:58] Voice 4: Discussion? All those in favor? Period.

[1:23:02] Voice 4: I move that proposed By-Laws No. 321 and 322 be referred for comment to the following First

[1:23:12] Voice 4: Nations for a 90-day period, local governments and agencies for a 60-day period. A, First Nations,

[1:23:19] Voice 4: Cowichan Tribes, Halal First Nation, Laiakson First Nation, Kenalakan Tribe,

[1:23:24] Voice 4: Sanmiyamu First Nations, Nenimro First Nations, Saminas First Nations, Supasat First Nations.

[1:23:29] Voice 4: B, local governments and agencies, Regional District of Nanaimo, Island Health Authority,

[1:23:35] Voice 4: Ministry of Transport and Transit, Ministry of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship,

[1:23:40] Voice 4: school district 68 gabriel volunteer fire department gabriel advisory planning commission

[1:23:46] Voice 4: and gabriel housing advisory planning commission yes before it's seconded i

[1:23:52] Voice 12: just see uh one thing

[1:23:53] Voice 12: i don't believe you have a gabriel housing advisory planning commission currently that's

[1:23:58] Voice 4: right oh okay

[1:23:59] Voice 12: so you uh you could just remove that from the motion or or else we would be but

[1:24:05] Voice 4: it has not

[1:24:06] Voice 4: not been seconded so well we're going back from yeah so as it doesn't pertain to yeah

[1:24:12] Voice 4: all right any other changes to

[1:24:17] Voice 15: the wording i'm pretty satisfied okay is there a second

[1:24:19] Voice 15: seconded by trustee elliott any discussion vote all those in favor that carries

[1:24:25] Voice 4: i move that the

[1:24:27] Voice 4: gabriel island local trust committee has reviewed the honest policy statement directives only

[1:24:31] Voice 4: only checklist and determine the final number 321. So there's

[1:24:34] Voice 4: given up digital community

[1:24:38] Voice 4: 66927. And then the number 1225 not contrary to or variance.

[1:24:46] Voice 4: discussion. Yes, there's a discussion. Sure. I can hardly

[1:24:49] Voice 4: wait till we can get rid of the word only directives only

[1:24:54] Voice 4: checklist because it's just a directives checklist.

[1:25:00] Voice 4: yes implementation

[1:25:01] Voice 15: of the new policy statement we hope to get there yep all right uh so that

[1:25:07] Voice 15: was second we had discussion any further i'll call the vote all those

[1:25:11] Voice 4: in favor that carries

[1:25:12] Voice 4: i believe that the gabriel island local trust committee has reviewed the island's trust policy

[1:25:18] Voice 4: statement directives only checklist and determined that bylaw number 322 cited as gabriel and land

[1:25:25] Voice 4: Lenny's Bylaw No. 177, 1999, Amendment No. 1, 2025,

[1:25:31] Voice 4: is not contrary to or at variance with the Island Trust Policy Statement.

[1:25:36] Voice 4: Seconded by Trustee Elliott.

[1:25:38] Voice 4: Any discussion?

[1:25:40] Voice 15: I'll pull the vote.

[1:25:41] Voice 15: All those in favor?

[1:25:42] Voice 15: And that, too, carries.

[1:25:44] Voice 15: All right.

[1:25:46] Voice 15: So do you need any further direction, Leonard Gux, from us?

[1:25:52] Voice 9: No, thank you, Chair.

[1:25:54] Voice 9: That's very clear.

[1:25:55] Voice 9: So staff will just assume that we'll bring back any possible feedback or comments from the referral period and then you can decide how you want to proceed with the consultation period portion at the next meeting.

[1:26:12] Voice 9: All right.

[1:26:13] Voice 9: Thank you.

[1:26:14] Voice 9: Thank you.

[1:26:15] Voice 15: And thank you, Kelly, for joining us today.

[1:26:17] Voice 15: All right.

[1:26:19] Voice 15: Okay.

[1:26:20] Voice 4: How are

[1:26:20] Voice 15: we doing, everyone?

[1:26:21] Voice 15: Do you want to keep

[1:26:21] Voice 4: soldering forward, because we don't have a whole lot left for the agenda, other than

[1:26:26] Voice 4: another allocation?

[1:26:27] Voice 4: Yeah, I think we can keep moving forward.

[1:26:31] Voice 4: Everyone's okay with moving forward? A little bit of a step? I don't know enough people.

[1:26:34] Voice 4: All

[1:26:34] Voice 15: right, we're soldering on.

[1:26:37] Voice 15: Okay, item 9.2 is the rezoning for mode.

[1:26:43] Voice 15: It's on page 133 of the

[1:26:45] Voice 4: agenda package.

[1:26:49] Voice 4: And this must be you, Stephen.

[1:26:52] Voice 4: Yes.

[1:26:53] Voice 16: Go ahead.

[1:26:54] Voice 12: Thanks.

[1:26:55] Voice 12: Sure.

[1:26:56] Voice 12: So, yeah, this happens on your agenda again following the LCC resolution to provide amending

[1:27:03] Voice 12: language to the proposed bylaws that would tie the housing density to the commercial

[1:27:07] Voice 12: redevelopment of the property.

[1:27:09] Voice 12: The LCC had also indicated that they did not wish to require a housing agreement in this

[1:27:14] Voice 12: instance um which will necessitate an amendment to the oc the proposed ocp bylaw as well um and so

[1:27:24] Voice 12: uh yeah that i that's it i guess for the first portion um the ocp amendment is really just to um

[1:27:34] Voice 12: the intent there is to acknowledge that uh in this application um there would be additional

[1:27:41] Voice 12: density permitted not through subdivision um that uh that is not uh meeting the definition

[1:27:50] Voice 12: of affordable housing in the ocp which uh specifically uh means that a housing agreement

[1:27:56] Voice 12: would be required um so that's the one on attachment one of the reports um as i listened

[1:28:03] Voice 12: to the public comment period, I think it was a suggestion to add four to dwellings. I don't

[1:28:11] Voice 12: see an issue with that. That makes it clearer. The other aspect of this report is to provide

[1:28:28] Voice 12: provide options for amending the land use by-law to tie the commercial development of

[1:28:34] Voice 12: the property to the housing density so that there would be some incentive, I guess, ultimately

[1:28:41] Voice 12: for housing to be actually constructed on the property instead of it being, as in the

[1:28:47] Voice 12: current version of the proposed by-law, it permits housing but there's no requirement

[1:28:53] Voice 12: or just kind of limited ways in which the LTC could require,

[1:28:57] Voice 12: it couldn't require housing to be constructed,

[1:29:00] Voice 12: but the options here provide really, I guess, incentive.

[1:29:05] Voice 12: If there's to be commercial expansion of the property,

[1:29:11] Voice 12: then there's a condition of use.

[1:29:13] Voice 12: And there's a few different ways that are listed to do that

[1:29:16] Voice 12: to kind of loosen those restrictions

[1:29:23] Voice 12: if there's violence that are also built on the property.

[1:29:27] Voice 12: So that byline language is there,

[1:29:35] Voice 12: and there's a recommendation for office listed

[1:29:37] Voice 12: as option four in the report.

[1:29:41] Voice 12: If you want, I can walk through each of those options

[1:29:46] Voice 12: as well, just to kind of note the differences

[1:29:50] Voice 12: between each of those.

[1:29:54] Voice 12: I'll just find my page for a moment.

[1:29:58] Voice 3: Thank you.

[1:30:00] Voice 16: Sorry, page 136? 136, yeah.

[1:30:04] Voice 12: So the first option would be to make any commercial use of the property conditional on there being two dwellings.

[1:30:13] Voice 12: There's an existing commercial use of the property, and this would result in that commercial use becoming a protected non-conforming use,

[1:30:22] Voice 12: meaning that it could continue, but if there were any changes to it in the future,

[1:30:26] Voice 12: expansion or repairs or damage to those buildings or they're used ceased then it wouldn't be able

[1:30:32] Voice 12: to continue um and that's that's the most kind of strict of the options that's presented here

[1:30:38] Voice 12: um the next option in the table is to limit the floor area of the commercial use where there's

[1:30:44] Voice 12: no dwellings and then increase it gradually so if there were one dwelling uh have a different

[1:30:50] Voice 12: floor area uh you know allow some additional commercial floor area and then remove that

[1:30:55] Voice 12: floor area restriction if there were two dwellings um and the note there really is that um

[1:31:01] Voice 12: there's quite a bit of existing commercial floor area on the property already or and so to kind of

[1:31:08] Voice 12: meaningfully limit that um it would run into a similar uh issue with the protected non-conforming

[1:31:15] Voice 12: use um currently there's approximately 560 square meters of area used to support commercial use

[1:31:25] Voice 12: so the third option would be to allow minor additions or um and then

[1:31:32] Voice 12: you know and then if remove that limitation if there was two dwellings on the property

[1:31:38] Voice 12: uh and then the fourth option there is very similar um it uh except that it also is

[1:31:45] Voice 12: provides an intermediate step when there's one dwelling on the property and then

[1:31:49] Voice 12: there's any

[1:31:50] Voice 12: any limitation on adding floor area for commercial use if there's two buildings that are on the

[1:31:56] Voice 12: property.

[1:31:57] Voice 4: Patrick, I've got a question for Planner Bob on that, and I can see why you recommend

[1:32:03] Voice 4: option four. That would be my preference as well. If this were not the subject property, but say this

[1:32:10] Voice 4: If this was any property doing something similar, would you remove floor area restriction when

[1:32:22] Voice 4: there are two dwellings?

[1:32:24] Voice 4: So what if it was a different application and it wasn't this way?

[1:32:29] Voice 4: Would you say two for your dwellings?

[1:32:33] Voice 4: I'm just trying to think, could this ever be used again somewhere else?

[1:32:37] Voice 4: Is it just two dwellings because it's this application or would this apply to two or more dwellings?

[1:32:44] Voice 4: Like theoretically.

[1:32:45] Voice 12: Yeah, it's really true. This zoning is

[1:32:48] Voice 12: drafted

[1:32:49] Voice 12: specifically for this application, which applies just to this one individual property.

[1:32:55] Voice 12: Thank you.

[1:32:57] Voice 12: And then just briefly...

[1:32:58] Voice 12: We'll

[1:32:59] Voice 4: have a question about the 20 square meters specifically, but carry on.

[1:33:04] Voice 12: Well, just a brief overview. The last option is a covenant, which the LTC could, instead of accomplishing this through the zoning, which is possible to do, it could use a covenant instead and indicate what the terms of the covenant should be to restrict the use in some way until their dwelling is constructed.

[1:33:26] Voice 4: And I had another question about that, and that would have legal costs associated with it, right?

[1:33:32] Voice 4: It

[1:33:32] Voice 12: would. So we would be recommending a point of posture recovery agreement with the applicant to ensure that there would be a legal review of that.

[1:33:43] Voice 3: Anything else?

[1:33:49] Voice 12: Well, I can go over the points. That sort of summarizes the Resolutions 4, 5, and 6, those recommended Resolutions 4, 5, and 6.

[1:33:57] Voice 12: And then finally, the staff are recommending that the LTC schedule a standalone electronic community information meeting in November.

[1:34:05] Voice 12: for this application and a public hearing on November 20th which would be the same day as an

[1:34:11] Voice 12: LCC meeting. Is

[1:34:15] Voice 15: there anything you'd like to add?

[1:34:22] Voice 13: Yes, so the purpose of this application is to

[1:34:29] Voice 13: expand the commercial uses on this property um to just allow for some growth in business

[1:34:41] Voice 13: initially it was never in my thinking to have residential uses as part of my application that

[1:34:49] Voice 13: was inferred by the planner at the time um so now we've got a bylaw that allows

[1:34:56] Voice 13: allows two residential uses where there weren't any before.

[1:35:01] Voice 13: We've got a bylaw that restricts the size of them

[1:35:04] Voice 13: and how they can be placed within the envelope of a commercial building.

[1:35:11] Voice 13: And I think, in my view, that could be enough.

[1:35:17] Voice 13: The potential is there for two,

[1:35:19] Voice 13: but if we start to say, well, if you build this, you must build this,

[1:35:25] Voice 13: um could potentially prevent me from doing anything um and one of the comments i made

[1:35:35] Voice 13: we sort of picked this with one of the options is what if i want to just build a little candy

[1:35:39] Voice 13: store i can't really put an apartment on top of that sort of thing um so i'm just thinking that

[1:35:47] Voice 13: you know if the point is to to create the potential for a couple of units that's already

[1:35:54] Voice 13: already been done. I think if there's too many strings attached, it might end up being

[1:36:00] Voice 13: counterproductive.

[1:36:01] Voice 13: I

[1:36:06] Voice 4: guess, how strongly do you feel about that? With this, if the proposal to tie residential

[1:36:19] Voice 4: density to further expansion of the commercial uses, as we're discussing, would that sort

[1:36:27] Voice 4: of um you said it might prevent you from doing anything or expanding the commercial use would you

[1:36:36] Voice 4: sort of abandon the project at that point do you think like is this a really like how strong is

[1:36:42] Voice 4: this um well

[1:36:44] Voice 13: i just i just think that um you know because of the way the bylaws already set up with

[1:36:49] Voice 13: the allowing of two units and they must be within a commercial commercial building that um

[1:36:58] Voice 13: sort of it's already regulated or what it can be how big it can be and where it has to be

[1:37:05] Voice 13: so i'm not sure if there needs to be a part that says if you do this you must do this you know

[1:37:13] Voice 3: yeah okay that's

[1:37:16] Voice 13: you know the fifth option i guess is to say okay we've already got a pretty good

[1:37:21] Voice 13: plan um i guess

[1:37:25] Voice 4: what i'm getting at is on the ltc's side it has expressed a desire to see that

[1:37:34] Voice 4: future development in the village core um has if it's if more development is happening there should

[1:37:42] Voice 4: be residential development tied to that

[1:37:44] Voice 7: you

[1:37:46] Voice 4: as the landowner and running a commercial enterprise

[1:37:50] Voice 4: or not interested in developing residences and you've been clear about that it's and I've you

[1:37:58] Voice 4: know we've heard your reason so um it's it's hard for me to see whether those residences would ever

[1:38:06] Voice 4: be actualized or developed because your intention is not to do that um or you don't want to um and

[1:38:13] Voice 4: And as you said, the purpose of the application is to expand commercial uses.

[1:38:16] Voice 4: So I guess I personally am not interested in doing a, like, just signaling, oh, this is a good thing.

[1:38:31] Voice 4: We're potentially creating residential density.

[1:38:33] Voice 4: If it's never going to actually be achieved, then we shouldn't go through the motions.

[1:38:41] Voice 4: um so we're trying to figure out a way to see if those could be realized for the community

[1:38:48] Voice 4: but if you're really not ever going to do that then

[1:38:54] Voice 13: yeah i'm not you know saying it would never

[1:38:57] Voice 13: happen it's just that um uh tying it to you know if you build this building this big then you must

[1:39:08] Voice 13: have an apartment on top of it or within it somehow um when it's already sort of

[1:39:14] Voice 13: allowed within the zoning that's seems to me like we're solving that problem maybe it's not going to

[1:39:23] Voice 13: be me maybe it'll be the next guy the

[1:39:25] Voice 4: challenge is we also don't have a development plan there

[1:39:29] Voice 4: there isn't a a layout of what you propose to do and so this is all very abstract anyways

[1:39:35] Voice 4: ways the reality is there's there's many challenges the residential building code is different than

[1:39:43] Voice 4: for commercial so if you build a commercial only structure to have to build within that envelope a

[1:39:52] Voice 4: residential structure after the fact would be another big investment and a step and is it

[1:39:59] Voice 4: it realistic to expect that you would do that um what we're trying to do is see if that can be done

[1:40:07] Voice 4: in tandem so that it's um which if there was a plan and a layout um and you could see those costs

[1:40:21] Voice 4: would be like it's more realistic to build it now than in 20 years when those costs rise and

[1:40:29] Voice 4: you've got a commercial big commercial building and it's just not realistic to build residential

[1:40:34] Voice 4: um suites within that so i'm just trying to see how realistic this is if your intent is never to

[1:40:43] Voice 4: develop residences i think we just need to be honest about that and

[1:40:48] Voice 4: not try to create something that's not going to happen i think there are two things you're

[1:40:55] Voice 4: either allowing a use that could be realized at some point or

[1:40:59] Voice 15: you're requiring tying it so

[1:41:02] Voice 15: those are your two key questions i think you're clear you want to allow yeah that use now the

[1:41:09] Voice 15: wrestling is is do you want to tie expansion so that and that would be almost all commercial

[1:41:17] Voice 15: buildings from now on i mean not this is site specific but if you're moving in that way that

[1:41:22] Voice 15: commercial would be acquiring

[1:41:26] Voice 4: housing. Go ahead. Well I think that we missed the

[1:41:31] Voice 4: boat in earlier village commercial development. We definitely should have

[1:41:37] Voice 4: had residences on top of some of them and we need to correct that and it means

[1:41:42] Voice 4: taking some rather bold moves maybe but we do need to require commercial

[1:41:48] Voice 4: commercial applicants. In this area, in the village area, we do need that. That's where

[1:41:56] Voice 4: progressive municipalities are going. You want to have commercial on the bottom, you have residents

[1:42:03] Voice 4: on the top. You've already got that land use. You've already cleared that land. You've already

[1:42:09] Voice 4: got that infrastructure in place. And we have the planner and other planners have done a lot of work

[1:42:16] Voice 4: on making sure that for example the residents any residents attached to this is within the

[1:42:22] Voice 4: commercial building envelope so that there's water water license so that what there is water

[1:42:28] Voice 4: restrictions and so that it does fit within that part of the village zoning area so i understand

[1:42:37] Voice 4: the reluctance to provide it. I'm looking at options three and options four. So option

[1:42:47] Voice 4: three says allow minor additions and remove the floor area limitation or additions if

[1:42:54] Voice 4: there are two dwellings and then relax this requirement for small additions with limited

[1:43:00] Voice 4: floor area.

[1:43:02] Voice 3: So

[1:43:03] Voice 4: you could have minor commercial floor area additions. And then the limitation

[1:43:14] Voice 4: would be removed if there aren't dwellings overhead. But I still favor suggested option

[1:43:23] Voice 4: number four, which is recommended by the planners, because you have commercial floor space already

[1:43:31] Voice 4: that you can use for whatever purposes

[1:43:33] Voice 4: you need to use it for.

[1:43:37] Voice 4: But the expansion of that will be limited

[1:43:41] Voice 4: if there are no dwellings.

[1:43:45] Voice 4: You can expand the commercial flora area with one dwelling,

[1:43:50] Voice 4: and it will be completely removed.

[1:43:53] Voice 4: The restrictions will be removed when there are two dwellings.

[1:44:01] Voice 4: So, I think we need to require this. This is where municipalities and other

[1:44:08] Voice 4: light-based authorities are moving. It should have been required a long time ago,

[1:44:15] Voice 4: it should have been required 15 years ago when some of this other commercial development was

[1:44:19] Voice 4: happening. I agree with you. I know it makes it harder on the developer. I really get that.

[1:44:33] Voice 4: But I think there'd be a lot of community support for that, and I think there would be a lot of community support for whatever your commercial ventures are, if you were also to provide housing in the commercial in this area.

[1:44:48] Voice 4: It means that people can live somewhere where they don't need a vehicle.

[1:44:52] Voice 4: They can walk, they can take the bus, they can ride their bike.

[1:44:56] Voice 4: it may it means a whole different way of living if someone can live in a village area above the

[1:45:02] Voice 4: and it certainly doesn't have to be fancy i realize it's it's more cost to you i think in

[1:45:12] Voice 4: the end it could be more benefit too especially if you were to sell your business um i think there

[1:45:20] Voice 4: would be people would be happy to buy a business that also had

[1:45:24] Voice 3: rentals

[1:45:25] Voice 4: and you know we're not

[1:45:26] Voice 4: saying affordable here we set them on purpose we're not making it affordable you can rent

[1:45:32] Voice 4: those at market value

[1:45:34] Voice 3: so

[1:45:36] Voice 4: i would like to be i want to follow through with this and require

[1:45:42] Voice 4: some housing but i'm certainly feeling pretty flexible about how we

[1:45:50] Voice 4: require it

[1:45:51] Voice 3: and

[1:45:52] Voice 4: if you prefer option number three mr moan um i could go with that my personal

[1:45:59] Voice 4: preference is option number four also

[1:46:08] Voice 15: make sure these are these are early readings um today so

[1:46:11] Voice 15: the decisions you make the public hearing the purpose of the public hearing is to hear the

[1:46:15] Voice 15: public so that is a is a chance that a decision can be made today on what approach you want to

[1:46:22] Voice 15: We need

[1:46:23] Voice 15: to go to the public hearing, and I'm hearing ears wide open, and I hear how the

[1:46:28] Voice 15: community feels.

[1:46:32] Voice 4: Trustees, what are your thoughts?

[1:46:34] Voice 4: I mean, we certainly know that the most important issue that comes up every time we do a survey

[1:46:38] Voice 4: is housing.

[1:46:40] Voice 4: It's not more commercial space, but, you know, it's housing.

[1:46:47] Voice 4: Well, I've been convinced, I just wanted to ask the applicant the question of how strongly

[1:46:53] Voice 4: you feel.

[1:46:54] Voice 4: but do you have maybe so

[1:47:02] Voice 4: option number three says allow for small commercial editions

[1:47:08] Voice 4: without anything else but then remove the floor area limitation for commercial

[1:47:16] Voice 4: if you add dwelling so there's some give and take there okay

[1:47:30] Voice 13: so i'm just trying to see what

[1:47:32] Voice 13: the differences between three and four printed

[1:47:35] Voice 4: packages yeah yeah

[1:47:36] Voice 13: i haven't seen her but it is

[1:47:38] Voice 13: the

[1:47:38] Voice 1: main difference which is um in the staff comments section the main difference between

[1:47:45] Voice 4: queen and fork is that there's more flexibility provided when there's one dwelling

[1:47:51] Voice 15: i got that

[1:47:53] Voice 15: going on

[1:47:53] Voice 12: that's helpful for me to write the differences between three and four really i'd

[1:48:00] Voice 12: see floor four as being a more flexible option where three would say um you know it would allow

[1:48:09] Voice 12: some minor additions say with the same 20 square meters if there was no dwellings on the property

[1:48:15] Voice 12: it would still only require only allow small additions such as you know say up to 20 square

[1:48:21] Voice 12: meters if there was one dwelling on the property but if there was two buildings on the property

[1:48:26] Voice 12: then that requirement would no longer exist.

[1:48:30] Voice 12: With option 4, it allows for really minor additions,

[1:48:35] Voice 12: just 20 square metres if there's no dwellings on the property,

[1:48:39] Voice 12: and if there's one dwelling on the property, it relaxes that to 100 square metres.

[1:48:44] Voice 12: So it allows for a larger addition if there's one dwelling,

[1:48:47] Voice 12: and then if there's two dwellings, similarly it removes that for aerial invitation.

[1:49:07] Voice 3: 20

[1:49:10] Voice 4: square meters is 200 feet, essentially. 100 square meters is how much?

[1:49:16] Voice 12: It's about 1,000, actually it's 1,076.

[1:49:22] Voice 12: 1

[1:49:23] Voice 16: ,076, so this

[1:49:28] Voice 4: is very tricky.

[1:49:29] Voice 4: And I did think of something else after Trustee Yates made her points that expanding commercial

[1:49:41] Voice 4: uses, while it is a huge investment for the property owner, ultimately benefits you as

[1:49:51] Voice 4: the property owner the most.

[1:49:54] Voice 4: what the local trust committee needs to see is how benefits to the community are realized and

[1:50:03] Voice 4: those public benefits that are sometimes community amenity contributions or provision of affordable

[1:50:10] Voice 4: housing that is very typical it's very normal that we're going to increase your commercial

[1:50:18] Voice 4: operations that we make sure that there is a corresponding benefit that is not

[1:50:23] Voice 4: just commercial to the community so it's it's difficult because I don't think any

[1:50:31] Voice 4: developer wants to spend more money to build something other than what is in

[1:50:37] Voice 4: their scope and their purpose and their intention but our job is to make sure

[1:50:43] Voice 4: that the overall benefits for the community are and that the policy statement and our OCP values

[1:50:51] Voice 4: are upheld and I think Susan you did hit the nail on the head that there isn't been this drive before

[1:51:01] Voice 4: to make sure that wherever possible what this community needs in terms of housing is

[1:51:09] Voice 4: is realized in those small ways to you it's a big impact two small residences though

[1:51:16] Voice 4: could be a difference this community so I am in favor of one of these two options

[1:51:25] Voice 4: but I did want to hear if you feel very strongly that it would prevent you from

[1:51:31] Voice 4: moving ahead with your you

[1:51:34] Voice 13: know it wouldn't I guess as Stephen said number four is the most

[1:51:40] Voice 13: works. So

[1:51:46] Voice 4: just to sort of follow along with, you know, the benefits to the developer and then what

[1:51:54] Voice 4: happens to the community. In 1991, the owner of that property at that time wanted to develop the

[1:52:03] Voice 4: nursery, wanted to open a nursery. He and his wife, they actually wanted to do a whole bunch

[1:52:09] Voice 4: of little things right on that corner and the community was adamant that they don't do any

[1:52:16] Voice 4: commercial development without a big gift to the community and that big gift was gyro was the

[1:52:23] Voice 4: reselling of that entire rest of that land so that we had to recycle i did not know that 1991 and i

[1:52:31] Voice 4: I was a trustee, you know.

[1:52:34] Voice 4: Interestingly, though, interestingly,

[1:52:38] Voice 4: the public also had this fierce determination

[1:52:41] Voice 4: to limit what those people could do on that property,

[1:52:46] Voice 4: which is why the zoning is so limited.

[1:52:51] Voice 4: That's why that zoning is so limited, what you inherited,

[1:52:54] Voice 4: is because the public, I wouldn't have voted for this,

[1:52:59] Voice 4: except that the public was adamant that they only get a nursery even with the gift

[1:53:06] Voice 4: of all the medical recycling so

[1:53:10] Voice 3: i

[1:53:11] Voice 4: think i'm hearkening back to what does the public on

[1:53:15] Voice 4: this island mean i'm here to represent the public and not just you know and i also

[1:53:21] Voice 4: am here to really lend them to you and i know what you've inherited i

[1:53:25] Voice 3: get it

[1:53:29] Voice 16: So

[1:53:30] Voice 4: a question on the flexibility and the actual minor addition that might be, could we expand that? What's the reason for 20 meters squared? Is there a particular addition that is being considered?

[1:53:48] Voice 12: the chair is that um those numbers are not really they're not based in policy there are suggestions

[1:53:57] Voice 12: um it's mostly i mean 20 square meters is fairly small uh one option that's been presented or

[1:54:05] Voice 12: suggested as as one of the things that could happen on that property is a boot track um and

[1:54:12] Voice 12: that would be that would allow a boot track so that's kind of where that number comes from

[1:54:16] Voice 12: Oh, interesting.

[1:54:16] Voice 12: But it doesn't, yeah, it's...

[1:54:22] Voice 4: So we could change that

[1:54:23] Voice 4: without breaking any hard and fast rules.

[1:54:26] Voice 4: Yeah, my suggestion would be

[1:54:28] Voice 4: if the current footprint is 560 square metres,

[1:54:32] Voice 4: 10%, you know, of that,

[1:54:37] Voice 4: could we go to 56 square metres

[1:54:40] Voice 4: for just argument's sake,

[1:54:43] Voice 4: a larger area for a minor addition,

[1:54:47] Voice 4: without the construction of a dwelling

[1:54:50] Voice 4: and then increasing the flexibility 200 or even three,

[1:54:55] Voice 4: well, 300 square meters will be half the current foot.

[1:55:01] Voice 4: So that you couldn't do something in the meantime.

[1:55:08] Voice 4: And yeah, I would be very open to that.

[1:55:12] Voice 4: If there's something that this is a negotiation

[1:55:16] Voice 4: between community values and what you want to do.

[1:55:19] Voice 4: So how can we make this work for you?

[1:55:24] Voice 13: Yeah, I mean, that would be creating a little more flexibility for sure.

[1:55:28] Voice 13: And the whole point for me of this is to be able to create spaces

[1:55:34] Voice 13: for people to do more services on the island.

[1:55:38] Voice 13: So I think that is a community benefit.

[1:55:41] Voice 13: It's not like I want to do more things.

[1:55:44] Voice 13: Really, I want to go fishing.

[1:55:48] Voice 13: but so that is in my mind that it's part of the uh changing zoning so that we can provide more

[1:55:57] Voice 13: services for the community yeah i

[1:55:59] Voice 13: think that is a need true

[1:56:01] Voice 4: okay would you do something with for

[1:56:04] Voice 4: instance 50 56 50 square meters which is i don't know what the calculation is um

[1:56:18] Voice 4: And this could be changed as we go through the bylaw drafting and get comments from the

[1:56:28] Voice 4: community.

[1:56:29] Voice 4: You can make things smaller after the public hearing, you can't make them more flexible.

[1:56:37] Voice 4: well so that's that's a big point so you can only go downwards after yeah my understanding

[1:56:44] Voice 12: yeah that you have before you can yeah

[1:56:49] Voice 4: but after you can go down

[1:56:53] Voice 4: well what just for argument's sake what if it was 100 square meters um

[1:56:58] Voice 4: without housing so a thousand 56 feet or something um i yeah i don't know i don't

[1:57:08] Voice 4: I'm okay with that too. I'm okay with lots of flexibility, as long as we're looking at housing somewhere along the line.

[1:57:20] Voice 4: What was the anticipated total footprint? Did you have a draft of the layout and what you'd like to...

[1:57:26] Voice 13: Well, the limit is 40% average.

[1:57:30] Voice 13: What

[1:57:31] Voice 4: is that square area? It's a pretty big lot.

[1:57:34] Voice 12: Yeah, I mean, what is a hectare? It's 10,000 square meters or something. So then, you know, several thousand, maybe we could say, yeah.

[1:57:46] Voice 16: But,

[1:57:47] Voice 12: and then if there's multiple levels, then the floor area would be inclusive.

[1:57:55] Voice 4: So, one hectare, okay. Maybe we should take a break and think about the mouse.

[1:58:03] Voice 12: that's critical we should report back on on on you know the numbers that potential build out and

[1:58:10] Voice 12: and you look at a lot of areas yeah

[1:58:13] Voice 4: because it would be good to have something that's reasonable

[1:58:16] Voice 4: so the proponent can build at least something that would be an additional service

[1:58:24] Voice 4: and realize that but and then eventually the second whatever it is would have to be tied

[1:58:34] Voice 12: through the chairs to the ltc i don't foresee the i mean even with the max bill it is not

[1:58:40] Voice 12: always and you know it's not always the what happens on lots you know when there's plenty of

[1:58:50] Voice 12: presidential properties say or commercial properties that aren't at their max

[1:58:54] Voice 12: log coverage so i don't know if that's you know if you want to base it off of that you could

[1:59:05] Voice 13: considerations too. So my quick math is 45,000 square feet would be, I can't remember.

[1:59:16] Voice 16: Oh it's 10

[1:59:17] Voice 4: ,000, 4500. 15

[1:59:21] Voice 13: ,000 square feet per square meters.

[1:59:25] Voice 4: I'm not so concerned about the

[1:59:27] Voice 4: total lot coverage. That's not what I'm thinking about right now is looking at these suggested

[1:59:34] Voice 4: adjusted options and there's a really good one here and it is number four but what we could do

[1:59:40] Voice 4: is where you limit the floor area and I do think we need to limit it when there are no dwellings

[1:59:47] Voice 4: we want those dwellings to happen but we could limit it we could make that limit much bigger

[1:59:53] Voice 4: and then you know we could remove the floor area restriction entirely when there are two

[2:00:00] Voice 4: But I do think we need to limit it until there's one dwelling, and then remove it entirely

[2:00:05] Voice 4: when there's two dwellings.

[2:00:07] Voice 4: That I think is a reasonable compromise, and it states that we want housing in the village

[2:00:15] Voice 4: area when we have new construction.

[2:00:20] Voice 3: And

[2:00:20] Voice 4: we do, we need it with every, we really lost it a few, 15 years ago, all of that should

[2:00:26] Voice 4: have had apartments okay

[2:00:28] Voice 3: so

[2:00:31] Voice 4: how would you like to proceed what are your thoughts okay

[2:00:33] Voice 16: um

[2:00:35] Voice 7: so

[2:00:38] Voice 4: where in

[2:00:39] Voice 4: in the recommended motions where exactly do we have where we can state option number four

[2:00:49] Voice 16: go ahead and go through

[2:00:54] Voice 12: the cherubian in recommendation four um that's that's where

[2:00:59] Voice 12: your amendment so

[2:01:00] Voice 12: within that language

[2:01:03] Voice 16: okay well

[2:01:10] Voice 4: before we make this motion i propose that we

[2:01:14] Voice 4: change that 20 square meters to 100 square meters do you think the first with no housing built

[2:01:22] Voice 4: a potential for 100 square meters yeah and then and the second with the second housing

[2:01:32] Voice 4: housing limitations remove I'm good with that the second housing limitation removed so no requirement

[2:01:39] Voice 4: to well what it says in there where's option four I think um remove the floor area restrictions when

[2:01:47] Voice 4: there are two dwellings and that kind of makes sense if you're going to add to your commercial

[2:01:54] Voice 4: area that gives you also more options for a second dwelling so

[2:02:00] Voice 3: you

[2:02:01] Voice 4: wouldn't support any

[2:02:04] Voice 4: uh restriction after one dwelling is built um

[2:02:10] Voice 16: because this restriction

[2:02:12] Voice 4: oh yes no i definitely want to hold it okay so that conversation is the second part of that

[2:02:20] Voice 4: is the hundred square meters is if we increase the first unrestricted building footprint to 100

[2:02:31] Voice 4: hundred square meters. Yeah. And the second, after the

[2:02:35] Voice 4: construction of one residence, like 200, 300. I mean, well, the

[2:02:45] Voice 4: current building, or another 100 block.

[2:02:49] Voice 4: Well, it says here, remove for area restriction, but look at

[2:02:54] Voice 4: the actual way. Yeah, when there are two dwellings, but before

[2:02:58] Voice 4: that, after one, yeah, it's a hundred square meters. Yes. So

[2:03:05] Voice 4: not a builder i mean could you leave that minute i'm just grinding i'm not a builder either and

[2:03:13] Voice 4: i don't want this to not work for all parties well it's about incentive to build that second

[2:03:21] Voice 4: one to actualize the full i mean i'd be in favor of going with half the current

[2:03:29] Voice 4: footprint which was 56 250 plus 3280 or something

[2:03:35] Voice 4: yeah

[2:03:36] Voice 12: well that yeah you could have that you could also if you were

[2:03:41] Voice 12: going with something similar to you know the idea was to allow more flexibility with

[2:03:47] Voice 12: one you know when there's no dwellings then you could just have um have the 100 square

[2:03:57] Voice 12: meter limit as you suggested instead of 20 and then just have no intermediate stuff and then

[2:04:04] Voice 12: just say when there's two dwellings though there's no limitation yeah that's another yeah that's that

[2:04:09] Voice 12: without that option three is but uh if you want that intermediate stuff then you would be looking

[2:04:15] Voice 12: like that coming up with another bigger um okay

[2:04:20] Voice 5: that's actually option three right that's a half

[2:04:28] Voice 5: between the

[2:04:29] Voice 16: two you want to

[2:04:31] Voice 4: take a break for a bit while you while

[2:04:34] Voice 16: i'm in the morning

[2:04:35] Voice 16: if

[2:04:35] Voice 12: you that's what you you indicate to me that that's what you would like to do

[2:04:41] Voice 12: then I can help with the wording for that.

[2:04:47] Voice 11: Is that what you'd like to do?

[2:04:50] Voice 16: I think so.

[2:04:51] Voice 4: Well, yes, because I've already written it.

[2:04:57] Voice 4: I've already drawn it on 20 square meters.

[2:05:03] Voice 4: Yeah, I think the intent is to explore four, but with a bigger floor.

[2:05:08] Voice 4: okay

[2:05:09] Voice 12: so then you need that second that second number that you need to go i

[2:05:12] Voice 4: think we need that

[2:05:13] Voice 4: second number as well that's okay yeah thank you so we're gonna take a break for a little bit while

[2:05:19] Voice 4: we well in all numbers how much time do you want for break full half hour or less what does

[2:05:26] Voice 4: everybody want i think we need half hour we're gonna take a full half hour get this down to

[2:05:30] Voice 4: five ish after one that's only this

[2:05:38] Voice 15: We want this

[2:05:42] Voice 4: to work when it goes to public hearing.

[2:35:31] Voice 5: 2.233 changes.

[2:35:36] Voice 5: Thank

[2:35:41] Voice 15: you. We're back for our lunch break.

[2:35:43] Voice 15: We're still in item 9.2,

[2:35:47] Voice 15: rezoning application 20.2.1 on page 133 of our agenda package.

[2:35:54] Voice 15: We're looking to staff to work on helping us with

[2:35:57] Voice 15: some language on one of the resolutions here.

[2:36:02] Voice 15: If we succeed.

[2:36:04] Voice 12: I will.

[2:36:05] Voice 12: both. What

[2:36:06] Voice 12: are your recommendations? Well, yeah, the recommendations are still in the report.

[2:36:15] Voice 12: I believe you were looking at it kind of coming up with different numbers. So I don't have

[2:36:22] Voice 12: recommendations. Those recommendations are there. But if you want to change a number,

[2:36:25] Voice 12: that would be a template that just within that when you read out the motion, instead of stating

[2:36:30] Voice 12: these numbers, state the numbers. Yeah. So

[2:36:34] Voice 15: trustees, are you comfortable that you think

[2:36:36] Voice 15: you have numbers i

[2:36:37] Voice 4: think we're comfortable with 100 square meters for the first number for i

[2:36:44] Voice 4: yeah what are we comfortable with for i i i had a thought about that um

[2:36:51] Voice 4: it is hard to give a rationale for a random number so i thought you know what if it was

[2:36:58] Voice 4: the double the addition of what a residential or accessory dwelling would be so 969

[2:37:05] Voice 4: square feet is the max of like an accessory dwelling yeah so if we took that roughly

[2:37:13] Voice 4: you know thousand

[2:37:15] Voice 4: square feet um and or doubled it what what would that give for a

[2:37:25] Voice 4: an ability to construct commercial with say 2 000 square feet but up to 2 000 square feet

[2:37:32] Voice 4: without having to build a second, or before having to build a second dwelling.

[2:37:38] Voice 12: Does it share the size of two dwellings? Two of the max size of a dwelling?

[2:37:42] Voice 4: Yeah, doubling the size of a dwelling.

[2:37:43] Voice 12: The max size of the floor area of a dwelling in this proposed zone is 90 square meters,

[2:37:50] Voice 12: so two times that, 180, yeah.

[2:37:53] Voice 4: Right, so something like that where, is that the number of 180? 180 or 200, yeah.

[2:37:59] Voice 4: Yeah, there's a few on there.

[2:38:02] Voice 4: Do you need to give reasons?

[2:38:04] Voice 4: Well, the reasons are that we are trying to accommodate the African community.

[2:38:12] Voice 4: Well, keeping in mind that a high priority for our community is housing.

[2:38:20] Voice 4: And a good place to put housing is in the village.

[2:38:23] Voice 3: And

[2:38:24] Voice 4: a better place to put housing is above an operating building.

[2:38:28] Voice 4: Janet Callahan- But as far as the numbers. They just seem to be reasonable, you know,

[2:38:36] Voice 5: Janet Callahan- We could say 200

[2:38:41] Voice 5: Janet Callahan- To be easier.

[2:38:46] Voice 4: Janet Callahan- Yeah, I think.

[2:38:47] Voice 4: Janet Callahan- So 200 square meters is

[2:38:52] Voice 4: Janet Callahan- Sorry, what did you say.

[2:38:53] Voice 3: Janet Callahan-

[2:38:55] Voice 4: How many feet.

[2:38:57] Voice 12: That would

[2:38:59] Voice 12: be 2,152.

[2:39:03] Voice 4: Whoa!

[2:39:06] Voice 12: Let's say approximately.

[2:39:08] Voice 4: 2,000. I think that gives an adequate step up to allow more commercial building.

[2:39:20] Voice 4: So, yes, I'm in support of that 200 meters squared for the first time, I'm sorry, 100

[2:39:25] Voice 4: for the first time too.

[2:39:28] Voice 4: Good as well.

[2:39:29] Voice 4: Yeah, sure.

[2:39:32] Voice 4: So,

[2:39:32] Voice 16: trustees, if you think you're comfortable, we have a huge amount of motions to make our

[2:39:38] Voice 16: way through.

[2:39:39] Voice 16: Well,

[2:39:40] Voice 4: I don't mind starting.

[2:39:41] Voice 4: Well, you know, starting with the first one, I was wondering also about the suggestion

[2:39:47] Voice 4: from the public comments from Nancy and Merrington-Peirce,

[2:39:50] Voice 4: and I didn't quite write all of that in correctly.

[2:39:54] Voice 4: I

[2:39:54] Voice 15: think Stephen at the beginning said that,

[2:39:56] Voice 15: and board, no, and board,

[2:40:01] Voice 16: to

[2:40:02] Voice 12: add board in there, is that correct?

[2:40:04] Voice 12: I think that was what was suggested in the public comments.

[2:40:10] Voice 12: There was, and I think there were two parts of the comment.

[2:40:13] Voice 12: One was about deleting and replacing instead of just adding.

[2:40:21] Voice 12: I recommend you delete and replace.

[2:40:25] Voice 12: But to say and for two dwellings, which I think was the suggestion, I think is fine.

[2:40:35] Voice 4: Could we?

[2:40:36] Voice 4: So clause 2.0k is the only clause that specifically relates to additional housing density.

[2:40:45] Voice 4: If we added another clause, L, to what would that refer to, like what's the whole policy

[2:40:57] Voice 4: in subsection 2?

[2:41:01] Voice 4: So it would be like K, it's plan only supports da-da-da-da-da, affordable housing, comma,

[2:41:07] Voice 4: and J, two additional units, two dwellings.

[2:41:12] Voice 4: so just separate that section um into another clause if it's only you

[2:41:17] Voice 12: do yeah you could there

[2:41:19] Voice 12: would be a way to draft it that way yes uh it would just be

[2:41:22] Voice 12: differently it would uh we could

[2:41:25] Voice 12: come back to you with that language it would be something and yeah i don't i don't want to

[2:41:30] Voice 12: come up with it on this spot but it would be you would definitely be saying something like despite

[2:41:35] Voice 12: despite the clause K, here's this other thing.

[2:41:41] Voice 12: So this is a single claim medium here,

[2:41:47] Voice 12: but it's just within the clause.

[2:41:50] Voice 16: Let

[2:41:51] Voice 4: me just pause because I don't think having to come back

[2:41:54] Voice 4: to the next meeting and then do what the redraft is.

[2:41:57] Voice 4: No, we should just do it here.

[2:41:59] Voice 4: I think

[2:42:00] Voice 4: I want to go again, Clare and Bob, for section 1.1, section 2, you are recommending

[2:42:08] Voice 4: that we keep that phrase is deleted and replaced rather than just get rid of it and use the

[2:42:15] Voice 4: word add.

[2:42:15] Voice 4: You're thinking that we should actually keep the phrase deleted and replaced?

[2:42:19] Voice 7: Yeah.

[2:42:20] Voice 4: Okay.

[2:42:20] Voice 4: I think you have to.

[2:42:22] Voice 4: Yeah.

[2:42:22] Voice 12: Yes.

[2:42:23] Voice 12: through the dry understand the comment from the public and it could be it would look differently

[2:42:33] Voice 12: though if it were to happen to add the following it would be a different text and that would be

[2:42:40] Voice 12: below so that is this was just seen as a more straightforward way of kind of having the entire

[2:42:46] Voice 12: clause there but i understand the comment

[2:42:53] Voice 4: questions how would you like to proceed so what is the wording that we should have

[2:42:56] Voice 4: in k so that we don't mess up and four two well it's f

[2:43:03] Voice 16: -o-r okay

[2:43:05] okay

[2:43:11] Voice 16: with that then we will start proceeding through

[2:43:14] Voice 4: this i move that the gabriel isle

[2:43:16] Voice 4: local trust committee amend bylaw number 318 cited as gabriel official community plan

[2:43:22] Voice 4: and bylaw number 166, 1997, amendment number 1, 2024, as follows.

[2:43:31] Voice 4: A, Schedule 1, Section 1, is amended by adding a new subsection 1.1 as follows.

[2:43:39] Voice 4: Section 2, General Land Use and Residential Development, subsection 2.0, General Land Use,

[2:43:47] Voice 4: Clause 2.0.K is deleted and replaced with the following text, or K.

[2:43:56] Voice 4: This plan only supports the realization of additional residential density without subdivision

[2:44:02] Voice 4: when used for affordable housing for mental needs residents, seniors, multiple dwelling affordable housing,

[2:44:10] Voice 4: and for two dwellings with no restrictions on their tenancy or affordability

[2:44:16] Voice 4: on the following parcel, Block B, Section 19, Gabriel Island and Iowa District Plan VIP60373

[2:44:26] Voice 4: and renumbering all subsequent subsections chronologically.

[2:44:33] Voice 4: I'm seconded

[2:44:34] Voice 16: by Trustee Elliott. Any discussion?

[2:44:39] Voice 16: Vote then. All those in favor? That carries.

[2:44:46] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee bylaw number 318 cited as the Gabriela

[2:44:50] Voice 4: Official Community Plan bylaw number 1667 amendment number 1224. If you read it first time,

[2:44:59] Voice 4: amend it. I'll second that. Okay, any discussion? All those in favor? That carries.

[2:45:09] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee bylaw number 318 cited as the Gabriela

[2:45:15] Voice 4: official community plan bylaw number 166 1997 amendment number one 2024 be read a second time

[2:45:24] Voice 4: second by trustee elliott discussion vote all those in favor carried and moved that the gabriel

[2:45:32] Voice 4: island local trust committee amend bylaw number 319 said it is gabriel island land use bylaw 1999

[2:45:38] Voice 4: 299, Amendment No. 1, 2024, as follows.

[2:45:42] Voice 4: A, Appendix 1 is amended by a man in the fall

[2:45:44] Voice 4: by adding the following at the end.

[2:45:47] Voice 4: F, conditions of use.

[2:45:49] Voice 4: The floor area of commercial use of the lot

[2:45:52] Voice 4: shall not be expanded,

[2:45:54] Voice 4: and no building or structure greater than 100 square meters

[2:45:59] Voice 4: shall be constructed, increased in floor area,

[2:46:02] Voice 4: or occupied for different commercial use unless

[2:46:05] Voice 4: Unless one dwelling for residential use has been constructed on the lot or a dwelling unit is constructed as part of the construction or expansion of commercial use on the lot.

[2:46:18] Voice 4: two the floor area of commercial use on the lot shall not be expanded and no building or

[2:46:23] Voice 4: structure greater than 200 square meters shall be constructed increased in floor area or occupied

[2:46:29] Voice 4: for different commercial use unless two dwelling units for residential use have been constructed

[2:46:35] Voice 4: on the lot or two dwelling units are constructed as part of the construction or expansion of

[2:46:41] Voice 4: commercial use for a second that's it by trustee yates discussion all the both of them all those

[2:46:49] Voice 4: in favor that carries i move that the gabriela island local trust committee bylaw number 319

[2:46:56] Voice 4: cited as gabriela island land use bylaw 1999 amendment number one 2024 be read a first time

[2:47:04] Voice 4: as amended second by trustee elliott any discussion all those in favor that carries

[2:47:13] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee, bylaw number 319, cited as Gabriela Island Land Use Bylaw 1999, amendment number 1224, be read.

[2:47:22] Voice 4: Second.

[2:47:25] Voice 4: Seconded by Trustee Yates. Is there any discussion? All those in favor? That carries.

[2:47:33] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee request staff schedule a standalone electronic community information meeting prior to the public hearing.

[2:47:43] Voice 11: second by trustee elliott any discussion open all those in favor that carries

[2:47:52] Voice 4: i moved at the game of life island local trust committee request to schedule a book hearing

[2:47:57] Voice 4: bylaws number 318 cited as gabriel official community plan gabriel bylaw number one room

[2:48:02] Voice 4: six six nineteen ninety seven and one twenty four and bylaw number three um one nine

[2:48:09] Voice 4: so it has given island land use bylaw 1999 and then 2024 on november 20th 2025 just before it

[2:48:21] Voice 4: didn't check but i can see we all and it's that's during our meeting is that correct it is

[2:48:31] Voice 4: and yeah

[2:48:33] Voice 3: all

[2:48:34] Voice 15: right seconded by trustee hayes any discussion i

[2:48:38] Voice 4: will yeah i i think

[2:48:41] Voice 4: it will be interesting to hear from the community about this how those values that you spoke about

[2:48:48] Voice 4: in 1999 changed um what is the appetite for um requiring uh housing along with commercial

[2:48:57] Voice 4: construction I think we've done our best effort to strike a balance and I'm sorry that it's not

[2:49:04] Voice 4: fully what you were hoping for but as Trustee Patrick or Chair Patrick said it the it can be

[2:49:12] Voice 4: amended we can pull back those restrictions we can and we can re go go through the public hearing

[2:49:18] Voice 4: again if if it's really unsatisfactory so I hope this does meet the test but I think the community

[2:49:25] Voice 4: is the test so looking forward to that well that's likely 91 91 my god any further discussion

[2:49:35] Voice 4: yep i'll

[2:49:36] Voice 15: call it then all those in favor and that carries all right well thank you very much so

[2:49:42] Voice 15: next steps will be in the information meeting sometime

[2:49:46] Voice 11: in the future um

[2:49:48] Voice 13: is it going to be in

[2:49:49] Voice 13: this room

[2:49:50] Voice 11: it's i think going to be like that

[2:49:52] Voice 13: i thought oh so sorry the second part of the public

[2:49:56] Voice 4: Public hearing would be in this room. Yeah, correct.

[2:49:59] Voice 12: Yeah, me.

[2:50:02] Voice 12: Yeah, it was. I mean, technically, we were separate,

[2:50:06] Voice 12: but yes,

[2:50:07] Voice 15: it's a meeting within a meeting,

[2:50:08] Voice 12: practically, it's here

[2:50:10] Voice 12: in there.

[2:50:17] Voice 16: Yeah,

[2:50:18] Voice 4: not like the olden days when we had to have a community

[2:50:20] Voice 4: of all of you. And that was

[2:50:22] Voice 4: thinking

[2:50:22] Voice 13: likely more chairs, but everybody I've talked to you

[2:50:28] Voice 13: said tell me what the meeting is i'll be there okay so

[2:50:30] Voice 13: um and

[2:50:32] Voice 16: you want that well

[2:50:33] Voice 13: that's the thing

[2:50:34] Voice 13: yeah yeah so i'll communicate the dates and things and that's great i appreciate it thank you thank

[2:50:40] Voice 13: you

[2:50:40] Voice 15: very much thank you for being here today on to the next steps see you all

[2:50:45] Voice 15: right i'm going to

[2:50:46] Voice 15: keep on moving then we are at item 10.1 in the agenda which is the much island land use bylaw

[2:50:52] Voice 15: amendment project charter staff report on page 139 and who's going to do that

[2:51:03] Voice 12: um so we had at the july lc meeting um the lgc requested staff to prepare a project charter for

[2:51:10] Voice 12: a minor project include targeted amendments to the magi land use file that includes the

[2:51:16] Voice 12: priorities identified through the survey that was conducted by the magi community association

[2:51:23] Voice 12: Staff have drafted the project charter to include as many of those identified priorities

[2:51:28] Voice 12: as possible, while maintaining the project is a minor scope, so there are some things

[2:51:34] Voice 12: that are not included in this project charter that are identified in that survey.

[2:51:39] Voice 12: The project charter includes engagement opportunities for the public, including a survey, advisory

[2:51:46] Voice 12: planning commission referral, and community information meeting.

[2:51:50] Voice 12: Staff are also recommending that the LTC reach out to First Nations early in the project

[2:51:54] Voice 12: to inform them of it and get an understanding of their desired level of involvement.

[2:52:01] Voice 12: Through this report staff are also advising that there's not capacity to take on this minor project

[2:52:06] Voice 12: without disruptions to the existing work plan for the Gabriel level CP project. I should say

[2:52:12] Voice 12: not capacity to take on this minor project immediately without disruptions to that

[2:52:16] Voice 12: that work plan um so staff are recommending that the project be initiated in april of 2026

[2:52:21] Voice 12: uh it's the ltc's minor project um the recommendations in the report are there on

[2:52:28] Voice 12: page 149 of the agenda and uh that the ltc endorsed the project charter and uh as well

[2:52:34] Voice 12: advertised for public uh expressions of interest for the advisory planning commission because

[2:52:39] Voice 12: there's presently has included in the work plan for the project but there's presently not a much

[2:52:43] Voice 12: I'd rise your mind let's prepare kind of set the stage for that project to take place

[2:52:49] Voice 12: all

[2:52:53] Voice 4: right thank you trustees questions great staff report really yeah especially recommending

[2:53:00] Voice 4: that they have an advisory planning position and yeah very quick um so the scope of the project

[2:53:12] Voice 4: If we could look at that, that the topics, would you say that these are all or most or

[2:53:24] Voice 4: a selection of the achievable potential amendments to the Mudge Land Use By-law, like how does

[2:53:32] Voice 4: it compare with the request from the Mudge Island Community Association and what they

[2:53:36] Voice 4: are willing to see in the scope?

[2:53:38] Voice 4: So

[2:53:40] Voice 12: through the charities, aside from housekeeping amendments, we've included proposed and project

[2:53:47] Voice 12: charter.

[2:53:48] Voice 12: These are all topics that are identified by the Magellan Community Association.

[2:53:54] Voice 12: And I believe they have probably prioritized the different topics and I would need to check

[2:54:06] Voice 12: we could report back but I believe we've included or were able to include their top six

[2:54:12] Voice 3: but

[2:54:13] Voice 12: a number of the top priorities anyways and then we've included some of the other priorities

[2:54:17] Voice 12: as well because they were just it would be possible to include those still in the minor

[2:54:21] Voice 12: within a minor school so I

[2:54:26] Voice 4: have a question about derelict vehicles

[2:54:33] Voice 4: Because I know that was an issue that was, it's been an issue for violent enforcement,

[2:54:41] Voice 4: but it's not mentioned, and I can't remember if it was in there, I need to look up the

[2:54:47] Voice 4: report again so I can just have a minute, it was the last meeting

[2:54:51] Voice 16: or the meeting's go?

[2:54:54] Voice 16: Yeah, it was the last meeting, there was correspondence on the agenda.

[2:54:58] Voice 16: So

[2:55:13] Voice 4: it's just the in correspondence there,

[2:55:15] Voice 6: right?

[2:55:28] Voice 4: So the most important issues they'd listed were actually nine structures in the setback at C, restrictive definition of structure.

[2:55:38] Voice 4: So definition of a structure is there, and the

[2:55:46] Voice 4: restrictive definition, I guess that's the same.

[2:55:51] Voice 4: moorage boys structures a lot of coverage setbacks we see commercial

[2:56:01] Voice 16: vehicles and heavy equipment

[2:56:08] Voice 4: hence trailers rvs temporary storage and then derelict vehicles was a secondary

[2:56:16] Voice 4: commonly identified emissions or areas of concern included so derelict vehicles home-based business

[2:56:22] Voice 4: yeah I can see why those the first one setbacks on lots between one and five acres is that captured

[2:56:32] Voice 4: through

[2:56:33] Voice 12: the chair that is yeah that's and I have listened to them with slightly different language

[2:56:39] Voice 12: to kind of um point to where they even how they would be applied as as land use bylaw amendments

[2:56:48] Voice 12: but that one is lot line setbacks for building envelopes on narrow lots okay

[2:56:53] Voice 4: yeah that was very

[2:56:55] Voice 4: important because yeah i had several emails from people saying here's my lot layout and because

[2:57:04] Voice 4: it's so small and narrow and three different angles you literally cannot put anything without

[2:57:11] Voice 4: being in the setback so that was really important with those small angular lots um and then what is

[2:57:18] Voice 4: meant by accessory structures of lots with no principal use so is that capturing commercial

[2:57:24] Voice 4: vehicles, heavy equipment? No,

[2:57:27] Voice 12: that would be.

[2:57:30] Voice 4: It's just accessory buildings.

[2:57:32] Voice 12: Yeah, through

[2:57:33] Voice 12: the share accessory structures, when lots of no principal use, this would be looking

[2:57:40] Voice 12: at or considering allowing accessory structures on, well, just allowing accessory structures

[2:57:50] Voice 12: on lock where it's possible there's no principle even so understanding is there's some folks on

[2:57:54] Voice 12: Lunge Island who perhaps they own an adjacent lock or maybe it's not even an adjacent lock

[2:58:00] Voice 12: and they you know they just use it for a workshop say or nothing and they live on lunch. The other

[2:58:06] Voice 12: common scenario that comes up is when you're constructing a dwelling and maybe you want to

[2:58:13] Voice 12: store your building materials inside so you don't have the dwelling yet but you want an accessory

[2:58:20] Voice 12: structure to facilitate them.

[2:58:24] Voice 4: So I guess again are tents, trailers and RVs captured in accessory

[2:58:31] Voice 4: structures?

[2:58:33] Voice 12: Well one of the things is to look at the definition of structure so I have to look at

[2:58:41] Voice 12: I'd love to see what they currently says about that, but that is that.

[2:58:46] Voice 4: It's just, it's so challenging to build on lunch that having temporary structures or structures

[2:58:53] Voice 4: that are not foundation or, you know, a conventional structure I think is very common, so

[2:59:01] Voice 4: I think that definition is going to be important. But I'm sad that derelict vessels didn't make it.

[2:59:08] Voice 4: Vehicles.

[2:59:09] Voice 4: Vehicles, sorry. Yeah, is there, can you remember a reason?

[2:59:13] Voice 4: what

[2:59:14] Voice 12: would well yeah you can perhaps if you well

[2:59:21] Voice 4: what

[2:59:22] Voice 12: what are the um i'm

[2:59:26] Voice 4: just recalling that

[2:59:27] Voice 4: derelict vehicles i mean before the much community was activated and started barging off at their own

[2:59:34] Voice 4: expense i think over 60 vehicles um there was about 200 that were subject to enforcement because

[2:59:43] Voice 4: because they were on both

[2:59:44] Voice 4: ways or derelict and just,

[2:59:45] Voice 4: and I think it is a contradiction of this bylaw.

[3:00:10] Voice 16: I'm thinking it shouldn't be

[3:00:12] Voice 5: in the Court of Invention of the Lend-Lease By-Long.

[3:00:17] Voice 4: Under Derelicts?

[3:00:18] Voice 4: No.

[3:00:21] Voice 4: Well, there are updates. It might be a housekeeping amendment.

[3:00:24] Voice 4: But for instance, the set of Penderland Use By-Long that we're doing right now,

[3:00:28] Voice 4: there is a very small update that defines a vehicle as not derelict,

[3:00:35] Voice 4: but it's if it's not in use as evidenced by having a license plate with an active decal

[3:00:42] Voice 4: section called derelict vehicles

[3:00:45] Voice 15: bylaw section 3.9 no parcel shall be used for the wrecking

[3:00:51] Voice 15: or storage of vehicles vessels or as a junkyard and two unlicensed vehicles or vessels undergoing

[3:00:59] Voice 15: going repaired is permitted provided is screened from public road see for an adjacent plot

[3:01:08] Voice 6: yeah

[3:01:10] Voice 12: through the chair that is one of those topics that was kind of identified

[3:01:16] Voice 12: not through this through the comments in the survey so it was a less well-defined

[3:01:25] Voice 12: topic to explore and so i think that it was not included in some in some ways because there is a

[3:01:31] Voice 12: limits to the jurisdiction and what you could do through a land use bylaw but also because it

[3:01:35] Voice 12: wasn't uh really clear uh what uh what exactly would be looked at with that and there's pretty

[3:01:43] Voice 12: limited opportunities to to do extensive engagement through a minor project and

[3:01:48] Voice 4: it wasn't one of their

[3:01:49] Voice 4: top six are you thinking it

[3:01:51] Voice 12: is not it is not well it is not you know it's not uh listed on the in

[3:01:56] Voice 12: their top six um or their top nine there it's it's uh one that came out through this survey

[3:02:04] Voice 12: so they've identified it as important but

[3:02:10] Voice 7: yeah

[3:02:15] Voice 4: well i think what this does is it starts us on

[3:02:20] Voice 4: the path we intend to start project there's five months between more than many months between um

[3:02:26] Voice 4: april when the project initiated so presumably if there are we haven't heard anything from

[3:02:34] Voice 4: And I think there was a problem with what Synscope found out, perhaps, but if, say,

[3:02:47] Voice 4: they decide that, I'm sorry, actually derelict vessels is more critical and this other issue

[3:02:57] Voice 4: isn't, then we could amend the project charter if it meet the resource requirements.

[3:03:03] Voice 4: It's funny to

[3:03:05] Voice 12: the project charter.

[3:03:07] Voice 4: Okay.

[3:03:10] Voice 4: Good.

[3:03:11] Voice 4: Then I'm satisfied with this list. I think we would agree if there were. Yeah, we have the chairs. We did.

[3:03:19] Voice 4: First much today.

[3:03:24] Voice 4: Okay, so knowing that we can potentially amend this project charter scope if we hear that

[3:03:34] Voice 4: There is a significant issue that was left out that should be addressed.

[3:03:40] Voice 4: And depending on the operational capacity to take that on,

[3:03:46] Voice 4: I do think this was a great start.

[3:03:48] Voice 4: And then I like the timeline.

[3:03:51] Voice 4: It's just a reality that we don't have, you know,

[3:03:55] Voice 4: 20 planners to do all the work that is needed.

[3:03:59] Voice 4: So it does need to be staged when Gabriel is OCP.

[3:04:04] Voice 4: is at a point that it's not going to take so much of our time.

[3:04:09] Voice 4: So, yeah, I'm satisfied with this.

[3:04:11] Voice 4: And considering the timeline as to when they first asked for this,

[3:04:15] Voice 4: it's chugging along pretty nicely.

[3:04:17] Voice 3: Yeah.

[3:04:19] Voice 15: My only

[3:04:20] Voice 15: comment, I'm glad to see early engagement recognized.

[3:04:24] Voice 15: But for me, for early engagement with SNF to be really meaningful

[3:04:31] Voice 15: would be to give it to them as soon as possible.

[3:04:35] Voice 15: so that if they had other concerns it could be raised and addressed before this project is even

[3:04:41] Voice 15: kicked off because if we if we wait till may we've got now much island expecting it to start and

[3:04:50] Voice 15: first nations couldn't find they have a whole different set of concerns that they would rather

[3:04:55] Voice 15: work i'm just using it hypothetically so to me early engagement should be while we're thinking

[3:05:00] Voice 15: about it at this early time where it could still influence what

[3:05:05] Voice 4: the project could be, that's all.

[3:05:08] Voice 4: And I've heard about that too, particularly with regard to setback from the sea and structures

[3:05:13] Voice 4: and setback from the sea, because Mudge has a fairly distinctive one and there's good reasons

[3:05:19] Voice 4: for that, but I actually did think of Steve Curl just in the name of as soon as possible

[3:05:25] Voice 4: for them to look at. The project charter could be, you know, so that they're aware that they could

[3:05:30] Voice 4: still influence to

[3:05:32] Voice 15: me

[3:05:33] Voice 4: that's what early engagement is you could still affect the project yeah

[3:05:37] Voice 4: i think you're absolutely right so could we have a suggested time for that like when you could do

[3:05:47] Voice 4: that and early engagement well

[3:05:52] Voice 12: if it's challenging because if it's early engagement for this project

[3:05:56] Voice 12: project, it would need to be captured within the project charter.

[3:06:01] Voice 12: I wonder, I'm thinking one possibility could be to just send them this project charter

[3:06:13] Voice 16: and

[3:06:14] Voice 12: say here's what we're considering, the timeline is to start in, it's supposed to

[3:06:19] Voice 12: start in April, we can still implement this charter, and something to that effect to inform

[3:06:28] Voice 12: to inform them and then and let them know that they could provide you that that feedback that

[3:06:34] Voice 4: would be great because here it says we don't give them first engagement until may of next year but

[3:06:40] Voice 4: even if they just saw this online it ain't going to be a million no

[3:06:44] Voice 15: i think so too i think that

[3:06:45] Voice 15: one it also this is this is our process and gives them a chance to see where we are

[3:06:50] Voice 15: i just think it would also help like we want authentic communication with both first nations

[3:06:58] Voice 15: out in the community and don't want

[3:07:01] Voice 11: to get the community set up and then find we have either

[3:07:04] Voice 11: additional concerns or issues that need to be added nice to be

[3:07:07] Voice 4: bringing them along

[3:07:11] Voice 4: so would i suggest like an additional motion to communicate

[3:07:15] Voice 4: the project scope and intention or initiation project

[3:07:21] Voice 16: charter i would say

[3:07:22] Voice 16: use the language we have to share the project charter scope so prior to as

[3:07:38] Voice 4: or as early as

[3:07:40] Voice 11: possible yeah

[3:07:41] Voice 4: it's like an early communication it's just advising them so

[3:07:54] Voice 16: um we'll share the

[3:07:55] Voice 16: project charter

[3:07:56] Voice 4: with the name of first nation as soon as possible or it's as soon as convenient

[3:08:03] Voice 12: yeah as soon as possible it's fine i think we will we will do as soon as we can um yeah we'll

[3:08:13] Voice 12: have well i'd like to we'll need to reach out to sam just to ask them how they'd like to receive it

[3:08:19] Voice 12: they have a portal so they have a presentation particularly as a portal i don't know if this

[3:08:22] Voice 12: is something that we should be sending through that portal or if anybody else go there

[3:08:28] Voice 12: referrals yeah

[3:08:29] Voice 4: good idea

[3:08:30] Voice 12: there's some work we'll need to do to before it can be sent

[3:08:34] out so it can't be it's not going to be

[3:08:36] Voice 12: immediate but um certainly

[3:08:43] Voice 16: yeah great all

[3:08:46] Voice 15: right trustees any other changes

[3:08:48] Voice 4: otherwise we have some emotions and

[3:08:52] Voice 4: i'm happy to start with the first one i move that the gabriel island local test committee

[3:08:56] Voice 4: to endorse the attached project charter for the ledger on the targeted land use bylaw amendment

[3:09:01] Voice 4: second any discussion vote favor that carries um can we do the next one the next resolution

[3:09:15] Voice 4: because it's related yeah go to the third one yeah so it would be that they gave a local trust

[3:09:20] Voice 4: The trust committee request staff communicate with the trust committee regarding the project

[3:09:30] Voice 4: charter.

[3:09:31] Voice 4: I have a targeted land use by-law project charter scope

[3:09:36] Voice 5: as soon as practical, if you

[3:09:40] Voice 5: want.

[3:09:57] Voice 16: The Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee request staff communicating with the trust

[3:10:03] Voice 16: act of the First Nation regarding the Ludge Island land use bylaw amendment project charter

[3:10:10] Voice 16: as

[3:10:12] Voice 4: soon as possible actually I had the word proposed project charter I mean it is

[3:10:19] Voice 4: it's for us right now it's a current charter but it could be amended and I think that language and

[3:10:25] Voice 4: yeah proposed project charter and scope and just the word targeted

[3:10:29] Voice 4: in a done and targeted land use by-law in the project.

[3:10:32] Voice 4: Regarding

[3:10:37] Voice 16: the proposed,

[3:10:42] Voice 16: I'm not sure we want the proposed-

[3:10:44] Voice 4: Sorry, proposed project charter.

[3:11:23] Voice 11: Okay, so the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee

[3:11:26] Voice 11: requests staff to indicate the Senate impersonation

[3:11:29] Voice 11: regarding the scope and project charter

[3:11:31] Voice 11: of the proposed Ludge Island targeted land

[3:11:34] Voice 14: use by-law project.

[3:11:38] Voice 3: Mm-hmm, does that work?

[3:11:39] Voice 3: All

[3:11:39] Voice 4: right, is there a second?

[3:11:41] Voice 4: Second. Seconded by Trustee Yates. Any discussion? Call the vote. All those in favor? That carries.

[3:11:49] Voice 4: And I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee advertise for public expressions of interest for new members to a much island advisory planning commission.

[3:12:01] Voice 4: Second.

[3:12:03] Voice 16: I'm just pondering for a second.

[3:12:05] Voice 16: um i

[3:12:14] Voice 4: guess my question here or i don't want us to go on the assumption that the current members of

[3:12:21] Voice 4: the lunch community association would automatically become members and just ensuring that there is

[3:12:27] Voice 4: public advertising advertisement that all are welcome including people who are would not be

[3:12:36] Voice 4: supportive because we want broad representation um yeah yeah so we want a broad range of

[3:12:42] Voice 4: perspectives and so um i was just thinking

[3:12:45] Voice 4: well i was just thinking it should be a language but i

[3:12:49] Voice 4: think it's fine

[3:12:50] Voice 15: that is that would be the intent

[3:12:53] Voice 12: of staff is to try and

[3:12:55] Voice 12: publicly publicly advertise publicly in the ltc

[3:13:01] Voice 12: yeah yeah

[3:13:02] Voice 4: you're all right that wording though yeah is there a second yes seconded by trustee

[3:13:09] Voice 15: Elliott any discussion all about all those in favor and that carries any other business

[3:13:16] Voice 4: yeah it was a good piece of work very fast yeah yes I'm jealous

[3:13:25] Voice 4: when are the staff moving to Salisbury that's my question when you get a new offer

[3:13:30] Voice 4: well that's gonna take some time all

[3:13:33] Voice 15: right yeah that's another okay we're gonna keep on going

[3:13:36] Voice 15: and for correspondence we have item 11.1 it's a letter dated august 5th from um m delahunt

[3:13:44] Voice 15: regarding the lot owned by clark x committee on

[3:13:48] Voice 15: page 155.

[3:13:52] Voice 4: what would you like to do with

[3:13:54] Voice 4: this correspondence does this this has been shared yeah yeah yes the letter writer um spoke to the

[3:14:03] Voice 4: local trust committee last meeting and noting it is not which in the last meeting i did not

[3:14:16] Voice 4: see that or hear that the issues were noise so if you look on page 156

[3:14:25] Voice 4: it says it's not a solo soil bylaw issue the ongoing noise from heavy machinery which

[3:14:31] Voice 4: which will last over several years, if needed.

[3:14:34] Voice 4: So this letter is kind of, it's partly about the activity,

[3:14:40] Voice 4: but it's about the impact in the neighborhood and the noise.

[3:14:43] Voice 4: The RDM has a noise bylaw.

[3:14:48] Voice 4: And so this, I guess the second request is enforceable control

[3:14:55] Voice 4: over the level of commercial and industrial activity on residential

[3:14:58] Voice 4: and home properties, and to bring in a nuisance bylaw

[3:15:03] Voice 4: over a time limit for ongoing construction noise so can we refer this or respond to the letter

[3:15:10] Voice 4: writer and say that they can make a comment to bring in

[3:15:13] Voice 3: this

[3:15:15] Voice 4: would be my choice my choice would

[3:15:17] Voice 4: be to submit it as a bible enforcement complaint because it is a small residential lot being used

[3:15:24] Voice 4: as a commercial and industrial dumping site literally the landowner is making optimum use

[3:15:33] Voice 4: of that small residential lot for running an industrial business so this is already in by

[3:15:40] Voice 4: law enforcement's hands i think it is so i'm pretty sure that it's already in and the way

[3:15:46] Voice 4: i would respond to this is to advise the applicant to make a formal bylaw could they

[3:15:53] Voice 4: mean the cause for noise well the noise is neither here nor there i don't think we can

[3:15:59] Voice 4: that's a sign of the RDN from the noise.

[3:16:01] Voice 4: It's a land use issue, that's the problem.

[3:16:04] Voice 4: The noise is, you know, follows with that

[3:16:07] Voice 4: because of the heavy industrial activity happening up and down the roads.

[3:16:13] Voice 4: The challenge is the interpretation of the materials

[3:16:24] Voice 4: and the activity that the owner says is for agricultural use.

[3:16:29] Voice 4: Well, the Biological Enforcement Officer can work on that.

[3:16:32] Voice 4: may happen that's why it's still and you know it's clearly not for agricultural use if you

[3:16:39] Voice 4: actually go there and look at what's being run back and forth in the dump truck well i think

[3:16:44] Voice 15: when

[3:16:44] Voice 4: i think you

[3:16:45] Voice 15: know not for us to decide so we have an open bylaw of course with violent

[3:16:48] Voice 15: that's for violent enforcement to figure out yeah um the

[3:16:54] Voice 4: noise issue that they raise is not

[3:16:56] Voice 4: in our jurisdiction so well this thing could be informed

[3:17:00] Voice 15: that they could also while our

[3:17:03] Voice 15: bylaw enforcement carries on they could also contact the area to read the rdm yeah

[3:17:12] Voice 12: you could

[3:17:13] Voice 12: just receive this

[3:17:13] Voice 4: information um

[3:17:15] Voice 16: i

[3:17:18] Voice 4: think i think so is anyone in communications with this individual

[3:17:23] Voice 4: unfortunately does not use email. That's why he came in person. And I assume this letter has been seen by

[3:17:33] Voice 4: by law enforcement? Because it came to the office?

[3:17:36] Voice 4: I don't

[3:17:37] Voice 12: know. We wouldn't automatically forward it. I mean, it's on a public agenda, so it would hit the agenda, but I don't think that

[3:17:46] Voice 16: would be helpful.

[3:17:46] Voice 16: I

[3:17:47] Voice 12: think that we usually give staff who could advise someone who's coming in as a complaint to have a complaint, you can report it to by-law enforcement when they receive that advice.

[3:17:58] Voice 15: In this case, can we

[3:18:00] Voice 11: just, through general consent, request staff to forward this to by-law enforcement?

[3:18:06] Voice 4: Yeah, that would be my point.

[3:18:07] Voice 4: Is that okay to do that through general consent, or would you prefer a resolution?

[3:18:11] Voice 4: I think we should have a resolution.

[3:18:12] Voice 4: You need a resolution.

[3:18:13] Voice 4: I tried.

[3:18:14] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriela Island Local Trust Committee refer correspondents from M. Delahunt, dated August 5, 2025, to file law enforcement for Gabriela Island Local Trust Area.

[3:18:32] Voice 4: Is there a second?

[3:18:35] Voice 16: Is it okay?

[3:18:38] Voice 5: She's got that.

[3:18:42] Second by Trustee Elliott. Any discussion?

[3:18:45] Voice 15: All those in favor. And that carries. All right, let's keep on going then. We have a series of staff reports here at 159. We have 13.1

[3:19:00] Voice 4: is the bylaw statement referral memorandum.

[3:19:09] Voice 4: Jason. Is Jason here?

[3:19:18] Voice 15: hello jason uh lord's yours oh

[3:19:24] Voice 8: well good afternoon gabriola trustees um i don't have any prepared

[3:19:31] Voice 8: remarks i was simply here to be a resource if so needed um the gabriola island local trust

[3:19:37] Voice 8: committee has now received the policy statement uh on referral as have you know about 100 or so

[3:19:43] Voice 8: other government agencies and entities and still working our way through the Indigenous

[3:19:47] Voice 8: Governing Bodies referrals.

[3:19:50] Voice 8: You have indicated that on October 9th, you are going to host a town hall during your

[3:19:57] Voice 8: regular business meeting to hear from your constituents about their impressions of the

[3:20:01] Voice 8: new draft policy statement and how it may impact Gabriela Island in order to inform

[3:20:06] Voice 8: your local trust committee's referral response.

[3:20:09] Voice 8: response. And I think that's really all I have to say that we look forward to receiving your

[3:20:14] Voice 8: referral response when we do. All

[3:20:17] Voice 15: right. So I guess my question, just technically,

[3:20:20] Voice 15: because I assume I'll see this probably on another local press committee agenda soon.

[3:20:27] Voice 15: Would we need to defer this so that it's on the record to bring back to another agenda?

[3:20:35] Voice 15: agenda um because i'm assuming you'd want to hear what your people public has to say on october 9th

[3:20:44] Voice 4: um

[3:20:45] Voice 15: oh

[3:20:47] Voice 4: yeah we're not asking we're not going to get a response

[3:20:48] Voice 15: but we have to at least

[3:20:51] Voice 15: you know request that it come back on another agenda or do something um i've already noted

[3:20:58] Voice 4: that i'm putting it on my next agenda no i know

[3:21:00] Voice 15: but if you want it automatically to come back on

[3:21:03] Voice 15: the november meeting or october well that is where you want to act on it immediately in october or

[3:21:11] Voice 15: wait let's let that information you hear in october and then respond to the referral in the

[3:21:18] Voice 15: next meeting i

[3:21:18] Voice 4: think it would be horrible okay well

[3:21:22] Voice 15: i'm just but i'm just looking at the how

[3:21:25] Voice 15: does this appear again so

[3:21:27] Voice 4: for sure we either need to send our referral right after the october 9th

[3:21:33] Voice 4: public section or we need to send our referral at the November LTC meeting considering what we

[3:21:41] Voice 4: heard at the October 9th meeting from the public so shall we just assume that we will be carrying

[3:21:48] Voice 4: this forward to both of those meetings but all referral responses need to be received by October

[3:21:52] Voice 4: 10th we don't have until November oh

[3:21:55] Voice 15: you have to have

[3:21:56] Voice 8: responses

[3:21:57] Voice 15: by October 10th sorry through the

[3:22:00] Voice 8: the chair i'm not i did submit a follow-up briefing that i'm not sure made it into your

[3:22:04] Voice 8: agenda package or not that indicates that uh in recognition of the fact that uh each local trust

[3:22:10] Voice 8: committee would not be hosting its town hall or its community information meetings until

[3:22:13] Voice 8: october november some even in december i think that

[3:22:17] Voice 4: the that

[3:22:18] Voice 8: the october 10th deadline is a bit

[3:22:20] Voice 8: optimistic right

[3:22:22] Voice 4: so february 6th sorry i missed yeah and you write the original one that was

[3:22:26] Voice 4: Right. Okay.

[3:22:27] Voice 11: So I think if we just request that it come back on the November agenda, that gives you a time to digest and be prepared. Would that be fair?

[3:22:37] Voice 11: Yeah.

[3:22:37] Voice 4: And I guess for the public's information, how is a, you know, a body like the LTC, how might our referral or our response to the referral be considered in the context of the whole project,

[3:22:54] Voice 4: as opposed to individual responses from Gabriel and community members that might be writing in

[3:23:00] Voice 4: their thoughts and comments I mean it's all going to be taken into account but

[3:23:09] Voice 4: the LTC is expected to respond on behalf of the whole LTA I guess

[3:23:16] Voice 4: I

[3:23:17] Voice 3: don't

[3:23:18] Voice 4: know do you have any better wording for that so we can clarify for the public's

[3:23:21] Voice 4: let me make a stab at it and then

[3:23:23] Voice 15: jason shake his head violently no if i'm said i mean all public

[3:23:29] Voice 15: have to have are encouraged to give their feedback through your lens of being a local trust committee

[3:23:36] Voice 15: and listening to how concerns of how the policies would show up on gabriel loan if you hear something

[3:23:44] Voice 15: you go wow i hadn't thought of it that way and i agree that that policy could have an effect that

[3:23:51] Voice 15: that wasn't intended when you saw it,

[3:23:54] Voice 15: so that you're now bringing specific attention.

[3:23:57] Voice 15: You'd say, okay, I'd recommend approving it,

[3:23:59] Voice 15: but for policy X,

[3:24:05] Voice 15: I either would like to see these changes

[3:24:07] Voice 15: so that the outcome here would be different.

[3:24:10] Voice 15: From staff's perspective,

[3:24:12] Voice 15: they're gonna be collecting that

[3:24:13] Voice 15: from 13 other local trust areas.

[3:24:15] Voice 15: That same issue might pop up on other islands,

[3:24:19] Voice 15: or not, or in the sharing of that information, trustees could go, I did kind of hear that in my

[3:24:26] Voice 15: area. So it's going to be a conversation. Trust Council itself would have to make those amendments

[3:24:31] Voice 15: based on the collection of information that's going to be shared. Right. I don't know, Jason,

[3:24:37] Voice 15: if you had another way of saying that.

[3:24:40] Voice 8: No, I think that's a fair characterization, Chair.

[3:24:42] Voice 8: Chair. Thank you.

[3:24:43] Voice 4: And what I've been commenting on just with the public generally is that

[3:24:49] Voice 4: the timing is really good in the sense that we are working on our official community plan,

[3:24:54] Voice 4: which is supposed to be guided by the trust policy statement bylaw. And so, you know,

[3:25:00] Voice 4: that we might have comments regarding our OCP review relating. Correct. You could be proposing

[3:25:07] Voice 4: proposing current or draft policies that need to be amended or you could be proposing policies

[3:25:13] Voice 4: that are missing or say that we you know this is something that

[3:25:17] Voice 15: came up in our process and we think

[3:25:18] Voice 15: it would be good here there could be a number of different types of recommendations that you could

[3:25:23] Voice 15: make with your your lens of looking at that document now through application here

[3:25:31] Voice 3: good

[3:25:33] Voice 4: Good. So one more question. There was a mention that notices were created and posted on most of the local trust areas.

[3:25:48] Voice 4: Has that been done for Gabriela? Is there a specific notice about Town Hall on October 4th to advertise this opportunity?

[3:25:58] Voice 4: Sorry, October 9th.

[3:26:01] Voice 4: Yeah, go ahead.

[3:26:04] Voice 4: go ahead jason

[3:26:05] Voice 8: oh is that to me um yes trustee elliott that is the intention as to whether that

[3:26:11] Voice 8: advertisement has been posted already i cannot recall i wish i had our communications specialist

[3:26:15] Voice 8: here at my side to um to help me with that um how about i look into that and we'll let you know

[3:26:21] Voice 8: or let all of the trustees know

[3:26:23] Voice 11: thanks that has some information um today the communication

[3:26:27] Voice 11: specialist has requested that information be included on the regular subscriber notice related

[3:26:32] Voice 11: to that meeting which goes out a week ahead of time but i don't know of other um other

[3:26:39] Voice 4: communications that are planned at this time okay

[3:26:41] Voice 8: there there is a sounder ad i'm just not sure of

[3:26:44] Voice 8: the timing of uh of that right

[3:26:46] Voice 15: yeah and i think that's something you locally have some good

[3:26:52] Voice 15: insight to as to how you know if you go too early people forget about it if you go too soon they're

[3:26:58] Voice 15: you're not prepared so when where's that uh good spot for well

[3:27:03] Voice 4: it's only a month away i think

[3:27:04] Voice 4: are we able to ask for more communication materials or is it is everything pretty much

[3:27:10] Voice 4: maxed out in terms of we've asked for a time to call and these are the two methods of

[3:27:16] Voice 4: communicating the opportunity to the public yeah

[3:27:20] Voice 8: we've been executing the project in accordance

[3:27:23] Voice 8: with the the project communication plan if you have other ideas I'm certainly

[3:27:30] Voice 8: welcome to hear it I don't think we have much in the way of excess budget in

[3:27:34] Voice 8: order to to fund anything beyond what we've described so far but if there are

[3:27:41] Voice 8: if there are low cost to free or free to low cost opportunities we should be

[3:27:47] Voice 8: aware of happy to hear

[3:27:49] Voice 8: I

[3:27:50] Voice 4: would simply ask if the northern office could do a

[3:27:53] Voice 4: up a poster with the branding and the date and we can post that on you know at the village

[3:28:02] Voice 4: and in prominent areas because i think this i mean trust wide information is going out people

[3:28:12] Voice 4: are going to put their info i'm most interested in hearing from my community members because

[3:28:18] Voice 4: they've been so involved with the ocp review and now we're going to see well how does this all

[3:28:23] Voice 4: work out so i want to make sure people have the opportunity and come to that meeting so that will

[3:28:31] Voice 4: help us with our response so i'd be happy to work with staff on just a very simple poster that you

[3:28:37] Voice 4: know november october 9th come to the gabriel local trust committee town hall this is what

[3:28:43] Voice 4: i want to hear from you about the policy statement this will inform gabriel ltc's referral response

[3:28:50] Voice 8: through the chair some some postering may actually be part of the communications program already and

[3:28:56] Voice 8: i apologize that i don't have that information at my fingertips but once i'm out of this meeting

[3:29:00] Voice 8: with you i will reach out to the communication specialist and perhaps before your meeting even

[3:29:04] Voice 8: wraps up i will be able to provide an update through steven so

[3:29:07] Voice 15: generally we would not need

[3:29:08] Voice 15: any resolutions for these type of things they're discussing at the moment or no it's just be a

[3:29:14] Voice 15: recommend and you're just hearing this is how the communications for that like overnight event could

[3:29:21] Voice 15: occur and posters are sound like i expect posters were considered too that's a common communications

[3:29:27] Voice 15: across most of the islands um okay yes so we do need a motion to have for to request this be

[3:29:38] Voice 15: returned on the november agenda or do we not what

[3:29:43] Voice 16: does that i

[3:29:46] Voice 12: don't know if you well

[3:29:49] Voice 12: jason i don't know if you have advice about this but it's coming on your october agenda and then

[3:29:53] Voice 12: you're going to be considering your response and you okay you know already you will not respond

[3:29:59] Voice 12: on that.

[3:30:00] Voice 12: they will respond in November.

[3:30:02] Voice 15: I think it gives, I think trustees should take the time to think about what they hear on October

[3:30:07] Voice 15: and allow them to think about, because this is a chance to really give a good response back

[3:30:14] Voice 4: with this lens.

[3:30:17] Voice 4: And well before February 2026.

[3:30:21] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:30:22] Voice 4: So do we need a motion to request this come back

[3:30:26] Voice 15: on the agenda in November?

[3:30:28] Voice 15: Then

[3:30:28] Voice 12: it shows up on the follow-up action list.

[3:30:29] Voice 12: safest okay i think i don't know if you do need one but that's certainly no it resides in the

[3:30:34] Voice 4: follow-up action list so i think that would be a good idea do one of you want to attempt a motion

[3:30:39] Voice 4: just okay so the gabriel local trust committee advise it will return a referrals response

[3:30:47] Voice 4: to the proposed bylaw number 183 on the stress policy statement bylaw 2025 at the november 20th

[3:30:57] Voice 4: meeting

[3:31:00] Voice 4: 2025.

[3:31:01] Voice 4: If that works,

[3:31:04] Voice 4: we could

[3:31:04] Voice 15: have been just bringing it back.

[3:31:07] Voice 15: Lisa, what do you got there?

[3:31:09] Voice 11: With the Gabriel Island Local Trust Committee

[3:31:11] Voice 11: advised it will return a referral

[3:31:13] Voice 11: response to proposed bylaw

[3:31:14] Voice 11: number 183, Island's Trust

[3:31:16] Voice 11: Policy Statement bylaw

[3:31:18] Voice 11: at the November 2025 meeting.

[3:31:21] Voice 15: That work for staff?

[3:31:23] Voice 15: You would capture that for the agenda?

[3:31:24] Voice 15: Okay. Is there a second

[3:31:26] Voice 15: to that motion? Seconded by Trustee Yates.

[3:31:29] Voice 15: Any discussion? All those in favor? That carries. Thank you, Jason, for today and helping us

[3:31:39] Voice 15: through how we deal with this process as it unfolds. Thank you so much for being here.

[3:31:46] Voice 8: Thank you, Gabriel, the trustees. Good afternoon.

[3:31:49] Voice 15: Okay, so we're going to move on. Item 13.2 is removing or transferring densities from

[3:31:57] Voice 15: heritage areas from random on page 203.

[3:32:03] Voice 5: Oops, I can type.

[3:32:06] Voice 15: All right, is that going to be you, Stephen? Go ahead.

[3:32:13] Voice 12: So yeah, this memo responds to a resolution from the LTC to report back on options to remove or

[3:32:19] Voice 12: transfer densities from heritage areas and specifically from PIB 003134836.

[3:32:28] Voice 12: This memo just presents that information, there's no recommendation that we have for

[3:32:33] Voice 12: you attached to this, but just to briefly summarize it, really the LTC can remove or

[3:32:39] Voice 12: transfer densities.

[3:32:40] Voice 12: This is using that zoning power that you have through the Islands Trust Act, and they'll

[3:32:44] Voice 12: put your own in it.

[3:32:47] Voice 12: And the memo presents a number of considerations or implications that the LTC should keep in

[3:32:53] Voice 12: mind when considering you know transferring or removing removing densities from from properties

[3:33:04] Voice 12: and and also just advises that they may wish to seek legal advice prior to directing a project

[3:33:10] Voice 12: to remove or transfer densities from specific specific parcels as well if that's the direction

[3:33:19] Voice 12: I can, yeah, I can respond to questions or provide more detail if the LTC would like.

[3:33:26] Voice 15: Mm-hmm.

[3:33:28] Voice 15: What's these questions?

[3:33:32] Voice 4: Well, yeah, go ahead.

[3:33:34] Voice 4: Well, just a comment.

[3:33:35] Voice 4: This is a very helpful format for me to read through and understand the complexities and the possible reverberations.

[3:33:44] Voice 4: the part one is very clear and then part two the context and the considerations for that subject

[3:33:51] Voice 4: land is also very clear and really helpful so thank you was a matter of thought that did you

[3:33:58] Voice 4: do all of this it was it's really helpful thank you i guess my comments for the first part is

[3:34:15] Voice 4: is whether consideration of the option to transfer removed densities from heritage areas

[3:34:21] Voice 4: is captured in the current discussion with a community on reimagining density or growth

[3:34:34] Voice 4: management.

[3:34:35] Voice 4: Because we're specifically talking about does the community want to remove subdivision potential?

[3:34:42] Voice 4: potential. What I don't think is captured in the current discussion is specifically

[3:34:46] Voice 4: from heritage areas.

[3:34:54] Voice 12: I would have to look back at those discussion guides that we have prepared and they should

[3:34:59] Voice 12: be posted fairly shortly. I think they, I believe they reference, I think they do reference

[3:35:07] Voice 12: the First Nations or archaeological site or cultural heritage sites consideration for

[3:35:13] Voice 12: removing subdivision potential but it's alongside other other um rationale as well um because that's

[3:35:20] Voice 12: not the only consideration um it's also the you know environmentally sensitive area since the

[3:35:25] Voice 12: ecosystems um the affordable housing and how that you know how subdivision does or does not

[3:35:30] Voice 12: contribute to that so um that's that's how it's presented as all as one there's not a it's not

[3:35:37] Voice 12: singled out, I guess. This is, we mentioned earlier that we have been engaging with the

[3:35:45] Voice 12: First Nations staff throughout this project in that, you know, similarly we have presented them

[3:35:53] Voice 12: with or informed them of these discussions with the Adriola community as well, so they're aware

[3:35:59] Voice 12: of it and aware that that subdivision is a topic through, you know, with this OCP review,

[3:36:04] you housing generally in subdivision as well so the

[3:36:10] Voice 12: one it comes up through the suitable land

[3:36:14] Voice 12: analysis as well I don't know that I don't know the detail of the each of the layers that comprise

[3:36:21] Voice 12: that suitable land analysis if you recall that presentation from quite some time ago but it's a

[3:36:29] certain it's another uh aspect i think

[3:36:31] Voice 12: to determine a suitable land as well as those

[3:36:35] Voice 12: sensitive um archaeological or cultural heritage uh areas yeah

[3:36:42] Voice 6: so

[3:36:44] Voice 12: in that way it's also captured i

[3:36:46] Voice 12: guess i

[3:36:46] Voice 15: mean that i i don't know enough about a suitable land analysis tool i would agree with

[3:36:52] Voice 15: the appropriate layer to have this kind of information but it would only be working if

[3:36:56] Voice 15: that would

[3:36:57] Voice 4: also be identifying what's unsuitable and that i'm not sure it's doing so yeah no it

[3:37:05] Voice 4: it does the the community values so the conversation on how to values connect to land

[3:37:11] Voice 4: use decisions and redistribution of existing density the two main criteria are do we want

[3:37:18] Voice 4: to reduce development impact in more sensitive areas and increase development potential in areas

[3:37:23] Voice 4: of less impact. So I think what Planner Bell was referencing is sensitive areas can include

[3:37:30] Voice 4: culturally sensitive, environmentally sensitive, or areas that are rural and

[3:37:38] Voice 4: need more development, reducing development impact there. And the suitable land

[3:37:45] Voice 4: is evaluating what types of additional

[3:37:50] Voice 4: density if any should be allowed and how

[3:37:54] Voice 4: future subdivision potential is focused

[3:37:57] Voice 4: either through criteria subdivision

[3:38:02] Voice 4: may only occur if it's for affordable or attainable housing

[3:38:05] Voice 4: or where it is allowed only in this area where it's

[3:38:10] Voice 4: not going to have impact so I think it does consider takes all those

[3:38:14] Voice 4: lenses into account um so I'm satisfied that the conversation on September 14th is hopefully going

[3:38:25] Voice 4: to capture um our community appetite and interest in do we want to limit subdivision or do we want

[3:38:36] Voice 4: to continue a status quo I guess my question is is that on survey is it going to be asked

[3:38:44] Voice 4: specifically in the community should we prohibit subdivision for future subdivision on culturally

[3:38:51] Voice 4: sensitive lands well

[3:38:55] Voice 12: we can send out the discussion guide which have those questions for the survey

[3:39:02] Voice 12: right on them I don't know what to help make it if that is specifically listed as a question

[3:39:08] Voice 12: but I mean I mean yeah I mean I think we probably could include that as a question if that's

[3:39:15] Voice 12: something else you would like us to ask as well yeah it's

[3:39:20] Voice 4: a very it's a it's a very important

[3:39:24] Voice 4: question to ask and i think it's important to be specific about it because one it will tell us

[3:39:32] Voice 4: how strongly this community values reconciliation in terms of we will give up additional subdivision

[3:39:41] Voice 4: density because that value supersedes it and it could signal to the name of first nation that the

[3:39:48] Voice 4: community has you know prioritized those values if the feedback that comes back isn't you know

[3:39:56] Voice 4: this is a strong value then we have less um reason to think about push for that at this time at this

[3:40:06] Voice 4: time so i think for the i would love to see a specific question on the survey um do you support

[3:40:16] Voice 4: um

[3:40:20] Voice 12: if you just asked him that you know you know if you want to really specific language you can or

[3:40:27] Voice 12: you could just ask us to include a question specific to this topic

[3:40:35] Voice 4: Yes, that's what I would like to hear.

[3:40:40] Voice 4: Do you need a resolution for that?

[3:40:44] Voice 12: Oh, there would be.

[3:40:46] Voice 4: That's fine.

[3:40:47] Voice 12: It's another one. I'm not sure that it's required, but it would help, yeah.

[3:40:53] Voice 4: Sounds

[3:40:53] Voice 5: good, I have it

[3:40:54] Voice 4: in my head.

[3:40:59] Voice 5: um

[3:41:10] Voice 4: so to speak something like including the question on future subdivision potential on

[3:41:15] Voice 4: culturally sensitive lands i think that's broad enough for heritage areas

[3:41:22] Voice 4: this is heritage areas

[3:41:25] Voice 4: yeah he has the one that the province is using they're doing all that work right now

[3:41:38] Voice 12: Do you want me to see if when her child is available right now? I don't know if she is,

[3:41:44] Voice 12: but I could also check it to see

[3:41:46] Voice 16: if she's available anymore.

[3:41:52] Voice 4: So the motion would be April of the Local Trust Committee to request staff to include

[3:42:00] Voice 4: include a question in the growth management survey regarding subdivision potential on

[3:42:10] Voice 4: heritage areas?

[3:42:15] Voice 4: Yeah,

[3:42:15] Voice 16: I think that's fine.

[3:42:16] Voice 16: That's fine.

[3:42:19] Voice 5: Is that decent?

[3:42:20] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:42:20] Voice 4: Super.

[3:42:21] Voice 4: Are you going with that motion then?

[3:42:23] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:42:24] Voice 15: Is there a second?

[3:42:25] Voice 15: Sure.

[3:42:26] Voice 15: Seconded by Trustee Yates.

[3:42:27] Voice 15: Any discussion?

[3:42:28] Voice 15: I'll call the vote then.

[3:42:31] Voice 15: All those in favour?

[3:42:32] Voice 15: That carries.

[3:42:35] Voice 15: So we'll do that and then this report's just then received permanently.

[3:42:38] Voice 4: No, the second part, though, is that the first part is the general consideration of densities and heritage areas.

[3:42:47] Voice 4: But the second part, the subject land that we asked about, I'm assuming we'd have to direct staff or request staff to move ahead with this.

[3:42:58] Voice 4: um the advice is to seek a legal opinion on the risks associated with the down zoning of this

[3:43:04] Voice 4: property because of the stage that it's at i am remembering that the 2021

[3:43:15] Voice 4: application for subdivision did not proceed for whatever reasons the current subdivision

[3:43:22] Voice 4: application is not materially different. And the name of

[3:43:28] Voice 4: subjections are still very strong. And the LTC I'm

[3:43:33] Voice 4: assuming has not changed our position.

[3:43:36] Voice 4: Are you wanting this before we do our, our OCP review, asking

[3:43:44] Voice 4: the public about moving subdivision of heritage areas?

[3:43:50] Voice 4: Like, no, that's a general like, let's take the tone of the

[3:43:53] Voice 4: public on if there's support for removing densities from heritage areas there's lots of heritage areas

[3:44:02] Voice 4: potentially have subdivision potential so this is specifically that personal i do think we need

[3:44:09] Voice 4: a legal opinion on it um especially as it's at the stage of having a plr and in the middle of

[3:44:17] Voice 4: the subdivision application i'm just saying we should not assume that the subdivision will be

[3:44:24] Voice 4: of fruit because there are all these outstanding concerns there's a bunch of criteria that's been

[3:44:29] Voice 4: issued um my i feel like our role in this is to still do what is within our area of responsibility

[3:44:42] Voice 4: for the behavioral trust area which is zoning considering we're in an ocp review of community

[3:44:48] Voice 4: values of environmental protection reconciliation and putting density where it's inappropriate

[3:44:54] Voice 4: Those are strong values that we need to uphold.

[3:44:58] Voice 4: Can we not explore how to rezone that area?

[3:45:05] Voice 4: But what I'm asking is, do you want to do this specific thing before we get feedback

[3:45:12] Voice 4: from the public on whether they think that moving subdivision potential is a good idea

[3:45:19] Voice 4: generally?

[3:45:20] Voice 4: Do you want to go ahead with this specific one before we get that feedback from the public

[3:45:29] Voice 15: well you could have a different set of questions if you get strong support from the public they're

[3:45:38] Voice 15: interested in pursuing this option your legal opinion could have a broad

[3:45:44] Voice 4: question as well as

[3:45:45] Voice 11: a specific question or

[3:45:49] Voice 4: you ask two separate legal opinions no it's it's not about the community's

[3:45:54] Voice 4: feedback it's specifically in the current context of down zoning this property right now what are

[3:46:02] Voice 4: those risks those questions are going to be the same whether the community is fully in support

[3:46:09] Voice 4: of it or not it's just going to be what are the risks and having that information can then allow

[3:46:15] Voice 4: us to then move to the next stage of making a decision or not with the community's input as

[3:46:24] Voice 4: well coming at the same time well

[3:46:28] Voice 12: i'm just i'm wondering when uh when you're envisioning this

[3:46:32] Voice 12: are you are you envisioning this rezoning taking place through the land use bylaw like that next

[3:46:41] Voice 12: phase of the ocp project to amend the land use bylaw or as a distinct project we talked about

[3:46:50] Voice 16: about

[3:46:50] Voice 4: this last meeting I thought that it could be considered as part of the current

[3:46:58] Voice 4: cpu review because it's related to both management and density and reevaluating where density should

[3:47:07] Voice 4: be and should not be so it's a

[3:47:10] Voice 4: specific focus but it's not a separate issue I

[3:47:14] Voice 12: think that's that's

[3:47:16] Voice 12: um the chair i think that's a that's does fit within the scope it's but it is a land use by

[3:47:22] Voice 12: law amendment so that is the next phase of this project and so you're looking at that happening

[3:47:31] Voice 12: um you know through there's a i think a business case will go to trust council for the next phase

[3:47:37] Voice 12: of this project to amend review the land use by law so the timing is very different with that

[3:47:43] Voice 12: And I think of that in particular because then if you are looking at a legal opinion, then there's not the urgency.

[3:47:51] Voice 12: If it's through the major project, there's a number of opportunities to seek a legal opinion prior to that coming up.

[3:48:05] Voice 4: I don't think we can wait for the timing of the Lend-Use By-law.

[3:48:10] Voice 4: That will come when there is a new term.

[3:48:16] Voice 4: I think this takes precedence.

[3:48:18] Voice 4: This has been, as former Chief Mac Settler said,

[3:48:23] Voice 4: it's been a foreign incident for 10 years.

[3:48:26] Voice 4: And development there is inappropriate.

[3:48:31] Voice 4: DLTC has had choices all along, and we have not taken action to rezone.

[3:48:36] Voice 4: We're in an active OCP review.

[3:48:38] Voice 4: I don't see that there's any excuse not to explore downzoning it.

[3:48:45] Voice 4: And there is a lot of risk that we need to know about.

[3:48:50] Voice 5: Okay.

[3:48:52] Voice 12: Well, yeah, I'm thinking of your work program generally, and so you have identified your next minor project to update the module land use by-law starting in April, but this would be a minor project to amend the land use by-law, the give-all land use by-law for this property, so I'm just, I guess just advising really that you

[3:49:18] Voice 16: will need to decide how this fits in.

[3:49:21] Voice 7: it's very important for it and

[3:49:33] Voice 4: just a quick and seeking a legal opinion on this would be part of

[3:49:37] Voice 4: that minor budget you couldn't certainly couldn't go ahead on that without a legal opinion um

[3:49:45] Voice 12: yeah

[3:49:47] Voice 12: through the chair i think we can look into the giggle ldc legal budget to see if it's something

[3:49:52] Voice 12: that you could undertake in preparation for that project um yeah yeah

[3:49:57] Voice 4: i was just going to ask him

[3:49:59] Voice 4: And what is the budget?

[3:50:01] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:50:03] Voice 12: I'm sorry, Michelle, that's why I have to report back.

[3:50:05] Voice 4: We're under budget, I think, for legal opinions,

[3:50:08] Voice 4: not for legal defense, but generally.

[3:50:12] Voice 4: I just think before initiating a minor project like this

[3:50:20] Voice 4: or directing staff to do any work,

[3:50:22] Voice 4: we need to understand the risks.

[3:50:24] Voice 4: It's not, it's part of the information that we need.

[3:50:27] Voice 4: It's a really critical piece.

[3:50:29] Voice 4: well i think you could make a request

[3:50:33] Voice 15: for legal advice because the risk it could be that you could

[3:50:42] Voice 15: might be recommended to just use this as part of the ocp project or time it with that that could

[3:50:48] Voice 15: affect risk or something so i think you could we could request it

[3:50:52] Voice 4: staff could always come back so

[3:50:53] Voice 4: you don't have the legal budget to do it but i think you could make a motion to request

[3:50:58] Voice 4: request legal

[3:50:59] Voice 16: advice to identify risks. And then whether

[3:51:08] Voice 15: it's a minor project or included into the local, that would be potentially a future. Or they come back and say, sorry, we don't have a budget. And then it's another discussion.

[3:51:19] Voice 4: So you're saying we can't do this because it's just an LUV amendment because the OCP project is at the stage that it's at?

[3:51:30] Voice 4: that?

[3:51:32] Voice 12: You can do this as a distinct project. Well, you could do it within the existing

[3:51:38] Voice 12: OCP LUB review project, or you could do it as a distinct project, a minor project, to

[3:51:45] Voice 12: amend, like you have a land use bylaw. But we could look at the OCP, we'd have to examine

[3:51:50] Voice 12: the OCP and whether the OCP of that particular parcel would need to be amended as well. But

[3:52:00] Voice 12: But yeah, either could be through either, I think never.

[3:52:05] Voice 12: Because

[3:52:05] Voice 4: I think this would inform

[3:52:06] Voice 4: the business case as well.

[3:52:09] Voice 12: But you have, oh, okay.

[3:52:12] Voice 4: We're next fiscal of where we're going to land with,

[3:52:16] Voice 4: what is the proposed time for the policy,

[3:52:20] Voice 4: policies to be adopted?

[3:52:23] Voice 4: I think it's spring.

[3:52:24] Voice 12: We are, yeah, yeah, we're,

[3:52:27] Voice 12: um i think we have draft policies we're aiming to bring in november not a draft to cp but policies

[3:52:35] Voice 12: yeah uh and then in the new year uh i think it would be at the soonest february to have

[3:52:42] Voice 12: consideration of first reading

[3:52:44] Voice 4: right and then drafting and leaving amendments would be

[3:52:53] Voice 4: so the next fiscal starts in march and we need a business case now for that part like the next

[3:53:04] Voice 4: phase i would like to make sure that this is in scope um for that next part so whether we seek a

[3:53:13] Voice 4: legal opinion now or later it's it needs to be done prior to undertaking this action whether

[3:53:20] Voice 4: it's its own project or it's from the osu people it doesn't matter so i have a question um if we

[3:53:28] Voice 4: ask that we seek a legal opinion right now um what if the budget isn't there

[3:53:35] Voice 4: i'm like should we be asking like do we know when our budget is good the

[3:53:40] Voice 12: chair i do not okay i do

[3:53:42] Voice 12: know and this was maybe a goal at last at your last meeting you requested a legal opinion on

[3:53:47] Voice 12: the covenant yeah um and that's and at the time i think the rpm was available as i said there was

[3:53:55] Voice 12: that budget for that uh we so i i yeah i guess i don't know i don't want to speculate that there's

[3:54:02] Voice 12: budget but you could ask and i think we

[3:54:04] Voice 4: would just ask if there's no goodness

[3:54:06] Voice 12: then we would bring it

[3:54:08] Voice 12: back.

[3:54:08] Voice 4: Can we just have a minute so I can look at the project chart on our chat with us here because

[3:54:13] Voice 4: we have 48,000 allocated for the OCP review. We've used 24,025 almost. I don't know if anything's

[3:54:23] Voice 4: been spent on legal and there is a legal budget associated with the OCP review. Correct.

[3:54:31] Voice 12: But it's

[3:54:37] Voice 12: is familiar with that budget but um the ocp budget would be that legal budget would likely be

[3:54:45] Voice 12: in that review of the traffic lcp um yeah that's the legal review of that traffic yeah

[3:54:56] Voice 12: but i if you if you want a legal opinion on this particular question you could ask us to use the

[3:55:07] Voice 12: Gabriel LTC budget and yeah I think we would if the answer was there's no room in that budget we

[3:55:19] Voice 12: could come back to you with that yeah

[3:55:22] Voice 16: okay if

[3:55:30] Voice 4: we request a legal review of this regarding this

[3:55:34] Voice 4: property do we need to name the property identification number in in our request

[3:55:41] Voice 12: Well, I think if you're through the chair, if your question is, your question for the

[3:55:48] Voice 12: legal question is particular to the law and particular to some type of rezoning, then

[3:55:59] Voice 12: it would be helpful, I think, most helpful to identify that so that it can respond and

[3:56:07] Voice 5: give you the advice you need.

[3:56:19] Voice 4: So the wording you had was that the LTC seek a legal opinion on the risks associated with

[3:56:27] Voice 4: the down zoning of this property, and I think the

[3:56:43] Voice 5: property is

[3:56:50] Voice 16: in the age of completion or

[3:56:59] Voice 5: sub-division.

[3:57:00] Voice 5: well

[3:57:32] Voice 12: yeah to try if you make you could you may want to just specify to visit

[3:57:39] Voice 12: removing subdivision potential is that the question or is it a different kind

[3:57:42] Voice 12: of down zone that you're considering earlier at wanting to ask about and so

[3:57:51] Voice 12: you could be as specific as that and you could just I think you could say you

[3:57:58] Voice 12: You know, given the history of the, you know, the application history or the current applications that are ongoing

[3:58:14] Voice 16: for that are open for this person.

[3:58:18] Voice 4: Say that last part again.

[3:58:20] Voice 16: Yeah.

[3:58:22] Voice 4: Given the complex history.

[3:58:24] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:58:25] Voice 4: And the current stage of application or subdivision.

[3:58:30] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:58:34] Voice 4: Or an active subdivision application.

[3:58:37] Voice 12: Yeah, applications, I think, too, is the case here.

[3:58:42] Voice 11: Current applications.

[3:58:43] Voice 11: You don't even have to say subdivision.

[3:58:45] Voice 11: Yeah.

[3:58:46] Voice 11: Just say current applications.

[3:58:49] Voice 16: Current applications.

[3:58:51] Voice 11: Plural,

[3:58:52] Voice 16: and that's it.

[3:58:53] Voice 16: You don't have to have those.

[3:58:54] Voice 4: Well, I do think it's important to situate it

[3:58:57] Voice 4: in the context of an active OCP review as well.

[3:59:02] Voice 4: it's yes there's risks associated with it but also i would want to have an opinion on

[3:59:11] Voice 4: the um i guess how fair and does it give the ltc more of a reason the fact that we're in an ocp

[3:59:31] Voice 4: for VA. You can

[3:59:33] Voice 4: say and consideration of the ongoing or current or something OCP ever do.

[3:59:42] Voice 4: So it would be that the Gabriel Local Trust Committee request staff to request a legal

[3:59:47] Voice 4: opinion on the risks associated with the down zoning or rezoning or transferring densities from

[3:59:52] Voice 4: subject property given the complex history and current applications and in the context

[4:00:00] Voice 4: of the ongoing Gabriel OCP review. Does that sound really nice?

[4:00:06] Voice 12: Maybe the complex history is a little

[4:00:08] Voice 12: bit, are you referring to the application history?

[4:00:11] Voice 4: No, the history as in there's been a community

[4:00:15] Voice 4: humanity contribution. Right. That's the history given the, well not just that history, quite a

[4:00:23] Voice 4: both are several thousand years old. That's right. Right. That's the one I'm thinking of.

[4:00:30] Voice 4: Peer could email that to me. Yeah, she's still thinking.

[4:00:35] Voice 3: Do you

[4:00:43] Voice 5: refer to the community piece?

[4:00:48] Voice 12: Within an application?

[4:00:53] Voice 4: Well, it was the density transfer. Yeah.

[4:00:56] Voice 12: Yeah, without

[4:00:56] Voice 4: encountering the historical

[4:01:09] Voice 5: density transfer and okay

[4:01:39] Voice 4: so that it would be, do we want it to say down zoning or rezoning or transferring densities?

[4:01:45] Voice 4: There's

[4:01:51] Voice 16: a chart there.

[4:01:54] Voice 4: Do they all have different meanings?

[4:01:55] Voice 4: Yes,

[4:01:56] Voice 12: it's very open. Rezoning could be on any number of things, which would all have

[4:02:04] Voice 12: different implications, I think.

[4:02:06] Voice 4: So downzoning, rezoning, or transferring densities.

[4:02:11] Voice 4: I

[4:02:22] Voice 12: think if you have a legal question, it would be helpful if you could be specific about

[4:02:28] Voice 12: what is it you're considering for this property, and then to list the complications that you

[4:02:38] Voice 12: i could you know or you're wanting a lawyer to consider

[4:02:46] Voice 12: if it's really general it may you may not um concern you may not receive a response that's

[4:02:53] Voice 12: really helpful okay

[4:02:59] Voice 4: and i'm gonna need a little more time could we table this and

[4:03:03] Voice 4: and go do other business sure we don't have a lot more left abc uh amendments yep so just a

[4:03:11] Voice 4: quick question again to staff um so the phrase seek a legal opinion on the risks associated with

[4:03:19] Voice 4: rezoning which includes down zoning that's not specific enough

[4:03:24] Voice 4: we would need to be more specific with regard to what that seems like pretty specific because

[4:03:34] Voice 4: it says risks we want to know all the risks

[4:03:37] Voice 12: okay i don't know though we could we could um we could

[4:03:40] Voice 12: ask that question and and and maybe that would be you know it's challenging for me to speculate

[4:03:50] Voice 12: i mean rezoning is really general it could mean up zoning it could be adding a lot of density

[4:03:56] Voice 12: it could be taking away density or changing the subdivision potential or there's a lot of

[4:04:03] Voice 12: changing the uses right so

[4:04:07] Voice 12: there's so many different things

[4:04:08] Voice 4: if we clarify the potential

[4:04:10] Voice 4: for rezoning to allocate density or to limit density to less sensitive like culturally

[4:04:18] Voice 4: sensitive areas for instance like we could vary the number of lots we could make the lots

[4:04:26] Voice 4: smaller but clustered in an area that has low archaeological potential or

[4:04:34] Voice 4: impact. So is that the kind of focus question that would help get a good legal opinion?

[4:04:42] Voice 12: I think, yeah, if you're able to provide that kind of detail, yeah. But I think at least

[4:04:51] Voice 12: the i i think at least let's think that you're considered if you're asking about removing density

[4:05:01] Voice 12: or yeah i guess we're transferring it to uh restricting i guess that's it yeah that is helpful

[4:05:07] Voice 12: you're restricting the uh minimum average plot area for subdivision um or yeah

[4:05:18] Voice 16: it's

[4:05:23] Voice 7: it well

[4:05:28] Voice 4: Well, I think obviously there's a few questions, either downzoning, does downzoning mean extinguishing

[4:05:35] Voice 4: densities?

[4:05:36] Voice 4: No.

[4:05:37] Voice 4: No?

[4:05:37] Voice 4: No.

[4:05:38] Voice 4: Downzoning just means reducing less than there are today.

[4:05:41] Voice 16: Zoning.

[4:05:42] Voice 16: Yeah.

[4:05:49] Voice 16: Minimum amounts, as I said.

[4:05:52] Voice 16: I'm not sure if you want to do this

[4:06:07] Voice 12: today, or is it possible to bring this back to a

[4:06:09] Voice 12: future meeting where we could have maybe more time and kind of analysis might

[4:06:17] Voice 15: be because

[4:06:18] Voice 12: it is hard

[4:06:19] Voice 12: i would prefer to have more time to think about this and to even ask others

[4:06:30] Voice 12: uh about you know how we could support you to give the advice you need yeah um okay

[4:06:38] Voice 1: So,

[4:06:39] Voice 12: I think that that's probably my best advice would be to say, can you come back and we

[4:06:46] Voice 12: can sort of figure out exactly what we should be asking and how and how to get those answers.

[4:06:58] Voice 4: So we request some thinking about it and bring back some options related to a legal opinion

[4:07:05] Voice 4: in that would explore these general areas then you could come back with um here's some wording

[4:07:11] Voice 4: i think

[4:07:12] Voice 12: well yeah i mean so some of what we're doing right now is trying to i'm trying to

[4:07:19] Voice 12: understand what exactly you're considering or what you're wanting to present so i mean i don't know

[4:07:27] Voice 12: if it's um i guess is it clear to you in your mind what you're asking or what your what advice

[4:07:45] Voice 12: you're wanting and can you express that and then you know that might be the first step because

[4:07:50] Voice 12: that's where i'm that's partly where i'm uncertain right now so

[4:07:55] Voice 4: what what i thought was the clearest

[4:07:57] Voice 4: but i could be completely wrong here i thought it was more clear to just say seek a legal opinion

[4:08:03] Voice 4: on the risks associated with the down zoning of this property that just seems like the most

[4:08:11] Voice 4: most encompassing but also specific requests that you could you could ask without confusing

[4:08:19] Voice 4: the issue but I could be totally wrong isn't that what we just need to do

[4:08:25] Voice 4: yeah but maybe not I think it is but and wouldn't a lawyer come back and say and then say well I

[4:08:33] Voice 4: need to know this or this or whatever I don't know but I think what Planner Ball is trying to say

[4:08:39] Voice 4: is there's many variations of gray zone.

[4:08:42] Voice 16: Oh, I know, there is definitely.

[4:08:44] Voice 4: But just generally,

[4:08:47] Voice 4: maybe we just need to know generally

[4:08:49] Voice 4: what are the risks with this particular property

[4:08:51] Voice 4: on any kind of down zoning?

[4:08:55] Voice 4: Because they would all be some sort of down zoning.

[4:08:58] Voice 4: They would be a reallotment

[4:09:00] Voice 4: or they'd be a density transfer

[4:09:02] Voice 4: or they'd be a picking away subdivision potential.

[4:09:05] Voice 4: They'd all be some kind of down zoning.

[4:09:07] Voice 4: Can we just leave a request up

[4:09:09] Voice 4: have to report back on the

[4:09:13] Voice 15: or to advise on framing a legal request or something.

[4:09:19] Voice 11: Sure,

[4:09:20] Voice 12: sure. I think that may be a question and we can come back to you and I can also speak to other planners and then come back with advice. And I think that would be fine. And we would also then at that time, we can also have the budget. Let's see that you know what that is as well.

[4:09:42] Voice 11: to be captured by at least or something give her a little trust me request staff to advise

[4:09:49] Voice 11: on framing a legal request regarding

[4:09:53] Voice 16: a request for legal advice regarding

[4:10:00] Voice 4: down zoning this reversal of property

[4:10:03] Voice 4: that captures the complexity i don't think we need to get i think i think that the complexity

[4:10:17] Voice 4: that he's been captured

[4:10:18] Voice 4: that's the problem

[4:10:25] Voice 16: give

[4:10:26] Voice 4: him a moment you know even um director marler might even have good

[4:10:30] Voice 4: advice on something like this having dealt with this probably for decades

[4:10:35] Voice 4: but

[4:10:38] Voice 16: as far as word he

[4:10:40] Voice 4: might i think the thing we need to keep in mind

[4:10:47] Voice 4: is that just because there is a plr issued does not mean something is

[4:10:53] Voice 4: is um all right i hope you do bring

[4:10:56] Voice 11: that shot yeah and that they gave me one island

[4:10:59] Voice 11: the trust committee request staff to advise on request for the advice on down zoning pid

[4:11:05] Voice 11: zero zero three dash one three four dash eight zero six cool

[4:11:14] Voice 12: i just i guess i'm wondering what time is it important that it comes to your next meeting

[4:11:20] Voice 12: or is it

[4:11:24] Voice 12: it's

[4:11:24] Voice 4: mostly because

[4:11:25] Voice 4: business cases are being developed

[4:11:27] Voice 4: for the next fiscal

[4:11:30] Voice 4: and

[4:11:31] Voice 4: if this is to be in scope

[4:11:36] Voice 4: yeah I think it would be

[4:11:39] Voice 4: important to

[4:11:40] Voice 4: put that in

[4:11:42] Voice 4: by the next meeting you want that in there

[4:11:45] Voice 15: yeah

[4:11:46] Voice 15: when you have that you can read it back

[4:11:49] Voice 15: again

[4:11:50] Voice 11: that the gabriel island local trust committee requests staff to advise on a request for legal

[4:11:55] Voice 11: advice on down zoning pid 003-134-806 by the next meeting is that yes good enough are you

[4:12:06] Voice 11: making that motion sorry

[4:12:07] Voice 15: is there a second second by trustee any discussion all those in favor

[4:12:14] Voice 15: and that carries all right yes

[4:12:20] Voice 12: i can just ask because you do have this other item where you're

[4:12:24] Voice 12: seeking legal advice for about a covenant registered on title of that property do you want

[4:12:31] Voice 12: um i'm just kind of reflecting on it here uh but would there's any efficiency and bundling those

[4:12:41] Voice 12: legal questions together do you want do you want us to i don't know if there is honestly but do

[4:12:47] Voice 12: you want us to hold up off on on that request until you have this question to kind of add

[4:12:54] Voice 12: or should we just otherwise if you make no other moment in here just proceed with that

[4:12:58] Voice 12: it would

[4:13:00] Voice 4: be good to ask if it's if it's a better idea to bundle them

[4:13:05] Voice 4: But the lawyer's going to dig into the file, right?

[4:13:08] Voice 4: Dig into the file.

[4:13:10] Voice 4: Are you okay?

[4:13:12] Voice 4: I mean, they're two separate questions for me.

[4:13:18] Voice 4: So it's going to cost time for both of them.

[4:13:23] Voice 4: So I don't really mind.

[4:13:25] Voice 4: I do want to know the obligations that we have to uphold that covenant

[4:13:30] Voice 4: because I think that's actually more time sensitive

[4:13:36] Voice 4: because if MOTI is satisfied all the criteria have been met,

[4:13:43] Voice 4: we still don't know what the covenant criteria requires.

[4:13:49] Voice 4: Like, how are we satisfied that the covenant has been upheld?

[4:13:53] Voice 4: That's actually a separate issue.

[4:13:55] Voice 4: We understand it's a separate issue.

[4:13:57] Voice 4: It's the timing of it.

[4:13:58] Voice 15: Do you

[4:13:58] Voice 4: want that to proceed?

[4:14:02] Voice 4: It doesn't matter.

[4:14:03] Voice 4: They both import.

[4:14:05] Voice 4: so can you can we he's asking can we

[4:14:08] Voice 15: hold on on that one to potentially bundle it with this

[4:14:10] Voice 15: request

[4:14:11] Voice 4: so it would likely be the same lawyer looking at both of them but if you come back

[4:14:16] Voice 4: in november i don't think we even had a meeting in december everybody's on break we're just gonna

[4:14:22] Voice 4: be i mean we're not gonna get a response to that covenant until january it's not efficient if you

[4:14:28] Voice 4: don't get a response for three months it costs the same amount of

[4:14:31] Voice 12: money if you make no other

[4:14:33] Voice 12: motion we would just proceed with them separately okay

[4:14:37] Voice 4: okay well let's keep things going here it's

[4:14:42] Voice 4: almost three

[4:14:43] Voice 4: did we vote yes we did

[4:14:45] Voice 15: did it carry okay let's move on to 13.3 this is the

[4:14:50] Voice 15: gabriela advisory planning commission appointments it's on page 206 and who's going to be making that

[4:15:00] Voice 15: report? You are. Go ahead.

[4:15:04] Voice 10: Through the chair, the report is regarding Gabrielle's advisory

[4:15:08] Voice 10: planning commission appointments. Considering the term of current APC members will be expiring

[4:15:14] Voice 10: on November 2025 and recognizing the role of APC in advising LPC on various land use

[4:15:24] Voice 10: The staff is requesting LPC to consider the recruitment of its advisory planning commission.

[4:15:32] Voice 10: Staff recommendations before you are requesting the staff to send the letters, send letters

[4:15:39] Voice 10: to the current APC members thanking them for their participation and inviting their expression

[4:15:44] Voice 10: of interest for re-appointment to the APC for another two-year term.

[4:15:49] Voice 10: Second, requesting staff advertising public expression of interest for the Gabriela ecosystem.

[4:15:57] Voice 3: Thank you.

[4:15:58] Voice 10: Justice?

[4:15:59] Voice 10: Yeah.

[4:16:00] Voice 4: Good.

[4:16:01] Voice 4: We should go ahead with this.

[4:16:02] Voice 4: I don't think we've actually approved anything at all for them this year.

[4:16:08] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriela Local Trust Committee request staff advertise for expressions of interest for the Gabriela Advisory Planning Commission.

[4:16:23] Voice 4: I move that the Gabriel Island Local Trust Committee request staff send letters to members

[4:16:32] Voice 4: of the Advisory Planning Commission whose terms will expire on November 30, 2025, inviting

[4:16:39] Voice 4: their expressions of interest for re-appointment to the Advisory Planning Commission for another

[4:16:44] Voice 4: two-year term, and thanking them for their participation.

[4:16:48] Voice 4: Second by Trustee Elliott. Any discussion?

[4:16:52] Voice 4: We'll vote. All those in favor? That carries. Thank you very much.

[4:16:59] Voice 4: And moving on, we did not complete the Post-Conservancy Report.

[4:17:04] Voice 4: There's anything you wanted to mention, but we'll keep on going.

[4:17:08] Voice 4: Item 13.5, we have the Applications Report on page 211.

[4:17:13] Voice 4: Are there any questions on any of the applications?

[4:17:19] Voice 4: There are three that are all related to each other on the strand and I'm just it's interesting

[4:17:30] Voice 4: because they're all the issue is almost sort of the same thing but one of them there's

[4:17:37] Voice 4: planning review one of them there's a final review status and the other one is generate

[4:17:43] Voice 4: a local trust committee public notice and that's

[4:17:49] Voice 5: just the direction to the

[4:17:50] Voice 4: staff's activity

[4:17:58] Voice 4: any comments from staff yes yeah

[4:18:01] Voice 12: uh the chair we can these are

[4:18:09] Voice 12: one of the reasons these might be a little bit different is that they were um there was public

[4:18:14] Voice 12: public notice sent out for each of these applications and they were on the agenda and the applicants

[4:18:19] Voice 12: requested that they be pulled from the agenda, so two accommodated and so the one that is

[4:18:28] Voice 12: assigned to myself I can say for sure that most recent completed activity that is reflected

[4:18:34] Voice 12: in City View is that public notice was generated, the status which is really that it is under

[4:18:43] Voice 12: review probably um because it's the new additional information that's provided by the applicant and

[4:18:50] Voice 12: that's really where the status of each of these is at um but uh i don't i think i i will go into

[4:18:57] Voice 12: city view to see if i can adjust that status uh so that it it does reflect the current status if

[4:19:05] Voice 12: i'm making just an automatically uh attributed as it's the kind of the next step normally in

[4:19:11] Voice 12: a workflow that is uh i'll see if i can adjust that i need to be able to and

[4:19:16] Voice 4: i i am concerned

[4:19:17] Voice 4: because these are all about three years old now and so and i do have the full history on them

[4:19:24] Voice 4: where the department of fisheries and oceans said we don't have the money to do what we need to do

[4:19:29] Voice 4: so it's all up to you

[4:19:30] Voice 3: so

[4:19:32] Voice 4: yeah okay thank you much for stealing so question on a new application on

[4:19:40] Voice 4: rezoning page 213 c word stalker road i remember this some conversation about this almost two years

[4:19:50] Voice 4: ago um what's the intent of the rezoning so

[4:19:54] Voice 12: yeah this application is to it it has not come to the

[4:19:59] Voice 12: local trust committee yet but it is um related to a property 1900 stalker road uh the rollout

[4:20:08] Voice 12: it where there's three existing dwellings and they are seeking the application is maybe amended the

[4:20:15] Voice 12: application which is part of what where why it has not come to the LTC yet but the initial

[4:20:22] Voice 12: application submitted was seeking to permit all three of those dwellings and potentially

[4:20:31] Voice 12: a subdivision on that property so that they each could be a distinct parcel

[4:20:38] Voice 12: This will come to the LPC with a full report on the background of the property and what

[4:20:43] Voice 12: is proposed.

[4:20:44] Voice 12: Is there

[4:20:45] Voice 4: non-conforming buildings that are used residentially right now?

[4:20:54] Voice 12: There are three dwellings on the property.

[4:20:57] Voice 12: They may not have the information to demonstrate this, but they may be protected non-conforming

[4:21:05] Voice 12: buildings. They were built a number of years ago, for certain, before the land use bylaw came into effect. And so this application might be seeking to kind of formalize that.

[4:21:19] Voice 12: So

[4:21:27] Voice 4: I had another question with Planner Ball. On page 214, the renovation and expansion of the ferry terminal at Descanso Bay.

[4:21:39] Voice 4: Well, we know from BC Ferries Administration that they have no intention whatsoever of going ahead with this in the next foreseeable future.

[4:21:49] Voice 4: It's changed.

[4:21:50] Voice 4: So why are we waiting for an ETC response?

[4:21:54] Voice 12: so through the chair i have reached out to the applicant um and they have confirmed they would

[4:22:00] Voice 12: like to proceed with the with the zoning amendment um and they did confirm this after uh the there

[4:22:09] Voice 12: was some time ago the bc ferries budget or something had come

[4:22:15] Voice 12: out today that there wasn't

[4:22:16] Voice 12: funding to instruct it but they do they would like to proceed with the the um bylaw amendment

[4:22:21] Voice 12: even

[4:22:22] Voice 4: if they can't actually do it okay because we literally we were told in no uncertain terms

[4:22:29] Voice 4: when we asked at the last meeting management so what is your plans for the next five years and

[4:22:36] Voice 4: any kind of um expansion or renovation and they unaprivately said we are not doing this within

[4:22:43] Voice 4: the next five years but maybe they just want the rezoning for the future yeah they're doing this

[4:22:48] Voice 4: and a number of islands when BC Ferries was a provincial ground corporation they were exempt

[4:22:54] Voice 4: they could they didn't have to follow local government rules so they have many ferry

[4:23:00] Voice 4: terminals on residential properties and other appropriate

[4:23:03] Voice 4: zoning so it looks like they're

[4:23:05] Voice 4: because they're doing that on Salt Spring too but they have no intention of doing the upgrade at

[4:23:11] Voice 4: any time in the near future and we know probably probably all the ferry terminals we know that

[4:23:17] Voice 4: they're also in they're probably in the middle so there's that too so waiting for an abc response

[4:23:24] Voice 4: did it

[4:23:25] Voice 4: get referred to the abc uh

[4:23:27] Voice 12: that that was referred to the abc that's the most recent uh

[4:23:30] Voice 12: completed activity um i don't know why it says so we haven't received an abc response

[4:23:38] Voice 12: you

[4:23:39] Voice 16: would have

[4:23:45] Voice 12: had the apc minutes on your agenda

[4:23:47] Voice 12: agenda but that's the one okay

[4:23:50] Voice 4: thank you

[4:23:53] Voice 4: all right any other questions on that all right so we have

[4:23:58] Voice 4: the um 13.6 on page 217 which is the local trust expense report your information

[4:24:06] Voice 4: also got your

[4:24:08] Voice 4: adopted policies and standing resolutions on page 218. is that bylaw enforcement policy going to

[4:24:16] Voice 4: stay on the list it's very long obviously

[4:24:24] Voice 16: it's the very last man you don't know yeah

[4:24:33] Voice 12: sure it is a it

[4:24:34] Voice 12: is a policy and that's the intention of this section is to show the policy i don't know if

[4:24:41] Voice 12: there's a way to display it differently um where it's maybe not in the table but i think that's

[4:24:48] Voice 12: that may just be the um the system that we have that compiles these agendas and and how we can

[4:24:54] Voice 12: and we can do that, but I'm looking, yeah.

[4:24:58] Voice 5: Yeah, this is not the

[4:25:00] Voice 5: truth, but yeah.

[4:25:01] Voice 4: That's a good question.

[4:25:03] Voice 4: We need standing policies and standing resolutions on every agenda.

[4:25:07] Voice 4: Well, if it's now a policy, it's not a standing resolution.

[4:25:10] Voice 4: So adoptive policies and standing resolutions, yeah.

[4:25:13] Voice 4: Okay, well, something to look at.

[4:25:15] Voice 4: It seems kind of redundant.

[4:25:18] Voice 15: All right, well, carrying on then,

[4:25:21] Voice 15: we have our active projects report on page 227.

[4:25:26] Voice 15: and your future projects listed to I hate the term future projects list the parking lot list

[4:25:33] at 228 there's

[4:25:37] Voice 4: no other actions and just I just want myself to confirm that our OCP

[4:25:45] Voice 4: open house is one to three and not one to four on September 14th okay

[4:25:52] Voice 4: workshop all right well that means then besides that workshop on September 14th

[4:25:59] Voice 4: Your next

[4:26:00] Voice 15: regular scheduled meeting will be October 9th at 10.30 a.m. at this location.

[4:26:06] Voice 15: October.

[4:26:07] Voice 15: If there is no other business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

[4:26:11] Voice 15: So moved.

[4:26:12] Voice 4: All right.

[4:26:13] Voice 15: Is there a second?

[4:26:14] Voice 15: That was acted by Trustee Elliott.

[4:26:16] Voice 15: Let's say we're adjourned.

[4:26:18] Voice 4: Thank you.

[4:26:19] Voice 15: Thank you, everybody.

[4:26:20] Voice 4: See you all, everyone.

[4:26:22] Voice 4: Thank you, everyone.

[4:26:25] Voice 10: All right.

[4:26:26] Voice 4: I'll get you to the next hearing.

[4:26:27] Voice 10: Yeah.

[4:26:27] Voice 10: I don't know.