Denman LTC special meeting (public hearing, Bylaws 256/257), 17 February 2026

[0:00:01] All right, so we're on our way.

[0:00:05] Okay, good morning, everybody.

[0:00:07] Thank you for joining us today

[0:00:08] for this meeting of the Denman Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:11] I wanna begin the meeting by acknowledging

[0:00:13] that we're fortunate to be able to gather today

[0:00:15] in locations across the territory

[0:00:17] of the Coast Salish people.

[0:00:18] I'm David Maude, elected on May 9th,

[0:00:20] chair of the Denman Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:22] I'm joined today by your Denman Island trustees,

[0:00:25] David Graham and Sam Borthwick.

[0:00:29] Together we make up the Denman Island Local Trust Committee.

[0:00:31] This meeting is being live streamed and recorded for those who are unable to be in person today.

[0:00:36] Recording will be posted to the Dallas Trust website for future viewing.

[0:00:40] We have some staff members joining us today.

[0:00:43] We have our planner, Marla Smickhardner.

[0:00:47] We have Lisa Millard, who is our webmaster and recording secretary.

[0:00:53] And all those magical things that happen in the background

[0:00:56] will allow us to do the things that we do, which is very much appreciated.

[0:01:01] I believe that's it for staff today.

[0:01:03] I just wanted to note that this meeting

[0:01:05] is an official forum for your local trust committee

[0:01:06] to make decisions about land use planning matters

[0:01:09] and discuss relevant business.

[0:01:10] I want to add that this is a place of employment,

[0:01:13] despite the fact that many staff in their homes

[0:01:15] are staffed at the right to a safe and respectful workplace.

[0:01:19] So before us, we have an agenda.

[0:01:23] It's fairly straightforward with the community information

[0:01:26] meeting and public hearing.

[0:01:27] Any additions or corrections to that agenda?

[0:01:32] If not, by general consent, we'll adopt that agenda.

[0:01:37] And we will proceed into a community information meeting.

[0:01:44] The first one is DERZ 2024.1,

[0:01:49] the Triple Rock Land Cooperative,

[0:01:51] proposed by list 255, 250, and 254.

[0:01:57] And so this is sort of the informal part of this two-part thing.

[0:02:04] So if you have any questions or such, this is the time to engage with us on that.

[0:02:13] We get a little bit more formal in the public hearing process.

[0:02:17] So I see Trustee Borthwick has his hand up. Trustee Borthwick.

[0:02:20] Yes, just very quickly, and it's possible that I may have missed this discussion before,

[0:02:25] but I assume that you guys have spoken at least a little bit about potential for us to be

[0:02:31] truncated today by a possible power outage.

[0:02:34] We've got a specific plan, obviously, I'll try and rejoin by phone if necessary.

[0:02:42] But I just I wasn't sure if that was something we needed to cover.

[0:02:45] But now that we're being recorded.

[0:02:48] Yeah, well, definitely we're of course have a note, a notification BC Hydro's potential

[0:02:54] that some of the island or all the island might lose power today.

[0:02:59] And I think what we'll do is we'll basically pivot at the moment and decide how we'll proceed.

[0:03:06] If we do see a widespread power outage, we have the ability to adjourn if needed and reconvene

[0:03:14] at a later date. But at this point it appears by the participation of Trustee

[0:03:21] Borthwick, Trustee Graham that perhaps the power isn't off on the entire island.

[0:03:26] So let's just keep those fingers crossed and hopefully you have two hours of power

[0:03:33] and we can make this thing happen. So over to you, Planar MacArger.

[0:03:38] Great, so I'll start with some information on the By-law Amendment application, DERZ 2024.1. This is the Triple Rock Land Cooperative.

[0:03:52] So the purpose of the community information meeting, so it's an overview of proposed OCP by-law number 255, the land use by-law number 250, and the housing agreement number 254.

[0:04:08] So in this presentation, I'll summarize the referral responses,

[0:04:12] and then there'll be a question and answer period

[0:04:16] just before the public hearing.

[0:04:17] So you can ask questions of the planner, the trustees,

[0:04:21] or the applicant.

[0:04:24] So the location is here on the screen on the map.

[0:04:28] It's current land use designation.

[0:04:31] So in the OCP, it's designated as sustainable resource.

[0:04:34] and the land is currently split zoned R3 residential and agriculture. The current use is cooperative

[0:04:45] housing and the bylaws associated with the bylaw amendment application are as said is DERZ 2024.1.

[0:04:56] So the proposed OCP amendment is to withdraw four units from the density bank to support the

[0:05:03] rezoning and the proposed land use bylaw amendment increases the number of

[0:05:10] residential units by four so that increases from 15 to 19 units and it

[0:05:16] also permits secondary suites in all units. It increases the maximum gross

[0:05:23] floor area for a single family dwelling from 139.4 meters squared to 186 meters

[0:05:30] squared and this is to accommodate the increased floor area needed for secondary suites. And then

[0:05:37] there's also a proposed increase in the maximum floor area for outbuildings. So that would be

[0:05:43] go from 1,275 meters squared to 2,174 meters squared. And that's to meet the ongoing needs

[0:05:53] and support the additional secondary suites. So there's also a proposed housing agreement

[0:06:01] that would go along with this rezoning and that secures 19 cooperative housing units as affordable.

[0:06:08] It's registered on title and it applies in perpetuity and runs with the land so it stays

[0:06:13] in place forever even if the ownership changes. The resale price of shares is limited.

[0:06:21] Home values are capped. Secondary suites must rent for at least 20% below market.

[0:06:31] And the housing agreement also outlines who can live there.

[0:06:36] So homes must be the main residents of co-op members.

[0:06:39] And the secondary suites are for family, caregivers, co-op members or approved occupants.

[0:06:46] And it is enforceable, so it's registered on title.

[0:06:50] Monitoring is required on resale.

[0:06:54] And the LTC can enforce through legal remedies.

[0:06:58] So referrals were sent out to the following First Nations and agencies.

[0:07:09] Referrals were sent for a 90-day period and they were referrals for By-law 250 and 255

[0:07:17] were sent separately at different times.

[0:07:19] So in total, this has ended up being about a six-month referral window.

[0:07:24] So the referral responses we heard from, there was no concerns from First Nations that we heard.

[0:07:36] So for COMOC's First Nation, staff had responded that the subject property is outside of the

[0:07:43] designated area of high archaeological potential and does not require one of their CHIP permits.

[0:07:51] However, a formal response from the Comox First Nation Council has not yet been received.

[0:08:01] And we also heard referral responses from the Hornby Island Local Trust Committee who

[0:08:08] deferred comment until a response from Comox First Nation is received. The Ministry of

[0:08:17] Agriculture and Food had no objections. The Agricultural Land Commission did suggest some

[0:08:22] amendments to the housing agreement which were incorporated and I believe at the last LTC

[0:08:31] meeting in December there was some amendments to the housing agreement that were made.

[0:08:37] Then there was no concerns or objections from the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs

[0:08:42] or from the Vancouver Island Health Authority. So at this point we can open it up to questions.

[0:08:50] questions. If anyone has any for the trustees, the staff or the applicant.

[0:08:56] Hey, Trustee Graham. Thank you. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Chair.

[0:09:03] Yeah, could you just go through the process that a co-op member would have to go through

[0:09:09] if they wanted to put a suite in their homes with regards to water and septic requirements?

[0:09:16] the units.

[0:09:19] Yeah, so at this point they would be required to have a, to get a siting and use permit.

[0:09:27] And through that process, staff would, you know, is going to check the zoning, going to

[0:09:32] check the siting, and ensure that everything is permitted.

[0:09:37] So the suites are currently, or all the units are currently run off rainwater catchment

[0:09:45] only and then would be required also to be hooked up to a approved septic sewage system

[0:09:55] and that approvals through Island Health.

[0:10:00] Thank you.

[0:10:01] Thank you.

[0:10:02] I just note the applicant, Laura Bieschakin is here.

[0:10:07] I don't know if she wants to make any statement or we'll just open the meeting to questions

[0:10:14] from the public. If you want to raise your hand, I can acknowledge you. We're typically

[0:10:23] speaking when we're looking for two to three minutes on this topic. And this is basically

[0:10:31] the important part. This is the Q&A part of things because when we go into the public

[0:10:35] hearing, it's much more formal, much more structured. So I see Laura's put her hand

[0:10:41] up. So I'm going to go forward to Laura, please.

[0:10:44] Um hi um yeah thank you uh well I just actually just wanted to check in like I would probably

[0:10:51] I have a few words I'd like to say but I think they're for the public hearing because they're

[0:10:58] speaking in favor um so should I wait till then or is the applicant asked not to speak in the

[0:11:05] public? I mean I'm on behalf of the applicant which is you know about 20 people some of whom are

[0:11:10] in attendance.

[0:11:11] So should I just share now

[0:11:13] or should I wait for the public hearing?

[0:11:16] I think public hearing is probably,

[0:11:18] I'm sorry, McCargill might correct me,

[0:11:19] but I think it's probably the best place to park

[0:11:22] because this is a really good opportunity

[0:11:25] for questions and answers at this point.

[0:11:28] And then your statements for the record

[0:11:33] sort of fall under the public hearing.

[0:11:35] But Senator McCargill may tell me I'm totally wrong.

[0:11:38] So, no, yeah, it's my understanding that an applicant

[0:11:41] can speak during the public hearing,

[0:11:43] just like any other member of the public.

[0:11:45] That's great, thank you.

[0:11:49] So amongst our attendees,

[0:11:52] does anybody have any questions or comments

[0:11:56] on this application?

[0:11:58] Okay, I see somebody identified as Sean with their hand up.

[0:12:03] If you want to unmute yourself and.

[0:12:07] Sure, Maude, I'll get you to have Sean state his last name for the record, please.

[0:12:11] Yes, please, Sean.

[0:12:14] When we get to that point, I see that you're muted still.

[0:12:18] There you go.

[0:12:23] So go ahead, Sean.

[0:12:33] Maybe double muted.

[0:12:34] I'm not sure here.

[0:12:42] Unfortunately, Sean, if you're speaking, we're not hearing you.

[0:12:57] Sometimes technology defeats us.

[0:13:09] Maybe we could come back to Sean after you speak.

[0:13:11] There we go.

[0:13:12] Yes, please, Sean.

[0:13:13] Can we please get your last name?

[0:13:16] Mar.

[0:13:18] Mar?

[0:13:19] Mar, yes.

[0:13:21] Okay, thank you.

[0:13:21] AATR.

[0:13:23] Thank you very much.

[0:13:25] So go forward, sir.

[0:13:28] My one concern with the proposal is it takes four units

[0:13:35] out of the density bank.

[0:13:36] And I just wanted to ask for clarification

[0:13:39] because there's a fairly high barrier

[0:13:41] to access with the co-housing.

[0:13:44] you need to have a substantial amount of money.

[0:13:47] And I just fear that like,

[0:13:52] to build a house and to buy the lot,

[0:13:55] and it's what I understand,

[0:13:59] it can't be financed like most working people

[0:14:02] have to do with their residents.

[0:14:05] And I can, so I'm just wondering if the co-houses

[0:14:09] have come up with any means to actually perhaps

[0:14:12] finance someone who might join, build a place.

[0:14:16] And for going that, like I just asked a simple question,

[0:14:23] do we wanna take places out of the density bank

[0:14:30] to that, for sort of working people,

[0:14:38] who might be on a minimal income or whatever,

[0:14:42] to create formal residence, like I say,

[0:14:47] with a fairly high bar for access,

[0:14:53] in terms of the capital you might have to have.

[0:14:57] That's my concern.

[0:14:58] I'm just not, so my question is,

[0:15:01] is there a proposal to finance this through the co-op

[0:15:05] to use perhaps the equity in the property

[0:15:08] to help people out if they did want to join

[0:15:12] and have limited means.

[0:15:17] That's it.

[0:15:18] Thank you, Sean.

[0:15:19] I would assume that most of that question

[0:15:21] probably the applicant might be able to answer

[0:15:25] the substantial parts of those questions.

[0:15:28] So Laura, go forward.

[0:15:30] Yeah, thanks.

[0:15:31] And that is a really good question.

[0:15:34] A really key question.

[0:15:36] Like honestly, we have been having many discussions

[0:15:40] about that.

[0:15:41] floating ideas. You know, we've talked to credit union folks. We don't have anything firm in place.

[0:15:51] It is a difficult task because this is, and the people who want to join often don't have a lot

[0:16:00] of money or access to money. So what I can say is there's a will and some ideas floating and we're

[0:16:05] working on it. And the only other thing I would say is that I think as well as asking this question,

[0:16:14] you know, down the road or not down the road, we want to be asking our community and our local

[0:16:19] trust committee about this thing called the density cap, which, you know, caps all density with some

[0:16:29] exceptions, and those exceptions include affordable housing, but maybe that there's a limit even on

[0:16:34] on those exceptions and maybe that limit.

[0:16:37] Well, I think there is actually discussion

[0:16:39] in the housing review of getting rid of that limit

[0:16:42] because we need all the affordable housing we can get

[0:16:47] for very low, low and middle income people.

[0:16:54] I also will just say that other people have found a way

[0:16:58] to get their homes in Coho

[0:17:00] who came from quite low income situations

[0:17:03] and we do help each other out

[0:17:04] like we show up for work bees and we give advice

[0:17:06] and we share materials and that kind of thing.

[0:17:11] Okay, thank you.

[0:17:12] Trustee Graham.

[0:17:14] Yes, thank you.

[0:17:15] I just wanted to address Sean's concern

[0:17:17] that was this an appropriate use of the limited number

[0:17:21] of density sitting in the bank,

[0:17:23] considering the relative expense

[0:17:26] of a co-host share in the building?

[0:17:28] And that's a good question.

[0:17:30] And it's one that my co-trustee and I

[0:17:33] and with work with staff in our chair

[0:17:35] have been looking at with the overall review

[0:17:38] of our housing policies and regulations.

[0:17:41] And so we're going to be addressing that

[0:17:43] in the larger context of the housing review.

[0:17:45] So we've acknowledged that that's a problem.

[0:17:49] The density bank has that built into it.

[0:17:52] So I just want to assure you that we are looking at that

[0:17:56] and we will be addressing that

[0:17:57] in the overall housing regulation and policy ideas

[0:18:00] that we put forward to the community sometime in the summer.

[0:18:05] Thank you, Trustee Grady.

[0:18:08] Also, Shawn, you still have your hand up,

[0:18:09] did you have something more no no i i'll i'll put it down okay sorry about that no problems all right

[0:18:18] here we go here we go i think most of us are in the same boat so all right uh anybody else

[0:18:29] who i wish to um ask any questions or address local trust committee on this i see noah ross

[0:18:39] So if you want to unmute yourself, you can ask your questions.

[0:18:45] Yeah. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay, great.

[0:18:50] Yeah, I haven't done one of these before. So just figuring out how it works.

[0:18:54] But I think you can hear me. That's good. Yeah. And I didn't I missed.

[0:19:00] I wanted to submit a public response, but I didn't.

[0:19:03] So I just wanted to address council briefly now.

[0:19:07] if that's appropriate.

[0:19:09] And yeah, I just wanted to say

[0:19:12] I'm greatly supportive of this application.

[0:19:15] I think that both aspects of it,

[0:19:18] the secondary suite and the four additional units.

[0:19:20] And I think like what I've observed just in the last few

[0:19:24] years is how difficult it is to get a affordable housing

[0:19:29] project off the ground, given the large expense

[0:19:34] of doing it through funded channels through BC housing.

[0:19:37] And I think like Denman benefits greatly

[0:19:41] from the, at this point, decades of experience of Coho

[0:19:47] as a project that's been built through collaboration

[0:19:51] with the Islands Trust and Credit Unions

[0:19:55] and the leader, like the people at Coho.

[0:19:58] Um.

[0:20:00] And that knowledge is really valuable and the kind of like built up experiences is really valuable just as sort of a like general point.

[0:20:11] And I think that the what's been presented makes sense as a to me as an X step for coho where there's the ability for residents that are there to be able to age in place with their families and, you know, if provide housing for for parents or children that

[0:20:30] that need it with the secondary suites

[0:20:34] and also to community members or friends.

[0:20:39] I understand that there's limited,

[0:20:41] there's some controls on the commercial aspect of rentals

[0:20:45] that would be in the secondary suites.

[0:20:47] That's one point.

[0:20:48] So it seems like it's,

[0:20:50] that's something that's available.

[0:20:53] I don't exactly know,

[0:20:54] but I believe it's available to,

[0:20:56] is it R1 or R2 properties already on Denman?

[0:20:59] And I know where I live downtown,

[0:21:03] we can have a house connected with the breezeway.

[0:21:08] And so it's something that's available, I guess,

[0:21:12] already in other zonings.

[0:21:13] And I don't know the numbers,

[0:21:15] but I would think that the amount of availability

[0:21:19] of secondary suites versus the full bill load of it

[0:21:21] of secondary suites is quite less.

[0:21:25] And so it's not necessarily like there's gonna be

[0:21:28] full amount of secondary streets right away. So or at any time that are permitted, I would

[0:21:34] think that the take up on that is, you know, has proven to be fairly low, or at least not

[0:21:43] everyone in the other spots in Denman. So I think that's important thinking about is it's

[0:21:46] not like an additional 14 or whatever places right away. That's another point I want to

[0:21:53] make and yeah, just strongly support the proposal. I think

[0:22:00] it's good to have this kind of housing that doesn't have to go

[0:22:04] through all the expensive kind of checks and balances and

[0:22:10] expert testing that PC housing has. Unfortunately, we're in a

[0:22:14] situation where the requirements that you need to

[0:22:17] get in order to get funding through the official channels make

[0:22:20] it often unrealistic and unrealizable. And this sort of

[0:22:27] like, more DIY smaller scale just seems much more attainable

[0:22:33] and realistic where people can build their own houses that

[0:22:36] they're comfortable with, you know, within, within still

[0:22:40] regulations. It's just the kind of housing that we need. And I

[0:22:44] think that's where the direction the community should

[0:22:45] be going in. And it's a gift to have coho already up and

[0:22:48] running and I really strongly believe that this that both aspects of this

[0:22:54] proposal should go ahead and earn the best interest at Denman. So yeah, thanks

[0:22:58] for that. That's what I had to say. Thank you Mr. Ross. I see Nick

[0:23:06] Montgomery hand up please. So go ahead sir. You are muted. There you go.

[0:23:17] Hi. Yeah, I just wanted to say briefly, I guess I'm someone with skin in the game because

[0:23:25] if coho was allowed these new suites, I would love to apply and I guess I wanted to speak

[0:23:32] to the concern about affordability because I think there's a bunch of people who are

[0:23:37] in similar demographics to myself. My partner and I have a young kid and we try to contribute

[0:23:44] lot to the island and we'll basically we will never be able to afford property on

[0:23:50] down in like private property or priced out of that and so we're optimistic

[0:23:56] about co-hope because we think it is something we could afford by cobbling

[0:24:01] together loans from people and so I guess in terms of addressing the concern

[0:24:07] about affordability I think there are a lot of people in our situation who are

[0:24:11] they're never going to be able to afford private property.

[0:24:15] They want to live on the island long-term,

[0:24:16] they want to raise a family,

[0:24:17] and I think that's a place where Coho

[0:24:20] is really affordable and hopeful.

[0:24:22] And then the secondary suites just add onto that

[0:24:25] because those are going to be kind of perpetually

[0:24:28] affordable rentals.

[0:24:29] And so I'm excited about it for myself and my family,

[0:24:33] but I'm also excited that it could create more stability

[0:24:37] for those kinds of people on the island

[0:24:39] to can't afford property but want to live here

[0:24:42] and raise a family.

[0:24:45] Thank you, Mr. Montgomery.

[0:24:47] Chair Maud, if I can just say,

[0:24:50] so right now we're just in the community information meeting,

[0:24:53] which is just time for questions.

[0:24:55] So we'll be moving into the public hearing

[0:24:57] and that's really when we want to hear from everyone

[0:25:00] who wants to offer support or opposition

[0:25:02] or their views on the project,

[0:25:04] but right now it's just questions.

[0:25:08] Thank you very much for that reminder.

[0:25:11] All right, so I see some more hands up, so Mr. Ross.

[0:25:22] Thank you, sorry, I didn't understand that,

[0:25:25] so apologies for that, but I had a question then for staff,

[0:25:27] which was if there's information readily available

[0:25:31] of the uptake of secondary suites in zoning

[0:25:33] where it's permitted on Denman?

[0:25:41] I don't have that information right now,

[0:25:45] but we would have to look through the siting

[0:25:48] and use permits that have been applied for,

[0:25:50] So as long as someone applied for a siting and use permit

[0:25:53] for the work, then we would have that information.

[0:25:57] Am I right in thinking that it's probably fairly low?

[0:26:04] I, yeah, I'm not too sure.

[0:26:05] I know for secondary dwellings,

[0:26:08] so that would be for detached dwellings

[0:26:10] that are required to get a temporary use permit

[0:26:13] as well as a siting and use permit,

[0:26:14] that that has been very low,

[0:26:17] but I'm not sure for secondary suites,

[0:26:21] which is a suite in the main home.

[0:26:24] I don't know how many of those exist.

[0:26:31] Yeah, I could give sort of a main island perspective.

[0:26:35] We enabled secondary suites perhaps six or seven years ago

[0:26:40] broadly across the island.

[0:26:42] To my knowledge, there's been one constructed.

[0:26:47] They don't seem to be very popular,

[0:26:51] I guess due to building code requirements and such,

[0:26:54] but don't necessarily see a large uptake

[0:26:57] with the secondary suites on the Southern islands at least.

[0:27:04] Okay, Sean, I see your hand up, sir.

[0:27:13] You might still be muted.

[0:27:19] You are muted.

[0:27:22] There you go.

[0:27:23] There we go.

[0:27:24] Okay, no, I just want a clarification

[0:27:26] because one of the previous speakers,

[0:27:29] sorry I missed the name,

[0:27:31] was mentioning about the economics of it,

[0:27:35] personal loans and a secondary suite to rent out. And I thought the secondary suites were for

[0:27:43] caregivers and family members, not just part, if it's a co-housing project that want to be landlords,

[0:27:51] oh gosh, I think that's a little bit of an abomination. Like, can you clarify the bylaw

[0:27:57] around the secondary suites? Who's going to be allowed to live there? Thank you.

[0:28:01] Thank you.

[0:28:03] Yeah, I can take that question.

[0:28:05] So the secondary suites can be rented to co-op members, family members, or caregivers, people

[0:28:12] applying for co-op membership, or volunteers or other actively involved in the co-op.

[0:28:20] All occupants must be approved by the co-op and it cannot be used for vacation or short-term

[0:28:26] rentals.

[0:28:27] Wow, that's kind of vague, I'd say. I worry about those co-authors, they might be on a slippery slope.

[0:28:41] Anyway, thank you, that's clarification.

[0:28:45] Thank you, Sean. I do know the applicant seems to have dropped off of this, so we might have a bit of the power thing kicking in right now.

[0:28:56] now so the applicant is still on it with us. Does anybody else wish to ask any questions about this

[0:29:02] application? They're still here. Oh, see I get all confused. Oh, I see Laura put your hand up

[0:29:10] because you're just acknowledging you're there. So sorry about that. You just dropped off my screen.

[0:29:19] Alrighty. So I'll just ask again if there's anybody else has any other questions?

[0:29:30] And just for a third time, just for formality, does anybody have any other questions about this

[0:29:34] application. Okay with that I think that

[0:29:41] Community Information Meeting, which is PO RZ 2024-005 Demond Conservancy,

[0:29:49] and post bylaws number 256 and 257. So over to you, Planner McCarter.

[0:29:58] Sure, just give me a minute to bring it up here.

[0:30:01] Absolutely.

[0:30:26] Okay, can we see that?

[0:30:28] We got it, thank you.

[0:30:29] All right, so this is the second Community Information Meeting,

[0:30:33] and this is going to be about the By-law Amendment Application PLRZ 2024-0055. This is from the

[0:30:43] Denman Conservancy. So the purpose of this community information meeting is a quick overview

[0:30:51] of proposed OCP by-law number 256 and proposed land use by-law number 257. So we'll summarize

[0:31:00] referral responses and then answer any questions before the public hearing. So this is just a time

[0:31:07] for question and answer for the planner, LTC, or the applicant. If you want to state your support

[0:31:15] or opposition or just general comments about the application, that can be done once the public

[0:31:21] hearing starts. So this is a rezoning for four properties which are located, you can see on the

[0:31:31] map here, the current land use designation is Sustainable Resource on three of the lots

[0:31:37] and it's split zoned or split designated Sustainable Resource and Agriculture on one.

[0:31:45] Currently a forestry zone with one lot split zoned forestry and agriculture.

[0:31:54] And I have a map here that just shows the agricultural portion. So this green is the

[0:32:02] the portion in the agricultural land reserve, the ALR,

[0:32:05] and that will remain unchanged.

[0:32:10] And ALR land can be used for biodiversity conservation,

[0:32:15] passive recreation, wildlife habitat, scenic viewing,

[0:32:18] so it does still fit within what is permitted in the ALR.

[0:32:26] The proposed OCP amendment will amend the OCP land use

[0:32:30] designation from sustainable resource to conservation.

[0:32:34] As I said, the agricultural portion will remain unchanged.

[0:32:38] And this will add four residential densities

[0:32:41] to the density bank,

[0:32:43] because we're removing any residential densities

[0:32:47] from the subject properties.

[0:32:51] So an amendment to the OCP is needed

[0:32:54] because sustainable resource supports forestry use

[0:32:57] and conservation is intended to protect land

[0:33:00] for conservation and recreation purposes.

[0:33:04] So the OCP designation should reflect the long-term vision

[0:33:07] to conserve and protect the land on these properties.

[0:33:13] The proposed land use bylaw amendment

[0:33:15] is to rezone the subject properties

[0:33:17] from forestry to conservation.

[0:33:21] So the current forestry zone

[0:33:22] supports low density residential and sustainable forestry.

[0:33:26] So there was one, each lot permitted one residential unit.

[0:33:33] The proposed conservation zone

[0:33:35] will permit passive recreation only

[0:33:38] with limited accessory structures.

[0:33:40] It's very minimal.

[0:33:42] It prohibits residential use

[0:33:45] and the minimum lot size is 64 hectares.

[0:33:48] So no subdivision potential is created with this rezoning.

[0:33:54] So referrals were sent out

[0:33:57] to the following First Nations and agencies.

[0:34:02] This was a 90 day referral window.

[0:34:09] So the following responses were received from First Nations.

[0:34:15] Largely it was no comment or defer to nations

[0:34:19] that are directly affected.

[0:34:22] There was no response received from COMOCS First Nation.

[0:34:27] However, if any new information or concerns are received

[0:34:31] from COMOCS First Nations following the public hearing,

[0:34:34] staff have the ability to report back to the LTC

[0:34:37] with an update.

[0:34:38] So the LTC would be required to hold another public hearing

[0:34:42] as required when new information is considered.

[0:34:45] But just so that you know, that is an option

[0:34:47] and COMOCS First Nation has been notified

[0:34:51] that they have up until final adoption of the bylaws

[0:34:55] to comment if they have any comments.

[0:35:01] Referral responses from agencies and neighboring LTCs

[0:35:06] neighboring LTCs are interest unaffected and no objections.

[0:35:17] So now would be the time if anyone has any questions

[0:35:20] about the application or about the bylaws.

[0:35:28] All right, thank you, Clana McTargot.

[0:35:29] So if anybody has any questions,

[0:35:31] if you wanna raise your hands

[0:35:32] and we can do our best to answer them

[0:35:35] prior to the public hearing.

[0:35:45] So I'll just ask again,

[0:35:47] is anybody have any questions on this application?

[0:35:58] All right, so I'm not seeing any questions on this.

[0:36:01] It seems rather straightforward.

[0:36:05] We have reached the magic hour of 1038,

[0:36:09] which is appropriate to move into the public hearing.

[0:36:14] So if appropriate, we will go forward

[0:36:18] with the public hearing part of this meeting.

[0:36:22] So we need to recess and go into the public hearing process

[0:36:27] Is this a meeting?

[0:36:28] Is it a meeting basically?

[0:36:31] Do we need a motion to recess or is that just by consent?

[0:36:38] Sure, Mon, it's by consent.

[0:36:40] Okay, so by general consent,

[0:36:42] we will recess and we will open up the public hearing.

[0:36:48] And if everybody can sort of hang on and have some patience

[0:36:51] because this is sort of a legal informal process.

[0:36:54] So there's a lot of words I have to read

[0:36:57] as does Planner-McCargar just to go through the process

[0:37:01] before we open up for those final comments.

[0:37:05] So the public hearing for proposed bylaws number 255,

[0:37:10] 250 and 254 is now open.

[0:37:12] I wish to welcome everybody to attendance and acknowledge

[0:37:14] we are meeting in the territory

[0:37:15] of the Coast Salish First Nations.

[0:37:17] My name is David Maud

[0:37:18] and I'm chair of the Demodow Local Trust Committee.

[0:37:21] And of course, my power just went out.

[0:37:25] I'd like to introduce Demodow Local Trust Committee

[0:37:28] Trustees Sam Borthwick and David Graham.

[0:37:30] I'd like to introduce Trust Planning Staff,

[0:37:32] Marla Spicarger, Island Planner,

[0:37:34] Lisa Millard, Meeting Administrator and Recorder.

[0:37:39] So this public meeting is being convened

[0:37:42] pursuant to Section 465 of the Local Government Act

[0:37:46] in order to consider,

[0:37:47] posed by law number 255,

[0:37:49] Deminal and Community Plan 2008,

[0:37:52] Amendment Number 2, 2025,

[0:37:54] and proposed by law number 250,

[0:37:56] Denman Island land use bylaw of 2008,

[0:37:58] amendment number two, 2024,

[0:38:01] and the proposed bylaw number 254,

[0:38:03] Denman Island housing agreement bylaw number 254, 2025.

[0:38:09] All persons who believe that their interest

[0:38:11] in properties affected by the proposed bylaws

[0:38:14] will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard

[0:38:17] or to present written submissions respecting matters

[0:38:20] contained in the proposed bylaws.

[0:38:23] Those wishing to speak should commence their presentation

[0:38:25] clearly stating their name. Members of the local trust committee may, if they wish, ask

[0:38:30] questions of you following a presentation. However, the main function of the local trust

[0:38:34] committee members is to list the views of the public. It is not a function of the committee

[0:38:38] members to debate the merits of the proposed bylaws with individual citizens. Everyone

[0:38:43] will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and none shall feel discouraged from

[0:38:47] presenting their views. And considering the proposed bylaws, the local trust committee

[0:38:51] has received documents which may influence this decision, those documents are available

[0:38:57] to review during this hearing as available on our website and indicated in the public

[0:39:01] hearing notice. Any person who wishes to present a written submission to the local trust committee

[0:39:06] may do so and all written submissions are available for review during this hearing. Written submissions

[0:39:13] must be received by the local trust committee before the close of the hearing. Your final

[0:39:17] opportunity to comment on the proposed bylaws is during this hearing. As members of the

[0:39:23] local Trust Committee may not receive any further submissions nor discuss the proposed bylaw

[0:39:28] with the public after the close of this hearing. After this hearing is concluded, the local

[0:39:34] Trust Committee may, without further notice, make whatever decision seems proper with respect

[0:39:39] to the bylaws that are subject to the problem of the hearing.

[0:39:43] Um, uh, plan of a card will now summarize the public hearing notice.

[0:39:47] She points to the bylaw and referral agency responses.

[0:39:56] Great.

[0:39:56] So, um, sorry, let me, I just.

[0:40:00] head up the wrong public wrong one here let me let's bring up the other one sorry

[0:40:09] about the lateness I was just wondering which one we're doing first this is the

[0:40:14] coho okay so I didn't miss anything well you missed the first part so okay so I

[0:40:41] will just quickly summarize the the notice which which went out stating

[0:40:48] that the public hearing would commence February 17th at 1035 a.m. The bylaws 255, 254, and 250.

[0:41:04] So bylaw number 255 proposes to amend the official community plan by withdrawing four densities

[0:41:12] from the density bank to enable an increase in residential units on the subject property by four.

[0:41:21] By-law number 250 proposes to amend the land use by-law by introducing new zoning regulations

[0:41:28] applicable to the zone. These amendments include increasing the number of residential units on the

[0:41:34] subject property by four, permitting secondary suites in all residential units, increasing the

[0:41:40] maximum gross floor area for single family dwellings from 139.4 meters squared to 186

[0:41:49] meters squared to accommodate secondary suites and increasing the maximum floor area for outbuildings

[0:41:55] to 2174 meters squared to meet the ongoing needs and support the additional secondary suites.

[0:42:04] And bylaw number 254 proposes to enter the local trust committee into a new housing agreement with

[0:42:10] with the owner of the subject property.

[0:42:12] The agreement will regulate the occupancy

[0:42:15] and affordability of 19 housing units,

[0:42:18] including associated secondary suites,

[0:42:20] and will establish monitoring and reporting requirements

[0:42:23] to ensure compliance.

[0:42:28] Referrals were sent out,

[0:42:31] two separate referrals were sent out

[0:42:36] for by-law number 250 and 254.

[0:42:43] And those were sent out for 250 on October 8th.

[0:42:52] We heard referral responses from First Nations,

[0:43:00] from Kowachan tribes that they deferred communities

[0:43:04] closer to Denman Island.

[0:43:09] Talamun Nation responded that it's outside

[0:43:12] of their core territory.

[0:43:14] Comox First Nation responded that the subject property

[0:43:17] outside of the designated area of high archaeological potential. However, a formal response from the

[0:43:25] Comox First Nation Council was not received. Homolco First Nation, no concerns at this time.

[0:43:33] Sineamuk First Nation defers comment on the referral. And Mamalekula First Nation,

[0:43:42] Denman Island is not located within their territory. Referral responses received

[0:43:48] from Hornby Island Local Trust Committee, they deferred comment. The Ministry of

[0:43:55] Agricultural and Food had no objections. The Agricultural Land Commission

[0:44:00] suggested amendments to the housing agreement which were incorporated into

[0:44:05] the bylaw. And the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs had no comments.

[0:44:12] The Vancouver Island Health Authority had no objections.

[0:44:19] And that's it from me.

[0:44:22] Thank you.

[0:44:24] So submissions can be made at any time during,

[0:44:26] until the close of the hearing.

[0:44:28] If any submissions are received during the meeting,

[0:44:30] local trust committee will pause prior to closing

[0:44:33] to ensure the LTC has time to remove

[0:44:35] or to review those submissions.

[0:44:37] I'll begin with the speakers list,

[0:44:40] which in this case we'll just do hands up

[0:44:42] with the participants.

[0:44:44] which I invite members of the public who wish to speak to line up.

[0:44:47] Please state your name prior to making comments.

[0:44:50] After your presentation on local trust committee,

[0:44:53] to the local trust committee, the trustees may ask you questions,

[0:44:57] but they are here primarily to listen and will not debate issues with you.

[0:45:01] I will call three times for speakers before closing the hearing,

[0:45:05] at which time no further written or all submissions can be made.

[0:45:09] So if people want to put their hands up, way to go.

[0:45:12] Trustee Graham. Thank you, Chair. And the reason I put my hand up is that I received a written

[0:45:18] comment and I didn't want to forget this piece of paper. So with the indulgence of the rest of the

[0:45:25] public, I'd just like to read by May the submission. And the submission is made by

[0:45:31] Deman Islanders John and Rita Isbister, who are actually neighbors and share a property line with

[0:45:37] Coho and it was dated February 12th, 2026. It's addressed to the Deman Island Local Trust Committee

[0:45:44] concerning the bylaws 250-254. John and Rita is Mr. Disagree with secondary suites. We are not

[0:45:51] against four more co-housing sized homes but where are they going and will they meet septic

[0:45:57] regulations? No to secondary suites. We are neighbors to the south of Coho. We agree with Daniel

[0:46:06] the military's letter to the Islands Trust.

[0:46:09] So if that could be entered into the public submissions

[0:46:13] to the public hearing,

[0:46:14] so then I will sit back and put my ears on.

[0:46:18] Thank you.

[0:46:19] So I see Lisa Miller has her hand up.

[0:46:22] Trustee Graham,

[0:46:23] could you please spell the last name

[0:46:25] of John and Rita, please?

[0:46:26] Yes.

[0:46:29] I-S-B-E-I-S-T-E-R.

[0:46:38] Do you want their address?

[0:46:41] They're from Denman Island Residence.

[0:46:43] They are.

[0:46:44] Thank you.

[0:46:44] Okay.

[0:46:46] You have an e-mail form?

[0:46:48] You could perhaps just forward that to Lisa.

[0:46:51] Was that directed to me, Chair? I'm sorry.

[0:46:57] Yes, sir. Yeah.

[0:46:58] If you have that as an e-mail, if you could just-

[0:47:00] It's not an e-mail, it's a handwritten letter.

[0:47:03] Oh, so even more complicated.

[0:47:04] Exactly.

[0:47:05] Okay. Thank you.

[0:47:07] Yeah.

[0:47:08] Is anybody else have anything for this?

[0:47:14] I know of Faxi or I appreciate him, please.

[0:47:19] Thank you.

[0:47:21] I guess I can put my video on.

[0:47:23] Don't know.

[0:47:24] Do I look okay?

[0:47:27] Hi.

[0:47:28] So just a few comments briefly

[0:47:31] because I did send in a public hearing submission

[0:47:36] that outlined most of what I would want to say,

[0:47:40] but I want to just again remind you

[0:47:43] that the OCP does very clearly state that upzoning

[0:47:50] for affordable and special needs housing

[0:47:53] and to allow seniors to age in place in their homes

[0:47:57] and with their families.

[0:47:59] It's the marching orders are there in the OCP.

[0:48:02] And I think the suites in particular,

[0:48:05] which seem to be raising the concerns will do that,

[0:48:09] particularly the aging in place.

[0:48:10] And there's just a couple of things I wanna say

[0:48:13] about the sweets.

[0:48:14] And also just an answer to the question

[0:48:16] in the last submission,

[0:48:19] we'd be happy to send our map,

[0:48:22] like the application didn't want precise mapping,

[0:48:26] but we obviously spent a lot of time asking,

[0:48:30] and that's actually why we ended up with four more units,

[0:48:33] is that we didn't think there was room for five

[0:48:36] without really expanding outward into the forest

[0:48:38] that is regrowing.

[0:48:40] And so we do have the spaces sort of,

[0:48:44] you know, in and among the other homes.

[0:48:46] And a couple of things about the suites is that

[0:48:50] I think there's an imagination that will suddenly burst

[0:48:52] into building suites.

[0:48:54] And that is a very, very unlikely we didn't burst

[0:48:57] into building our main homes.

[0:49:00] Some of them are still under construction

[0:49:02] over 15 years since the first rezoning.

[0:49:05] And I think that evidence,

[0:49:07] which is what we need to look at from other places

[0:49:10] where suites were made legal,

[0:49:11] is that the uptake is gradual and minimal.

[0:49:15] It's expensive, not everyone wants to do it,

[0:49:18] not everyone needs to do it,

[0:49:20] but having the potential to do it is really important

[0:49:23] and we don't wanna have to do a third rezoning down the road.

[0:49:30] It's interesting, it's, you know,

[0:49:31] that older people probably a little bit drove

[0:49:36] that initiative at Coho,

[0:49:39] as well as people with young children looking ahead.

[0:49:42] And the suites will not be commercial rental.

[0:49:48] There's also, I don't know if it was mentioned,

[0:49:51] there's limits on the rental amount,

[0:49:53] keep it below market level.

[0:49:55] We have our own internal policies,

[0:49:57] which didn't really fit in the housing agreement.

[0:50:00] And one of them is that we can't publicly advertise

[0:50:03] a suite and that came from within Coho,

[0:50:05] which is over 20 people.

[0:50:07] So even if one or two of us go down a slippery slope,

[0:50:10] there's gonna be others going, uh-uh.

[0:50:13] That's how a cooperative works.

[0:50:16] And the other thing I just wanna mention

[0:50:19] is when our cooperative board of directors,

[0:50:24] which actually is all members,

[0:50:25] was looking into this,

[0:50:26] we needed to figure out the legality

[0:50:28] of how suites would work.

[0:50:30] And we did talk to people at the Residential Tenancy Act.

[0:50:34] And most of the ways that I think maybe even all of the ways

[0:50:38] that we would be using suites in line

[0:50:40] with the housing agreement isn't even considered part of the,

[0:50:44] like under the auspices of the Residential Tenancy Act.

[0:50:48] They would be the tenants would not be considered tenants.

[0:50:52] They would be considered occupants or licensees.

[0:50:56] And I'll just read one of the relevant guidelines

[0:51:01] from the BC residential policy guideline document,

[0:51:05] and it says that the residential,

[0:51:09] it is not considered a tendency when, quote,

[0:51:13] parties have a family or personal relationship

[0:51:16] and occupancy is given because of generosity

[0:51:20] rather than business considerations.

[0:51:22] And that is what we're doing absolutely.

[0:51:26] There are no business considerations.

[0:51:28] No one will be making money from this.

[0:51:30] And there's a whole cooperative of people overseeing this.

[0:51:35] Every tenant needs to be approved by the co-op.

[0:51:37] So I understand the concerns about a slippery slope,

[0:51:40] but I think that evidence from any other place,

[0:51:44] secondary suites have been allowed,

[0:51:46] doesn't support this idea.

[0:51:48] And I think there's many things in place.

[0:51:51] Also the maximum floor coverage,

[0:51:54] which doesn't exist anywhere else on the island.

[0:51:56] So it's maximum 2000 square feet

[0:51:58] for the whole dwelling, including a secondary suite.

[0:52:02] So we're not gonna have duplexes

[0:52:05] with two independent families

[0:52:07] with no connection living together.

[0:52:08] This truly is for extensions of the household.

[0:52:12] And as some of us are aging

[0:52:14] or some of our adult kids are running into huge housing

[0:52:18] challenges or want to move back to the island

[0:52:20] because they love it here.

[0:52:22] This can really make a big difference to,

[0:52:27] like the vibrancy of the families living here and the vibrancy of the whole cooperative.

[0:52:32] So that's really all I have to say and thank you for your consideration.

[0:52:38] Thank you Mr. Shaken. Okay does anybody else have anything to add to this?

[0:52:44] I'm not seeing anybody's hands up so I'll ask. Okay so Noah go ahead please.

[0:53:01] Hi and yeah I want to apologize I gave kind of a couple public comment earlier in the

[0:53:05] question period because I came on late. So apologies for that. And I just wanted to,

[0:53:12] I guess, ask that the comments be taken in for the that I made earlier for the public comment period,

[0:53:19] which just to briefly summarize, I don't know how the record works in this, if that's necessary, but

[0:53:29] is that we captured previously, but you're welcome to repeat in this formal process.

[0:53:33] Okay. So yeah, briefly just say that I support both aspects, the secondary suite and the four additional units. The I think, and for one, the the kind of lived experience and expertise that's been generated at Coho I think is is a really good benefit to the community, given how hard it is to get this type of affordable housing approved, and I think that they're, you know, they're

[0:54:03] the leadership and sort of availability of doing that

[0:54:07] without large amounts of funds is really good.

[0:54:11] That's just a general reason why I would support it

[0:54:14] is I think it's a lot cheaper and accessible.

[0:54:19] And it's actually, you know, this isn't,

[0:54:22] this isn't contingent of any grant applications

[0:54:24] or anything like that.

[0:54:24] It's possible and just needs approval.

[0:54:28] So that's one reason.

[0:54:30] And then just to reiterate my point

[0:54:34] about the secondary suites,

[0:54:36] that it's unlikely that they're all gonna be used

[0:54:37] and they're also kind of given the limited square footage

[0:54:44] available on those housings.

[0:54:46] It's just sort of, I see it at least as providing

[0:54:48] more of a opportunity for people that live there

[0:54:50] to do the things that other people that live on

[0:54:54] freehold housing are able to do

[0:54:56] and other zonings on Denman.

[0:54:58] So it's not necessarily that much of a difference

[0:55:03] from what most other people can do.

[0:55:05] And I don't see it leading to a lot more people all of a sudden.

[0:55:10] And to the concerns about septic,

[0:55:14] I'm not the best person to speak on that,

[0:55:17] but I understand that people that are used,

[0:55:23] yeah, there's a composting toilet system.

[0:55:25] So there's not additional septic systems running down

[0:55:30] to the marsh there, to pickles or anything like that.

[0:55:34] So I personally don't have any concerns about that.

[0:55:37] And yeah, I think this is just,

[0:55:42] it's a good way to have affordable housing for families

[0:55:45] as Mr. Montgomery had said earlier.

[0:55:47] It's, you know, it is a chunk of money

[0:55:49] to be able to stay there,

[0:55:51] but trying to stay anywhere else with the secure tendency

[0:55:55] is, you know, if you have to buy property,

[0:55:58] it's way more expensive than the buy-in at Coho.

[0:56:02] So I think, yeah, I hope that both aspects of this go ahead

[0:56:06] and yeah, can move forward on that.

[0:56:10] So thanks, thank you.

[0:56:12] Okay, thank you, Mr. Ross.

[0:56:13] Mr. Binkomery.

[0:56:20] Hi, can you hear me?

[0:56:21] We gotcha.

[0:56:23] Yeah, I just wanted to add, I think,

[0:56:26] I guess I wanted to speak to Denman more generally

[0:56:29] in the community here.

[0:56:30] And I think the reason that I'm here

[0:56:31] and a lot of people are here is because

[0:56:34] people here do a lot of volunteering

[0:56:36] and there's a strong social fabric

[0:56:38] and they help each other out.

[0:56:39] And that doesn't happen so much in cities

[0:56:42] and on Denman people actually take care of each other.

[0:56:45] And I think in previous generations,

[0:56:48] that was made possible by the fact that you could work

[0:56:52] and buy property and then contribute to Denman.

[0:56:55] And I see that people have done that historically

[0:56:59] made done and what it is now. And now the situation because of housing is quite different.

[0:57:04] You either, if you're young, you either have to be rich or have intergenerational wealth

[0:57:11] or have a high income. And the rest of us are kind of left out of the picture. And if

[0:57:17] you're older, then you want to stay in place. Most people that I know want to continue to

[0:57:23] age in place in their homes, but they need care and support. And so there's this question

[0:57:28] of how do you do that. And so I think that co-hosts responding to both of those needs

[0:57:35] in a really awesome way. The secondary suites are going to allow people to age in place and

[0:57:40] the new units are going to allow a new generation of people to come and live here. And, you

[0:57:49] know, I think people have pointed out in various criticisms that I hear them saying

[0:57:54] that that won't work for everyone. And that, you know, there's, there's all kinds of people who

[0:58:01] this solution wouldn't work for. But I think, to me, that just means we need a lot of different

[0:58:05] solutions. And coho is just one imperfect one. But I think it's super important. And it's in the

[0:58:11] context of needing to kind of rapidly respond to this, or Denman's not going to be what it was,

[0:58:17] it's not going to be a place where people actually take care of each other and support each other.

[0:58:22] Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. So we're just doing first speakers first. I know Laura's got her

[0:58:32] hand up, but we'll just we'll scroll through. I'll come back on the second round and also ask you

[0:58:38] after you spoke and just make sure you put your hand down, please. So Sean, I see you have your

[0:58:42] hand up. Can you hear me now? We got you. Yeah, okay. No, I just really appreciate.

[0:58:56] Okay Sean you're very very weak if you

[0:59:02] to your microphone, please.

[0:59:03] Yeah, okay.

[0:59:05] There we go.

[0:59:06] Yeah, a little bit better.

[0:59:07] Yeah, okay, my apologies.

[0:59:11] Though I,

[0:59:13] it's something to see if I can turn this mic off.

[0:59:16] Anyway, I appreciate how other options are in our reach

[0:59:25] to develop like the DC housing options.

[0:59:29] But this is the thing,

[0:59:31] for people that can't get homes

[0:59:33] I don't have that intergenerational wealth.

[0:59:36] DC housing is based on income, 30% of it.

[0:59:40] And that's the sort of housing I think

[0:59:43] that Damman does require.

[0:59:46] I'm not at all opposed to this proposal.

[0:59:49] I just, like I say, I think if you're,

[0:59:55] you know, my understanding of co-housing is, you know,

[1:00:00] you don't have members and then tenants.

[1:00:06] It's a fairly old idea, of course,

[1:00:08] it goes back quite a ways.

[1:00:10] I don't know,

[1:00:14] if the tendency for the apartments

[1:00:17] is for people who are caregivers or family members

[1:00:23] or prospective members of the co-op,

[1:00:26] then I don't have any issue with it.

[1:00:30] And it sounds like the density bank or whatever,

[1:00:34] the density cap is gonna be tossed.

[1:00:37] That's the feeling I get from this meeting.

[1:00:42] That obviously the reality of what people need

[1:00:46] is overwhelming.

[1:00:49] So I don't oppose necessarily the four new units

[1:00:54] the four new units if the neighbors are okay with that and not. And this is a note on potential

[1:01:07] speed to start whether, you know, how long the uptake is, is I think irrelevant to the

[1:01:15] essential discussion. As someone who's worked up there, the electrical infrastructure needs a massive overhaul if you want to start adding to it. I guess I'll throw that in there as a comment. Not that it's any of my business. Anyway, that's all I had to say.

[1:01:38] Thank you, Sean. Now, I'm going to apologize if I'm going to get this wrong, but Valley

[1:01:44] Maggies, I hope I didn't put your name too badly.

[1:01:51] It's Valley Maggies.

[1:01:52] Thank you.

[1:01:53] It always gets butchered. I appreciate it. I'm a co-host member. I just wanted to speak

[1:02:00] to a couple of points here. First of all, obviously, the additional suites that we're

[1:02:08] looking for are obviously not affecting the density bank. And the reason I bring that up is because

[1:02:15] we have seen people say that there is going to be so much more people coming or being part of the

[1:02:23] project and that it's going to affect the land or what the land can sustain. I think it's important

[1:02:29] to remember that besides the fact that probably most of us are not going to buy into this anytime

[1:02:34] soon. But currently I live in a 240 square feet cabin. And if I were to make an addition

[1:02:46] and have my daughter stay, the difference would be the same as to whether I have a bigger unit.

[1:02:53] So I think that what we're looking for here is the ability to maintain some level of independence

[1:03:02] in our living format, so that if my daughter or my sister was to come and stay with me,

[1:03:08] they would have their own privacy and their own space. So whether I'm having a bigger unit with

[1:03:15] two additional bedrooms, the carrying capacity on the land would probably be unaffected. It just

[1:03:22] means that I'd have a bigger house with the same number of people who would end up being on the

[1:03:27] land. So I think that that's an important point to consider. The other I think important point is

[1:03:34] that we need to remember is we have we're friends, we're neighbors, we're community members and we

[1:03:42] like our project as it is. The initiative to get four more lots on the land, there's virtually no

[1:03:51] benefit and certainly no financial benefit to Coho to bring in new members. And we just look at

[1:04:03] the amount of land that we have and the amount of people that are in sheer need of accommodation

[1:04:10] and living and stable living on the island. And we felt that we owe it both to the community

[1:04:17] and to the island to make a bit of elbow room within our cluster.

[1:04:24] So we're keeping these four additional units within our current cluster.

[1:04:28] And yeah, it makes that, yeah, we might lose a bit of our own spaces.

[1:04:34] As we know, we don't own any of the lands or the quarter acres or half acres that we're on.

[1:04:40] We're just members of a cooperative.

[1:04:42] But we felt that the impetus is the need from outside our project

[1:04:50] to bring in and to make some room and to be able to maybe facilitate

[1:04:55] a few families who are desperately looking for places to stay.

[1:05:00] And I think the last point I'd like to make is that,

[1:05:04] and because that has come up as well in terms of the resale value

[1:05:09] of these lots if we do have a secondary unit on each lot.

[1:05:17] And I think it's important for anybody

[1:05:19] who's not familiar with our project

[1:05:21] that we do have caps both on the share value

[1:05:26] and the resale value of any of the dwellings

[1:05:30] that are on the property,

[1:05:32] regardless of how they're appraised, right?

[1:05:35] So there is a bit of a equation and that's formulated

[1:05:40] and I believe it's part of the housing agreement

[1:05:43] around how we can resell these lots

[1:05:49] and the dwellings that are on them.

[1:05:51] So I think that these are some of the points

[1:05:53] for listeners and I don't know how many people

[1:05:54] are listening or tuning in.

[1:05:56] To remember that our project is considerably out of the box

[1:05:59] and I understand that people who have some opposition

[1:06:03] are coming typically from a fairly traditional vision

[1:06:08] of how land is used and markets are managed,

[1:06:13] et cetera, et cetera.

[1:06:14] And that we're considerably out of those parameters.

[1:06:20] So yeah, those are the three points I wanted to make

[1:06:24] and to make sure that people have the ability

[1:06:28] at least to dig in further or to reach out to us

[1:06:30] if they don't have questions on some of these matters.

[1:06:34] Thank you very much.

[1:06:36] All right, so I see Daniel Carey.

[1:06:44] You need to unmute.

[1:06:45] Yeah.

[1:06:46] There we go.

[1:06:48] Yeah, hi.

[1:06:50] I am, I have the property very, very much adjacent

[1:06:55] to Co-Housing's property and I was instrumental

[1:06:58] in Co-Housing starting up in the first place.

[1:07:00] So I've got a long history with Co-Housing

[1:07:03] and I'm happy to have them as neighbors.

[1:07:05] And I sent a witness admission to the guy

[1:07:09] I was just about this, but I just wanted to add a couple points.

[1:07:13] But just to recap, I'm in favor of adding four units.

[1:07:16] I have no problem with that.

[1:07:19] I'm in favor of co-housing members, like Valley,

[1:07:24] for example, who need some more living space,

[1:07:27] as well as auxiliary space to house their tractor,

[1:07:32] which heads or whatever.

[1:07:33] I don't have a problem with that.

[1:07:35] but I'm not OK with the idea of secondary suites.

[1:07:39] There's been quite a lot of discussion today

[1:07:43] about the idea that the build out for the secondary suites

[1:07:46] would not be fully utilized.

[1:07:49] But I feel that that goes against the whole idea

[1:07:55] of what zoning is.

[1:07:57] Zoning is what is permitted on a piece of property.

[1:08:01] It is not what might happen on a piece of property.

[1:08:04] So if I were to say, I want to build a 15-storey residential

[1:08:10] tower on my property, the island strats

[1:08:13] would be quite right in saying, well, you can't do that.

[1:08:16] Because if you do that, it goes against all

[1:08:17] these different things.

[1:08:19] I might say, well, I'm not actually planning to do it.

[1:08:21] I just want it in my back pocket.

[1:08:23] But that doesn't really make sense

[1:08:24] in terms of how zoning works.

[1:08:26] If we're saying, this is we're going to allow, what,

[1:08:31] 19 secondary suites on this piece of property,

[1:08:35] then 19 is the number that has to be considered.

[1:08:38] It's not one or two or seven.

[1:08:40] It's not that this might or might not happen in 15 years.

[1:08:43] It's what would be permitted right now.

[1:08:47] Now, Vali's example of his own place

[1:08:50] where he lives in 250 square feet,

[1:08:53] and he wants, he wants to have the opportunity

[1:08:56] to build a secondary suite

[1:09:00] for a family member, leaving aside the idea

[1:09:05] that co-housing is about living together with family.

[1:09:09] But regardless, a secondary suite can be no greater,

[1:09:14] I believe, than 40% of the total square footage of a building.

[1:09:18] Do I have that right?

[1:09:21] And that would mean that if he wants

[1:09:23] to build, say, a 400-square-foot secondary suite unit,

[1:09:27] instead of just adding on another bedroom onto his place,

[1:09:31] That means that right away his space has to go from 250 square feet to 1000 square feet.

[1:09:37] If he wants an 800 square foot secondary suite right off, that means that his building would be

[1:09:42] maximized to 2000 square feet, which is what would be permitted under proposed bylaw changes.

[1:09:47] So these ants, these concerns can be much more readily and in the spirit of co-housing

[1:09:55] addressed by accommodating these people who are described as not

[1:10:01] arm's length, friends, caregivers, family members, in

[1:10:05] people's own dwellings, they can have a separate bathroom, they

[1:10:09] can have a separate bedroom, but it's shared living space. And

[1:10:12] that may not be convenient. But that cohousing has never been

[1:10:16] described as the most convenient way of forming a

[1:10:19] community. That's essentially my a couple of my concerns, but

[1:10:24] I just want to reiterate that sharing living spaces,

[1:10:28] co-housing, renting a unit with separate entrance

[1:10:32] and potential for no interaction between

[1:10:35] what is a landlord and the tenant, that's not co-housing.

[1:10:39] And I would not like to see that go ahead

[1:10:41] in the property next to me.

[1:10:43] Thank you very much.

[1:10:45] Thank you, Mr. Terry.

[1:10:46] All right, I think that's what I've seen so far

[1:10:50] for speakers, so we'll go back to Laura Vashaykin, please.

[1:10:56] Ah, yes, thank you.

[1:10:59] Just two things.

[1:10:59] I did wanna clarify that in fact,

[1:11:01] we all do have septic systems.

[1:11:04] The common house has its own

[1:11:06] and each unit has a septic system.

[1:11:08] And the septic system is,

[1:11:12] takes into the size and complexity takes into the count

[1:11:15] the fact that we don't have toilet sewage going into it.

[1:11:19] We do indeed have composting toilets here.

[1:11:21] So the septic systems are a little more compact

[1:11:25] but they are like their gray water septic systems

[1:11:30] designed by an engineer, might even be present here,

[1:11:34] with people who design many of them,

[1:11:35] and that would be something we have to consider

[1:11:40] for the secondary suites,

[1:11:42] working with an engineer about possibly attaching them to,

[1:11:46] if there's possibility to attach the new secondary suites

[1:11:52] to the existing septic or put in another one,

[1:11:54] It will be a limiting factor.

[1:11:57] And yes, we are looking at upgrading our electricity

[1:12:02] to allow the four new units primarily.

[1:12:06] And the other thing I just wanted to say,

[1:12:08] get back to these suites, is that I ask you to look at impacts.

[1:12:14] And I don't know how big the difference is in impact

[1:12:19] between we build a little addition with a sitting room,

[1:12:24] a bathroom and a bedroom.

[1:12:27] It might even have an electric kettle and a bar fridge,

[1:12:30] which I think is allowed,

[1:12:31] versus we all actually have a more like full kitchen in there.

[1:12:40] It's quite a difference in the feel for the people involved,

[1:12:45] but is it a different impact on the neighborhood

[1:12:48] or on the land?

[1:12:50] And another thing to consider is, okay,

[1:12:52] will imagine 19 houses here maximum 2,000 square feet, each

[1:12:58] can have a secondary suite and compare that to what's allowed

[1:13:01] elsewhere on the island where there's no maximum score footage

[1:13:04] for houses and a much bigger maximum score footage for

[1:13:07] secondary suites in the many areas of the island they're

[1:13:10] allowed. And would you say no to this when it's under the

[1:13:16] auspices of a housing agreement and a cooperative act?

[1:13:22] rules of association and a memorandum of understanding and zoning all that says it has to be affordable housing, unlike elsewhere.

[1:13:33] And that's something to think about. And then also just in the example that Daniel brought up of like Vali, if he wanted to build a suite of 400 square feet,

[1:13:45] We've looked into this, like it would count as the main unit would be 400 and the existing house could become the secondary suite at 250. We spent quite a lot of time looking into that because that of course came up.

[1:13:59] And the other thing I just want to say is I've read,

[1:14:03] you know, I'm sure over a dozen books on co-housing

[1:14:07] and land cooperatives and legally speaking,

[1:14:09] and technically we're a land cooperative and not co-housing

[1:14:11] because co-housing is a different ownership

[1:14:13] and membership model, but we get called co-housing

[1:14:17] because we have a common house and private homes.

[1:14:20] I've, yeah, I've read, oh God, 10, 20 books.

[1:14:23] I've visited 10 to 15 different land,

[1:14:27] oh, more like different land shares, cooperatives,

[1:14:29] co-housing tenants in common corporations.

[1:14:32] I write about it, I speak about it,

[1:14:35] and rental comes up often.

[1:14:38] And so it does happen in many, many of these projects

[1:14:42] do have rental policies.

[1:14:45] It's part of the co-op act

[1:14:47] and have space for caregivers and extended families.

[1:14:51] So, and to us, it's actually strengthening our values

[1:14:56] our values around families being together and connection. And so to us it makes sense and

[1:15:11] I hope it can make sense to you too. And I really, I think, yeah, we base this on the idea that

[1:15:18] from 1500 to 2000, from 15 to 19, where secondary suites will work socially, legally, financially,

[1:15:26] and physically for our cooperative and we don't see that it would have significant impacts

[1:15:34] on the neighborhood. So I'll leave it at that. I mean I just do well, I, well we have Daniel

[1:15:39] Terry here. He did talk about being instrumental in founding COOHOO and he truly was and that

[1:15:45] was a true act of generosity and we are very grateful to him and if this goes ahead we're

[1:15:52] certainly open to discussions about, you know, hearing concerns and mitigating any potential

[1:15:59] issues. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Janet. Okay, um, is anybody else wish to speak? Um,

[1:16:08] if not, we'll, okay, so Mr. Montgomery. Yeah, okay, just wanted to say one more thing. Um,

[1:16:16] just because I'm a nerd and I've studied co-housing and cooperatives, and so there is actually a long

[1:16:22] history of co-ops and co-housing using rentals all over the world. And the main reason they do

[1:16:30] that is the same reason that co-op is doing it. It's for affordability and for intergenerational

[1:16:36] relationships to be able to happen. And I think people have already spoken to this,

[1:16:42] but there's really clear regulations limiting the size of the home, limiting who can be a member,

[1:16:47] and the housing cluster is also a very limited part of the land and that's going to reduce impact.

[1:16:53] So all of that to me I think addresses the concerns that people have around density and ecological impact

[1:17:00] that all of this is going to be low impact even if it is built out to full capacity.

[1:17:05] Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Montgomery.

[1:17:11] Okay, so is anybody else wish to speak?

[1:17:17] If not, I'll start the formal process of closing this.

[1:17:22] Plano McArthur?

[1:17:25] Yeah, I just wanted to note,

[1:17:27] I forgot to mention it in my opening speech there,

[1:17:31] that 31 written submissions were received by

[1:17:35] the local trust committee as of end of day,

[1:17:40] February 16th, 2026.

[1:17:42] Thank you, Plano McArthur.

[1:17:45] Okay. Now we just do the formal part.

[1:17:49] Okay, Eli, go ahead.

[1:17:51] I just need your last name too when you start speaking.

[1:17:56] Hello?

[1:17:57] Oh, Eli.

[1:17:59] Yes, hello, there you go.

[1:18:00] Yes, I'm Eli Hason.

[1:18:01] I'm actually a neighbor

[1:18:03] who I probably have the biggest lot line with Coho.

[1:18:07] And I'm just coming in to say

[1:18:09] that I do fully support this extension of Coho.

[1:18:13] They have been amazing neighbors.

[1:18:14] It's bringing interesting artistic people in our community

[1:18:18] which has become very overpriced and unavailable,

[1:18:21] unaffordable for so many people to join us.

[1:18:23] I know that if I moved here now,

[1:18:26] if I didn't already live and own a place here,

[1:18:27] I could not afford to ever live here on this island.

[1:18:29] So just as one more thing as mentioning

[1:18:33] for anyone that's positive or negative,

[1:18:35] as someone who deals with Koho on a daily basis,

[1:18:38] I'm more than happy for it to expand

[1:18:41] and have these different chances for more people

[1:18:45] to go to this community that we desperately need.

[1:18:47] So I just wanted to throw that in there.

[1:18:51] Thank you very much.

[1:18:56] Okay, so we'll now proceed to close the public hearing.

[1:18:59] Please note after the public hearing closes,

[1:19:00] local trust committee will no longer be able

[1:19:02] to receive public submissions prior to making decisions.

[1:19:05] So I'm asking once, if there are any more speakers,

[1:19:14] ask for a second time, are there any more speakers?

[1:19:23] I'll ask for a third time for any more speakers.

[1:19:28] This is now the final opportunity for you

[1:19:30] hand in written submissions to the local

[1:19:34] No additional submissions will be accepted.

[1:19:44] Please be advised that we're now on the post public hearing stage for the legislative review of proposed files number 255, 250, and 254.

[1:19:53] The Demi-Nyal Local Trust Committee can no longer receive information pertaining to the proposed file.

[1:20:00] However, you can still submit any outstanding questions or comments directly to the planner.

[1:20:06] Local Trust Committee may give further readings to the bylaw or defeat the bylaw or make minor

[1:20:11] amendments that do not affect the use or density without further notice or hearings.

[1:20:18] And with that, we will conclude and by general consent we will recall to order.

[1:20:25] And we'll move into the next, which is PLRZ 2024-005,

[1:20:33] the Demond Conservancy, proposed bylaws number 256 and 254.

[1:20:39] So by general consent, we'll recess for public hearing

[1:20:43] and we will open up the public hearing.

[1:20:48] And again, this long speech, which I apologize for,

[1:20:51] but we gotta do what we gotta do.

[1:20:53] So the public hearing for proposed bylaws number 256 and 257

[1:20:56] now open. I wish to welcome everybody in attendance and acknowledge we are meeting in the territory

[1:21:01] of the Coast Salish First Nations. My name is Trustee David Maud and I'm Chair of the

[1:21:06] Demod

[1:21:07] I'd like to introduce the Demod and Local Trust Committee Trustees Sam Porthra and David Graham.

[1:21:12] I'd like to introduce Trustee's Planning Staff, Marla McArthur, Island Planner, and Lisa

[1:21:17] Millard, Meeting Administrator and Recorder. The public hearing is being convened pursuant

[1:21:24] section 465 of the local government act to consider proposed by law number 256,

[1:21:29] Demanal community plan number 2000 plan 2008 amendment number three 2025 and proposed by

[1:21:35] law number 257, Demanal land use by law 2008 and number two 2025. All persons who believe

[1:21:44] that their interest in the property is affected by the proposed bylaw will be given a reasonable

[1:21:50] opportunity to be heard, to present written submissions respecting matters contained in

[1:21:55] the proposed bylaws, those wishing to speak should commence their presentation by clearly stating their

[1:22:00] name. Members of the local trust committee may, if they wish, ask questions of you following your

[1:22:05] presentation. However, the main function of the local trust committee and members is to listen,

[1:22:10] the reviews of the public. It is not the function of the committee to members debate the merits of

[1:22:15] the proposed bylaws with individual citizens. Everyone will be given a reasonable opportunity

[1:22:21] to be heard and none should seal discouraged from presenting their views. In considering

[1:22:27] the proposed bylaws, the Local Trust Committee has received documents which may influence its

[1:22:32] decision. Those documents are available for review during the hearing, as available on our website,

[1:22:37] and indicated in the public hearing notice. Any person who wishes to present a written submission

[1:22:43] the Local Trust Committee may do so and all written submissions are available for review during this

[1:22:48] hearing. Written submissions must be reviewed by the Local Trust Committee before the close of the

[1:22:52] hearing. Your final opportunity to comment on the proposed bylaws is during this hearing

[1:22:57] as members of the Local Trust Committee may not receive further submissions nor discuss the

[1:23:00] proposed bylaw with the public after the close of this meeting. After this public hearing is

[1:23:05] concluded, the Local Trust Committee may, without further notice, make whatever decision

[1:23:09] themes proper with respect to the bylaws that are the subject of the hearing. So I will hand it over

[1:23:16] to Platinum Recardance who will now summarize the public hearing notice, key points to the bylaw,

[1:23:20] and referral agency responses. Great, thank you. A copy of the notice was advertised in two

[1:23:29] consecutive editions of the Island's Grapevine on February 5th and February 12th, 2026. All

[1:23:36] notification requirements under the local government act have been completed. There's a copy of the

[1:23:42] complete public hearing binder available during this public hearing at the Islands Trust North

[1:23:49] Office and it's also located on the Islands Trust website. By-law 256 proposes to amend the official

[1:23:58] community plan to resit designate four parcels from sustainable resource to conservation recreation.

[1:24:05] The amendment also adds four residential units to the density bank.

[1:24:10] By-law 257 proposes to rezone three parcels and the forestry portion of a fourth parcel from

[1:24:17] forestry to conservation to reflect their use as protected natural areas.

[1:24:22] Proposed bylaws 256 and 257 were referred to three provincial agencies, one regional agency, one

[1:24:30] Adjacent Local Trust Committee and 19 First Nations. The bylaw was referred out in July 2025.

[1:24:38] The following comments and responses were received by the local trust committee following the referral

[1:24:42] period. The Hornby Local Trust Committee, interest unaffected. Agricultural Land Commission, interest

[1:24:49] unaffected. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, no comment. Ministry of Housing and Municipal

[1:24:57] affairs, no objections, Comox Valley regional district interests unaffected.

[1:25:04] To Subicet's First Nation defer to directly affected nations,

[1:25:10] Kowuchan tribes deferred to communities closer to Denman.

[1:25:15] Znaxedao First Nation, no comment. Snaemak First Nation defers comment.

[1:25:20] and Mamanikula First Nation,

[1:25:26] Denman is not located within their territory.

[1:25:29] So the number of public submission,

[1:25:31] written public submissions received as of February 16th,

[1:25:36] 2026, end of day is five.

[1:25:40] That's it for me.

[1:25:41] Thank you, Madam Carter.

[1:25:43] Submissions can be made at any time during

[1:25:46] and until the close of the hearing.

[1:25:48] If any submissions are received during the meeting,

[1:25:50] the local trust committee will pause prior to closing

[1:25:53] to ensure the LTC has time to review those submissions.

[1:25:57] I will begin with the speakers list,

[1:25:59] which I'd like members of public who wish to speak

[1:26:01] to line up.

[1:26:02] So we're obviously doing this digitally with your hands.

[1:26:05] Please state your name prior to making any comments

[1:26:07] after your presentation to the local trust committee.

[1:26:10] So trustees may ask you questions,

[1:26:12] but they are primarily here to listen

[1:26:14] and will not debate the issues with you.

[1:26:16] I will call three times for speakers

[1:26:19] before closing the hearing,

[1:26:20] At which point no further written or oral submissions

[1:26:23] can be made.

[1:26:26] So we will proceed with this.

[1:26:32] So if anybody has their hands up,

[1:26:34] or wants to make any comments, please put your hands up

[1:26:36] and we will acknowledge you and we will go from there.

[1:26:42] So we have Laura Beshek.

[1:26:47] Oh, hi, I didn't realize my video was on

[1:26:49] as I was wondering about my kitchen.

[1:26:52] I just want to briefly speak in favor of this.

[1:26:55] I mean, I, you know, because of the last application,

[1:26:58] I like the symmetry of the four units

[1:27:00] going into the density bank, which is wonderful,

[1:27:02] but also it, you know,

[1:27:05] furthers the work of conservation on Denman Island

[1:27:08] that the Denman Conservancy Association has done so well.

[1:27:12] And there's like nothing that speaks against this.

[1:27:15] It's just good.

[1:27:18] So please move it ahead.

[1:27:21] Thank you.

[1:27:22] Thank you, Mr. Shachman.

[1:27:24] Anybody else wish to speak?

[1:27:31] I'm not seeing any hands up.

[1:27:35] So I'll start the procedure, close the meeting.

[1:27:40] We'll now proceed to close the public hearing.

[1:27:43] Please note that after the public hearing closes,

[1:27:44] local trust committee will no longer be able

[1:27:46] to receive public submissions prior to making a decision.

[1:27:50] I'll ask the first time, are there any more speakers?

[1:27:57] I'll ask a second time, are there any more speakers?

[1:28:05] A third time for any more speakers?

[1:28:08] This is now the final opportunity for you to hand in

[1:28:11] a written submission to the local trust committee.

[1:28:13] Once the hearing is closed,

[1:28:15] no additional submissions will be accepted.

[1:28:23] So with that, we will recall to, I'm sorry.

[1:28:35] Trying to catch up with all this good stuff.

[1:28:37] So at this point, we will recall to order

[1:28:41] to the local trust committee business.

[1:28:44] And so we're post public hearing now.

[1:28:49] With that, we have a post public hearing report,

[1:28:54] official community plan and land use file is number 255 and 250 housing agreement file number 254 DERZ 2024.1 Triple Rock Land Cooperative Staff Report.

[1:29:09] And we'll hand it over to you, Madam Carg.

[1:29:11] Sure, I'll give a brief intro to this report. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot today,

[1:29:18] but that's just how it goes. So this is a post public hearing report for proposed bylaws

[1:29:23] 255, 250, and 254. The bylaws increase the number of units on the property by four units,

[1:29:31] withdraw four densities from the OCP density bank, and permit secondary suites in all

[1:29:36] units regulated by a housing agreement, and increase the maximum floor area for outbuildings.

[1:29:41] So staff are recommending that the LTC give third reading to bylaws 255, 254, and 250,

[1:29:48] then forward all three bylaws to executive committee for approval and forward bylaw 255

[1:29:55] to the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

[1:29:58] The legislative process to date, bylaw 250 received first reading on October 8, 2024,

[1:30:07] Second reading, May 20th, 2025, By-law 255 received first and second readings on May 20th,

[1:30:15] 2025. They were sent to First Nations and agencies and a public hearing was held on February 17th,

[1:30:23] 2026. So after the close of the hearing, the LTC may consider third reading. Limited amendments

[1:30:31] are permitted. Send the OCP amendment to the Minister for approval, forward bylaws to

[1:30:37] to executive committee, and then once that is done,

[1:30:41] proceed to final adoption.

[1:30:43] No new submissions can be received

[1:30:46] unless a new hearing is held.

[1:30:49] So all statutory requirements have been met.

[1:30:52] Public and agency input has been considered,

[1:30:54] and referrals were sent to First Nations.

[1:30:58] No formal response received yet

[1:31:00] from COMOC's First Nation Council.

[1:31:03] Yes, so the LTC has the options to amend the bylaws as long as they're not increasing density

[1:31:13] or changing use. Defer third reading. Hold on final adoption pending input from COMOC's

[1:31:21] First Nation and they can also proceed no further.

[1:31:28] Thank you, Pattermaquard. Or do you trustees, how would you like to proceed?

[1:31:39] I would like to make some comments and hear from my co-trustee and then we'll see where we go.

[1:31:46] So first off, I want to thank those that participated in providing their comments on this particular

[1:31:54] application. It seemed fairly well supported by a number of residents. We did have a few people

[1:32:03] who said they were comfortable with the increase of the four principal dwellings but were a little

[1:32:08] uncomfortable and some definitely uncomfortable with 19 suites. And one person was against

[1:32:15] increasing the density on Demond overall until a capacity of Demond has been established

[1:32:23] scientifically or however that was their wish that the carrying capacity of Demond should be

[1:32:30] the priority of the local trust committee. As a decision maker in a trust island,

[1:32:37] And my job, the way I look at it, is to hear environmental impact, number one.

[1:32:44] And then two, to look at the unique amenities which I consider our community and the almost

[1:32:51] undefinable style of living that we have managed to keep here on this beautiful island.

[1:33:00] The fact that Coho has used rainwater for their drinking water really gives me comfort

[1:33:05] to know that there aren't going to be new wells punched into a limiting aquifer, finite

[1:33:13] water supply. The fact that they use composting toilets again puts the onus on the landowner

[1:33:21] and the sweep occupant to maintain the responsibility of dealing with that. And then the gray water

[1:33:28] is the least of an environmental issue, I think, and I'm sure the expert on the in that

[1:33:36] particular area that's watching us right now would agree. I didn't hear any overall threat

[1:33:43] to the environment by this particular application. And they're maintaining their clustering. The

[1:33:50] maximum house size of 2000 is in fact the only other than a maximum on ALR land of

[1:33:57] of a combined two dwellings of 5,000

[1:33:59] is the only limit that we have on Dement Island.

[1:34:02] And it's quite possible for a 2,000 square foot house

[1:34:06] to have, oh gosh, probably five or six bathrooms

[1:34:09] or yeah, bedrooms and three or four bathrooms

[1:34:11] in a family setting.

[1:34:13] So that size of the dwelling could easily

[1:34:17] be considered quite extreme as far as environmental impact.

[1:34:21] Whether it's a suite or whether it's just bedrooms

[1:34:24] and a bathroom, I don't really see the difference

[1:34:26] from an environmental perspective, just because it's a suite, you wouldn't create more effluent,

[1:34:31] you wouldn't draw up more water. So I don't see that distinguished the problem there.

[1:34:36] There was a landowner who put forward a philosophical argument based on their understanding of what a

[1:34:43] coho or a cooperative should be, but we heard from people who perhaps have a little more depth to

[1:34:48] the subject that rentals are part of coho, co-housing developments and cooperatives.

[1:34:57] So that's not a valid reason, I don't believe.

[1:35:03] We do have strong official community plan support.

[1:35:08] As someone very astutely pointed out,

[1:35:10] this isn't the only solution

[1:35:12] to our current affordable housing dilemma on dammit.

[1:35:18] I love the fact that one of the members of Coho mentioned,

[1:35:21] this was their community response to the need.

[1:35:25] I thought that was brilliant.

[1:35:26] that actually speaks to cooperative mindsets.

[1:35:30] And yeah, so I don't have any problem moving forward

[1:35:34] with this particular application

[1:35:35] based on what I've heard today.

[1:35:38] Thank you, Trustee Graham.

[1:35:39] Trustee Bonifite?

[1:35:41] Yeah, and I appreciate Trustee Graham's statements

[1:35:47] as usual, he's managed to steal 98% of my thunder.

[1:35:52] Yeah, I, yeah, likewise, I really want to appreciate the community engagement on this.

[1:36:00] This is by far the most public engagement on a hearing that I've seen so far.

[1:36:10] And I would be tempted to say that with this might even be more letters specifically on

[1:36:14] this engagement than we've seen on work like the Trust Policy Statement coming to Trust

[1:36:19] Council from a much broader section of people. This is more volume of of engagement and I really

[1:36:25] appreciate everyone who took the time to write. I read all of them several times and I really

[1:36:33] appreciate the place for which the concerns come and the you know objections where they were

[1:36:40] made were made I think in a considered light and were respectful. Similarly, I think in terms

[1:36:49] of the philosophical nature of co-housing and cooperative land sharing, that's less

[1:36:58] our purview to sort of weigh in on from a philosophical perspective. I think our job

[1:37:04] is to look at the zoning and to look at the planning. And I really appreciate Mr. Terry's

[1:37:08] comments in terms of you have to consider the maximum, not necessarily what's practically

[1:37:14] going to be done. I think that's a really salient point. And I think that's true in

[1:37:17] in all planning discussions, we are looking at what the potential is. You can't couch

[1:37:23] your concerns in what may happen in the short term. Nevertheless, I would agree with Trustee

[1:37:30] Graham that I think the distinction between someone sharing a living space or having

[1:37:37] a small, if the footprint is already accounted for, giving that person that little extra

[1:37:42] bit of privacy, I think, especially if you are someone who is a carer. And one of the

[1:37:47] major benefits of this process is allowing our seniors, many of the people who have done

[1:37:53] such incredible work in establishing Coho, hope to age in place. And this hopefully will

[1:38:00] allow them to do that. And as someone who has friends and family who work in care work,

[1:38:09] Having a degree of privacy and separation from your client is a really valuable human

[1:38:14] dignity issue.

[1:38:16] And I think likewise if you are, you know, even family, if I was to move in with any

[1:38:23] of my friends who live on Coho, I think we would all appreciate being able to have a

[1:38:30] door shut between our living spaces at times.

[1:38:34] So I think extending that dignity to people and allowing that flexibility because again,

[1:38:40] we're not mandating how that co-housing happens, but I do appreciate the concern and I understand

[1:38:47] where from whence it comes.

[1:38:50] I also look at the example thus far of what's happening at co-ho and I'm very encouraged

[1:38:58] by the work and care that's gone in.

[1:39:01] And the cultivation and maintenance

[1:39:04] of that community and culture is exemplary.

[1:39:09] They're a very shining example of what can be done.

[1:39:11] And it's taken a village to create that village.

[1:39:19] Furthermore, I have one more point.

[1:39:24] I didn't write it down.

[1:39:25] I think it might be gone.

[1:39:26] Yeah, this project does allow people who are of a variety of backgrounds to participate

[1:39:38] in our community.

[1:39:39] Oh, right, I didn't know what the thing was I was going to say.

[1:39:44] So one of the comments that was made in support of the project in general was that this was

[1:39:51] going to allow a lot of people to join our community.

[1:39:55] And I, you know, that's true, but I would also.

[1:40:00] highlight the point that many of the people who I think would like to join

[1:40:03] Coho are in fact already members of our community. In many cases they're people

[1:40:08] who are here who may be living in unsafe or substandard living. This is not

[1:40:13] necessarily an expansion of a net increase in people moving to the island

[1:40:19] but it is an increase of people moving from substandard or unsafe

[1:40:25] housing into safe housing with a much greater degree of dignity and safety and comfort,

[1:40:32] which I think is the intent here. We're not necessarily looking at desiring to make a massive

[1:40:40] expansion of our community, but we do want to make sure that the people who are already here,

[1:40:43] who are integral to keeping this community running, are able to live in safety and

[1:40:49] and dignity. So I am satisfied and I would agree with Trustee Graham that the environmental

[1:40:57] impact of this expansion does seem to have been very carefully considered by the proponents.

[1:41:02] And I'm satisfied with the work that's gone in. And I know that the work has really only just begun

[1:41:08] for Coho. I know that they are going to carefully manage this process as it goes forward. And

[1:41:14] obviously, I hope that they do that in concert with their neighbors and with the rest of our

[1:41:19] community and by all rights, by all indicators that we have from the last 15 years, that seems

[1:41:27] likely that there will be considerable work done to allay those fears. So yeah, I appreciate the

[1:41:33] things. I'm happy to get on to making motions. Okay, Trustee Graham. Thank you. Just a couple of

[1:41:43] more items to cover from my perspective. I've been watching my social media feed to just see

[1:41:51] if comments have been coming from Islanders who've lost power and are concerned and frustrated

[1:41:56] that they weren't able to make submissions, it looks like some of the areas who thought they

[1:42:00] would be out of power still have power, so that's encouraging. And I think it's quite a

[1:42:07] small number of Islanders who have not lost power, and maybe they were some that submitted

[1:42:14] their comments prior to so that's that's important. So I don't really feel that the public hearing has

[1:42:21] been affected substantially by this power outage and that's important. And the other thing is I

[1:42:29] don't know how many people knew this but through legislation provincial legislation

[1:42:33] municipal level governments have been given the opportunity to make changes regarding affordable

[1:42:37] housing without going to a public hearing. It was really just a kind of a quirk of our unique

[1:42:42] having a density bank, which has been attached

[1:42:46] to our official community plan,

[1:42:47] which I think forced staff's hand and our hand

[1:42:50] to follow through with a more traditional public hearing.

[1:42:52] But, and I'm glad we did.

[1:42:54] I know there was some discussion earlier on

[1:42:57] that we didn't really have to do this week,

[1:42:58] it just moved forward.

[1:43:00] But, you know, we don't wanna look like we're barreling

[1:43:03] forward with something that may be worthy

[1:43:06] of a further discussion.

[1:43:08] So having said that, I am also ready to move on.

[1:43:11] If you want to put something on the screen for us,

[1:43:14] we could look at those, thank you.

[1:43:16] Yeah, thank you.

[1:43:18] My brief comment is, you know,

[1:43:21] oftentimes when we see a large amount of submissions

[1:43:26] that are comments on an applicant, they tend to be negative.

[1:43:31] This is, I think the first time

[1:43:33] that I've seen an application

[1:43:35] that has had this substantial amount of feedback

[1:43:39] that in the vast majority have been exceptionally positive.

[1:43:43] So it gives me comfort to proceed.

[1:43:50] We live in a world of social negativity

[1:43:54] and it was kind of heartening to see this amount of response

[1:43:59] that was as positive as it was.

[1:44:02] And I think the other belt and braces is that,

[1:44:06] this is already an existing established,

[1:44:11] if I hate to use the word development,

[1:44:13] to the snort, it's a co-op.

[1:44:15] And so the proof is in the pudding is that

[1:44:20] we've heard from the neighbors,

[1:44:22] the positive impact that co-op has had on the island.

[1:44:26] We've heard, I certainly heard the people of Denman

[1:44:31] needing to have more housing opportunities,

[1:44:35] especially economical opportunities,

[1:44:37] which is what this presents.

[1:44:39] So I personally don't have any reservations

[1:44:44] with proceeding with this.

[1:44:45] So at that, I don't know if,

[1:44:48] if the partner McCarrie, can you bring up

[1:44:50] or Lisa, can you bring up the motion?

[1:44:54] There we go.

[1:44:56] Magic.

[1:44:59] Trustee Borthwick, I see you eagerly wanting to go forward.

[1:45:03] I'm happy to take the lead.

[1:45:06] I move that the Deman Island Local Trust Committee

[1:45:09] proposed bylaw number 255 cited as Deming Island

[1:45:12] official community plan 2008 amendment number two 2025

[1:45:16] be read a third time.

[1:45:18] Seconded, Trustee Graham.

[1:45:20] Oh, second that motion.

[1:45:21] All right, any further discussion?

[1:45:24] Call the question all in favor.

[1:45:26] Aye.

[1:45:27] That carries, we love the ayes.

[1:45:31] I'm happy to keep going if you want David.

[1:45:33] Absolutely.

[1:45:35] I move that the Deming Island local trust committee

[1:45:37] proposed bylaw number 250, 250 cited as

[1:45:41] Devon Island Land Use By-law 2008,

[1:45:44] amendment number two, 2024 be read a third time.

[1:45:48] Is that correct that it's 2024?

[1:45:51] Just double checking with staff.

[1:45:54] Yeah, it is.

[1:45:55] Cause it was brought forward.

[1:45:56] I know it was made a while before, yeah, just yeah.

[1:45:58] Very good.

[1:45:59] I will second that motion as read.

[1:46:02] All right. Any further discussion?

[1:46:04] Call the question.

[1:46:05] All in favor?

[1:46:06] Aye.

[1:46:08] I move that the Deming Island Local Trust Committee proposed by law number 254 cited

[1:46:13] as Deming Island Housing Agreement by law number 254 2025 be read a third time.

[1:46:19] I'll second that motion.

[1:46:21] Further discussion.

[1:46:23] Call the question all in favor.

[1:46:25] I move that the Deming Island Local Trust Committee proposed by law number 255 cited as Deming

[1:46:32] Island official Community Plan 2008 amendment number two 2025 be forwarded to the Minister

[1:46:38] housing and municipal affairs for approval. Second that. For the discussion call the question

[1:46:44] all in favor. Aye. Aye. And I move that the Denman Island Local Trust Committee proposed

[1:46:51] bylaw number 255 cited as Denman Island official community plan 2008 amendment number 2 2025

[1:46:58] proposed bylaw number 2250 cited as Denman Island land use bylaw 2008 amendment number 2 2024

[1:47:06] and proposed by-law number 254 cited as Demmon Island housing agreement by-law number 254 2025

[1:47:14] before and to the Secretary of the Islands Trust for executive committee approval.

[1:47:19] Second that.

[1:47:20] For the discussion call the question all in favor.

[1:47:23] Aye.

[1:47:24] That carries. And I do note that there is an executive committee meeting next week.

[1:47:30] So if staff speak,

[1:47:35] Conlin can Alex, you might be able to get it on the agenda

[1:47:37] for next week for the executive committee.

[1:47:40] All right, moving on, we have 6.2,

[1:47:43] which is post public hearing report,

[1:47:45] land use bylaw amendment applications

[1:47:47] resolved before parcels to conservation,

[1:47:51] Bishop meeting plan bylaw amendment bylaws number 256, 257,

[1:47:57] and over to you, plan and McCarter.

[1:47:59] All right, thank you.

[1:47:59] This is gonna sound familiar.

[1:48:02] This is post public hearing report for Biola 256 and 257.

[1:48:08] The proposal re-designates and rezones four parcels

[1:48:13] from forestry to conservation.

[1:48:15] The intent is to shift these lands away

[1:48:17] from resource extraction toward long-term

[1:48:19] environmental protection.

[1:48:21] The process to date, first and second readings

[1:48:24] were given on May 20th, 2025.

[1:48:27] Referrals were completed with a 90-day referral period

[1:48:31] and the public hearing was held on February 17th, 2026.

[1:48:35] So staff are recommending that the LTC give third reading

[1:48:39] to both bylaws, they forward bylaw 256 to the minister

[1:48:44] and forward both bylaws to executive committee.

[1:48:48] This is supported because all statutory requirements

[1:48:51] have been met, public and referral input has been considered

[1:48:55] and the executive committee approval

[1:48:57] is required before adoption.

[1:49:00] So some alternatives, the LTC may amend the bylaws

[1:49:03] as long as they're not altering use.

[1:49:05] The LTC can defer a third reading,

[1:49:08] can hold adoption pending First Nation input

[1:49:12] or can choose to proceed no further.

[1:49:16] Thank you, Pana McCarrier.

[1:49:17] Over to you trustees.

[1:49:20] Trustee Graham.

[1:49:22] Thank you.

[1:49:24] This is again, wonderful work

[1:49:26] from our Demond Conservation Group.

[1:49:31] And it moves the needle of the amount of land protected

[1:49:34] on Demond Island in the right direction.

[1:49:37] I don't know if it's even a point percentage point,

[1:49:40] it might be one or two.

[1:49:41] I'm not sure, but it's going in the right direction.

[1:49:44] So let's put this to bed.

[1:49:47] Let's get her gone.

[1:49:51] Get her done.

[1:49:52] Get her done.

[1:49:53] All right, if I do my math correctly,

[1:49:55] I believe that it's over to you to start reading bylaws

[1:49:58] because Trustee Borthwick did the last.

[1:50:01] Happy to.

[1:50:03] The last Trustee Borthwick has a contrary opinion.

[1:50:07] Nope, I'm happy either way, however we wanna slice it.

[1:50:12] I don't see them though,

[1:50:13] but when I do, I will make the motion.

[1:50:16] Oh, I see.

[1:50:18] Diana McCarter is fizzly punching at her keyboard.

[1:50:24] There we are. Magic has occurred again.

[1:50:26] Great, thank you.

[1:50:27] I move that the Demanal and Local Trust Committee

[1:50:29] proposed by law number 256 cited as Demanal

[1:50:32] and Official Committee Plan 2008,

[1:50:34] amendment number three, 2025 be read a third time.

[1:50:39] Seconded.

[1:50:40] All right, any further discussion?

[1:50:42] Call the question, all in favor?

[1:50:44] Aye.

[1:50:44] Aye.

[1:50:45] We all have it.

[1:50:47] I move that the Demanal and Local Trust Committee

[1:50:48] proposed by law number 257,

[1:50:51] cited as Demanal and Land Use by law 2008,

[1:50:53] amendment number two, 2025 be read a third time.

[1:50:57] Seconded.

[1:50:58] Trustee Wirthwick, any further discussion?

[1:51:01] Call the question, all in favor?

[1:51:03] Aye.

[1:51:04] That carries.

[1:51:06] I move that the Demond Island Local Trust Committee

[1:51:07] proposed by a number 256 cited

[1:51:09] as Demond Island Official Community Plan 2008,

[1:51:12] amendment number three, 2025,

[1:51:14] be forwarded to the Minister of Housing

[1:51:15] and Municipal Affairs for approval.

[1:51:18] Seconded.

[1:51:19] Okay, any further discussion?

[1:51:21] Call the question, all in favor?

[1:51:23] Aye.

[1:51:24] That carries.

[1:51:26] I move that the Demond Island Local Trust Committee

[1:51:27] proposed by law number 256 excited as the demo on official committed plan 2008

[1:51:32] amendment number three 2025 and proposed by law number two five seven cited as

[1:51:36] demo on land use pilot 2008 amendment number two 2025 be forwarded to the

[1:51:40] secretary of the island stress for executive committee approval seconded

[1:51:44] all right for the discussion call the question all in favor that I am whoo

[1:51:50] all right and again hopefully we might be able to get that on to next week at

[1:51:56] under for the executive, so that would be great. It's two good projects and I'm glad that we

[1:52:05] managed to put that forward and look forward to the next meeting of a local trust committee

[1:52:11] in person right after Trust Council. So I note that we're finishing six minutes early, so

[1:52:19] I don't know if we're expected to babble for another six minutes or we can just adjourn.

[1:52:23] So Adam McConaugher, you're happy to let us know.

[1:52:29] Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Trustee. Thank you, Scott.

[1:52:33] Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Jeff.