Islands Trust Council community information meeting, May 4, 2026

[0:00:00] Voice 10: regularly scheduled meeting of the Luskeetee Island Local Trust Committee to order.

[0:00:06] Voice 10: I'm just waiting until the recording and live stream is going on. Okay.

[0:00:10] Voice 10: Thank you for coming today. My name is Toby Elliott. I'm the chair of the Luskeetee Island

[0:00:15] Voice 10: Local Trust Committee, elected on Gabriela Island, representing also Munch and DeCourcy

[0:00:20] Voice 10: in Sonamook First Nation Territory. I'm very pleased to be with you all.

[0:00:25] Voice 10: We want to begin by acknowledging that we are meeting together online and here in the territory

[0:00:32] Voice 10: of many Coast Salish First Nations and the Treaty Territory of the Isla Amar First Nation and thank

[0:00:38] Voice 10: you so much to everyone who continues to carry the heart and the spirit of reconciliation that

[0:00:45] Voice 10: we endeavour to do our work with today, that we always want to acknowledge the place that we are

[0:00:50] Voice 10: are in and the stewardship that has begun before us and will continue as we work together i'm

[0:00:58] Voice 10: joined by your two local trustees michaela laroni and tim peterson and together we make up your

[0:01:04] Voice 10: local trust committee uh we are also joined by staff uh oh and forgive me our chair laura patrick

[0:01:11] Voice 10: is with us today uh supporting with the elements of the legislative process this is the chair of

[0:01:17] Voice 10: trust council um i believe last time that we were here was for the mural unveiling uh which was such

[0:01:24] Voice 10: an amazing significant event for this community so very happy to be back and wonderful to be in

[0:01:30] Voice 10: this place and meeting together so we have an agenda before us oh sorry and introducing staff

[0:01:36] Voice 10: uh we have Lisa Millard in the background we've got our planners

[0:01:41] Voice 10: and other staff are supporting so if we've got any questions for staff you can ask the

[0:01:47] Voice 10: trust committee during a public comment period and just before we go to agenda approval

[0:01:54] Voice 10: want to note that there's a few different components to our meeting today we have

[0:02:00] Voice 10: a short section for reports and then that'll be followed by the community information meeting

[0:02:06] Voice 10: on proposed bylaw number 107,

[0:02:09] Voice 10: the minor project on the land use bylaw amendment

[0:02:12] Voice 10: to minimum lot size.

[0:02:14] Voice 10: There'll be a planner presentation

[0:02:15] Voice 10: and a question and answer period.

[0:02:17] Voice 10: That's a community information meeting.

[0:02:20] Voice 10: Copies of the agenda, by the way,

[0:02:21] Voice 10: are over there on the left.

[0:02:23] Voice 10: And there's a description of the public hearing process.

[0:02:27] Voice 10: We'll be moving into the public hearing

[0:02:29] Voice 10: on proposed bylaw number 107 at that point.

[0:02:33] Voice 10: and there's a whole separate script

[0:02:37] Voice 10: and a legislative process we need to follow.

[0:02:40] Voice 10: So it does seem a bit procedural,

[0:02:42] Voice 10: but stick with us and we'll hear your comments then

[0:02:46] Voice 10: on proposed bylaw number 107.

[0:02:50] Voice 10: Then we will go into town hall

[0:02:52] Voice 10: and that's our general public participation time

[0:02:55] Voice 10: when you can speak to the local trust committee

[0:02:57] Voice 10: about local trust committee issues

[0:03:00] Voice 10: or items trust area issues more broadly or ask questions and I understand there's we have a

[0:03:10] Voice 10: significant loss in the community which I know your trustees will speak to so we're going to

[0:03:17] Voice 10: try to close by before 2 p.m. today so we may ask you to keep your comments very brief to the point

[0:03:26] Voice 10: and in order to get through our business today

[0:03:29] Voice 10: and allow you to go and take part in the other community events

[0:03:34] Voice 10: that I know are important.

[0:03:37] Voice 10: And then we've got a few other pieces of business,

[0:03:40] Voice 10: but we'll reorder the agenda if we need to.

[0:03:43] Voice 10: So with all that preamble,

[0:03:45] Voice 10: is there anything to add or amend on the agenda?

[0:03:49] Voice 17: Yeah, thank you, Chair.

[0:03:50] Voice 17: I'd just like to recommend that once we are done

[0:03:53] Voice 17: with the town hall section we skip directly up to i uh item 12.1 which is the staff report on

[0:04:02] Voice 17: the minor project and then uh 15.1 and 15.2 because those are the staff indicated those

[0:04:08] Voice 17: are the priorities time set more time sensitive items and then we'll see how we go but we can

[0:04:13] Voice 17: always uh approve

[0:04:15] Voice 15: the minutes at a later meeting or whatever so that's my recommendation and

[0:04:19] Voice 15: okay so i'll turn it off great

[0:04:22] Voice 10: so after section 7 we'll go to 12 and 15 and any others

[0:04:27] Voice 10: thank you any other amendments or additions to the agenda if not i'll take it by general consent

[0:04:33] Voice 10: that the agenda be approved as presented so we'll move into our reports trustee reports

[0:04:39] Voice 10: who would like to go first and thank everybody for being here i know we've all experienced a

[0:04:48] Voice 10: a huge loss so an extra thank you for coming out

[0:04:52] Voice 9: and

[0:04:53] Voice 10: taking the time to show up and it's also been

[0:04:56] Voice 10: gorgeous and I know you probably rather be gardening so triple thank you. Not a lot to

[0:05:03] Voice 10: report it's been a pretty quiet spring but I just wanted to mention that there is an election coming

[0:05:09] Voice 10: up in October and it's time to start thinking about that. I am not going to be putting my name

[0:05:19] Voice 10: forward to run again so there we are yeah so i just want to encourage others to step up and

[0:05:25] Voice 10: perform community service thank you justin yeah thank

[0:05:33] Voice 15: you i also wanted to take a moment to

[0:05:35] Voice 15: acknowledge the passing

[0:05:36] Voice 17: of our beloved jenny bester um we're going to make every effort to

[0:05:40] Voice 17: wrap up today in plenty of time for people who want to get to the burial um of course we do too

[0:05:48] Voice 17: just a couple of quick notes at the march trust council meeting staff advised that the policy

[0:05:53] Voice 17: statement amendment project will not be completed before end of term next week on may 13th trust

[0:06:00] Voice 17: council will meet in committee of the whole to review the what we heard report from public and

[0:06:05] Voice 17: agency feedback and consider uh what next steps council this council may want to take

[0:06:13] Voice 17: uh that uh what we heard report is going to be on the public agenda posted on the

[0:06:18] Voice 17: stress website if anyone wants to read it that's for the may 13th uh committee the whole if you're

[0:06:24] Voice 17: looking online if you have questions feel free to get in touch we're pointing the right way

[0:06:28] Voice 17: it's a very long report um and just one last thing i just wanted to note that our uh our catholic

[0:06:38] Voice 17: regional district uh director andrew fall and and myself a jointly advanced resolution

[0:06:44] Voice 17: requesting that transport canada cease uh its divestment program for remote ports like false

[0:06:50] Voice 17: bay and i'm happy to report that the resolution passed at the association of vancouver island

[0:06:56] Voice 17: and coastal communities convention last week which means it can now advance the union of

[0:07:01] Voice 17: bc municipalities and the federation of canadian municipalities for their consideration if those

[0:07:07] Voice 17: those bodies uh approved then um there will be uh sort of a larger advocacy directly with Transport

[0:07:14] Voice 17: Canada to request that the divestment efforts cease and I will be working with um Will Cole

[0:07:20] Voice 17: Hamilton who's our avic Federation of Canadian musicalities representative see how we as a

[0:07:26] Voice 17: community can support um the passage of that resolution I'll report back it may be that

[0:07:32] Voice 17: that things like letters from the community

[0:07:35] Voice 17: will be helpful at that point,

[0:07:36] Voice 17: but I'm gonna have a conversation with him

[0:07:38] Voice 17: before I ask people to start writing letters, for example.

[0:07:42] Voice 17: So just wanted to give that update and that's it for me.

[0:07:47] Voice 10: Thank you.

[0:07:48] Voice 10: So for my chair's report, I'll keep things brief.

[0:07:53] Voice 10: We attended the Association of Vancouver

[0:07:55] Voice 10: and Coastal Communities Convention last weekend.

[0:07:59] Voice 10: And as Trustee Peterson said,

[0:08:01] Voice 10: that there was a number of resolutions

[0:08:03] Voice 10: and the one that's just advanced

[0:08:06] Voice 10: that's hardly supported.

[0:08:08] Voice 10: I will, there's going to be a report coming out.

[0:08:12] Voice 10: So that will be circulated to trustees.

[0:08:15] Voice 10: And if anyone's interested in getting that report,

[0:08:17] Voice 10: just contact one of us.

[0:08:20] Voice 10: There's also an AVFCC webinar

[0:08:23] Voice 10: that was put on by featuring George Abbott,

[0:08:28] Voice 10: who's the chief just appointed chief treaty commissioner about understanding modern treaties

[0:08:34] Voice 10: in bc uh he has an excellent book out right now called unseated that really goes into the details

[0:08:40] Voice 10: of our history in bc uh and in order to understand the context today and um oh a piece of technology

[0:08:51] Voice 10: has returned to the island's trust website map it was missing for all well software that supported

[0:08:57] Voice 10: the map it function was discontinued and so our GIS staff had rebuilt the platform entirely so

[0:09:07] Voice 10: there's an in-house application and it's much more detailed than it used to be so you can

[0:09:12] Voice 10: go into different raster layers I'm not a planner so there's there's a there's a large

[0:09:19] Voice 10: amount of information there but it's back online and related to that executive committee

[0:09:26] Voice 10: recently gave direction for a workshop for realtors in the trust area um with an archaeology

[0:09:34] Voice 10: expert and to feature the map it uh software and sort of explain it as well as some living in the

[0:09:40] Voice 10: trust area um uh specifics and that'll be sometime between may and september so if you know of any

[0:09:47] Voice 10: realtors who need to um liaise with us then uh then let us know and of course trustees will be

[0:09:54] Voice 10: invited to that as well um i'll keep it brief uh director fall did you want to give a report

[0:10:00] Voice 10: i'll be

[0:10:00] Voice 13: very sure sure um first i'd just like to thank you if you could come up a little closer to

[0:10:05] Voice 13: the

[0:10:05] Voice 17: camera yeah well no you don't have to be on camera just if you stand near it when you talk

[0:10:11] Voice 17: fine

[0:10:12] Voice 9: then

[0:10:15] Voice 13: i'll just blame myself so i just want to thank you for organizing the meeting

[0:10:18] Voice 13: in person here at the hall i know it's not that easy and uh the turnout reflects that and i'm

[0:10:23] Voice 13: happy it's great to have it right next door so the only thing i'd add to the reports is this you

[0:10:28] Voice 13: know give a bit more detail on this uh cease and desist resolution that uh trustee peterson and i

[0:10:34] Voice 13: worked on and and kate louise stanford who's island's trustee for gambier and also regional

[0:10:38] Voice 13: director for uh the high coast regional district it was really great working together we got

[0:10:43] Voice 13: unanimous support so it ended up in what they call endorsed block which means unanimous so it's a

[0:10:48] Voice 13: a loud voice it doesn't mean the feds listen to us it means it's not one letter it's not 500 letters

[0:10:53] Voice 13: it's basically the whole coastal bc every municipality every local government every

[0:10:57] Voice 13: regional district is saying stop it by

[0:11:00] Voice 13: going to ubcm it would mean all bc if it passed there

[0:11:03] Voice 13: but it's more likely to go to fcm federation of canadian municipalities and that would bring in

[0:11:07] Voice 13: atlantic canada who has some of these kinds of words so that's a really loud letter so it doesn't

[0:11:11] Voice 13: again it doesn't mean the feds will do anything but it's equivalent to getting a very loud

[0:11:15] Voice 13: loud, low horn, a fire hose, if you want, of letters, they would be wise to listen to

[0:11:20] Voice 13: it and actually take steps.

[0:11:21] Voice 13: And it also provides a lot of leverage for our MP, because Gord Johns wants to do stuff

[0:11:28] Voice 13: for Laskiti.

[0:11:28] Voice 13: He's always open to do stuff for Laskiti.

[0:11:30] Voice 13: He's already seen it, and he'll take this, and he has access to sit down with the minister

[0:11:35] Voice 13: on occasion and be advocated.

[0:11:37] Voice 13: So that's where it'll go from here.

[0:11:39] Voice 13: So no guarantee, but I think it increases our chance that the feds just back up on all

[0:11:44] Voice 13: this.

[0:11:47] Voice 17: yeah i just wanted to um uh briefly acknowledge um leis and and larry uh for his work to set us

[0:11:56] Voice 17: up with internet here so we can have this in-person meeting here and still have staff

[0:11:59] Voice 17: attend online so really

[0:12:01] Voice 15: appreciate it thank you larry

[0:12:02] Voice 10: yes thank you to everyone who made this

[0:12:07] Voice 10: possible

[0:12:07] Voice 15: uh

[0:12:08] Voice 10: so that concludes our report section and we are moving swiftly along into our community

[0:12:17] Voice 10: information meeting so this is where we're going to invite the public to ask questions after the

[0:12:24] Voice 10: planner gives a presentation on proposed bylaw number 107 which is the skidi's local uh or sorry

[0:12:31] Voice 10: a minor project on a minimum lot size for subdivision and there are there's very few

[0:12:38] Voice 10: papers left there so I see that a planner has joined us online and would you like to take it

[0:12:45] Voice 10: away welcome planner Bob thanks

[0:12:48] Voice 1: chair Elliot so I'll just give a brief description really of

[0:12:53] Voice 1: of the purpose of proposed bylaw number 107 and if there's questions for trustees or staff then

[0:13:00] Voice 1: and we can move to that section.

[0:13:01] Voice 1: But the purpose of the proposed bylaw

[0:13:04] Voice 1: is to amend the minimum lot area for subdivision

[0:13:07] Voice 1: and subdivision district A from four hectares

[0:13:10] Voice 1: to 4.05 hectares, which is equivalent to 10 acres.

[0:13:15] Voice 1: The bylaw would also amend other references

[0:13:17] Voice 1: in the bylaw from four to 4.05 hectares,

[0:13:20] Voice 1: including the minimum lot area for subdivision

[0:13:23] Voice 1: for a relative, the minimum lot area

[0:13:26] Voice 1: for dwellings and guest cabins per lot.

[0:13:28] Voice 1: lot. And there's also two references in the C2 zone to four hectares and one reference in the

[0:13:33] Voice 1: C3, the commercial two and commercial three zones. The bylaws proceeding as a minor project of the

[0:13:40] Voice 1: Liskieti Island Local Trust Committee and was given first reading on December 8, 2025. And

[0:13:45] Voice 1: referrals have been sent to First Nations and agencies with a 90-day referral period, which

[0:13:50] Voice 1: ended on April 9, 2026. And no concerns have been identified in those responses. So when we get to

[0:13:57] Voice 1: public hearing i can i'll go through those in more detail but um in the meantime i'll just leave it

[0:14:02] Voice 1: there unless there's questions thank

[0:14:07] Voice 10: you conor ball uh so now is the time for questions uh not

[0:14:13] Voice 10: to give your um perspective as in pro or against you will have time for that during the public

[0:14:20] Voice 10: hearing that is the time where we want to hear from you do you support this proposed bylaw do

[0:14:25] Voice 10: you not support it what are your reasons and all of that information will be necessary for the local

[0:14:30] Voice 10: trust committee to consider it so it's this is your time for questions anything on clarification

[0:14:37] Voice 10: on the proposed bylaw um and specifically bylaw number um 107. if anybody wants to raise your

[0:14:46] Voice 10: hand yep and if you can come forward if you can come forward so the mint because the recording

[0:14:51] Voice 10: recording devices up here just

[0:14:53] Voice 7: so the minute

[0:14:53] Voice 10: taker can um hear your voice and please state your name

[0:14:57] Voice 10: uh

[0:14:58] Voice 7: my name is peter and uh i was just wondering on the relative addition to the

[0:15:09] Voice 7: where the request from the community came for that now over the years and all the public meetings

[0:15:18] Voice 7: someone always comes up with it

[0:15:19] Voice 9: but

[0:15:20] Voice 7: it's such a drastic proposal to consider on our way of life

[0:15:28] Voice 7: here that i'm just wondering how did it get on the agenda that's all yeah

[0:15:36] Voice 10: okay yeah i'll speak

[0:15:41] Voice 7: to that because uh

[0:15:42] Voice 17: i brought this uh this uh the resolution to bring this up so um i'm sure most

[0:15:51] Voice 17: of you remember when there was a bit of a community uh around the so-called safe island

[0:15:57] Voice 17: um proposals there and it was recognized then that by having uh four hectares rather than

[0:16:05] Voice 17: 4.05 hectares there was a potential on very large lots to squeak out an extra lot

[0:16:11] Voice 17: at time of subdivision so we would have normally thought 160 acres to get 16 lots

[0:16:17] Voice 17: lots. But because of the math with the lack of that decimal, then it would mean that an

[0:16:26] Voice 17: 80 hectare lot or 160 acre lot could make 17 lots. At that point, we heard in our local

[0:16:35] Voice 17: trust committee meetings from members of the public that they wanted that fixed. Also,

[0:16:40] Voice 17: a couple of former trustees got in touch and, you know, asked why we didn't do that. I

[0:16:47] Voice 17: I think it was essentially an oversight that we were thinking that big.

[0:16:49] Voice 17: Now, in terms of the effects on Laskiti, this is only going to change future subdivision of lots that are at least 80 hectares.

[0:17:02] Voice 17: No existing lots are going to be changed and anything that doesn't get subdivided would change.

[0:17:09] Voice 17: and if you do the math difference between 4.0 and 4.05 you have to have at least an 80 hectare lot

[0:17:18] Voice 17: to essentially lose one extra lot so that's that's my background i don't want to stretch

[0:17:24] Voice 17: it out more than that but hopefully that's understandable

[0:17:32] Voice 7: um anyone

[0:17:34] Voice 7: else with that so are

[0:17:37] Voice 10: you speaking about the proposed bylaw

[0:17:40] Voice 10: on the subdivision minimum lot size or is

[0:17:43] Voice 7: it another matter sorry

[0:17:45] Voice 10: it's this part

[0:17:46] Voice 7: to include

[0:17:47] Voice 7: the resting of a separate residence for a relative that was the part that i was

[0:17:55] Voice 7: okay so speaking

[0:17:57] Voice 10: specifically about the increasing the minimum lot size from four hectares to 4.05

[0:18:03] Voice 10: in subdivision district a on split zone lots and for subdivisions to provide

[0:18:09] Voice 10: five residents for a relative, which is section 514 of the Local Government Act.

[0:18:15] Voice 10: Planifar, are you able to speak to this?

[0:18:19] Voice 1: What I can say is that there is a general subdivision minimum lot size, and there is a

[0:18:29] Voice 1: distinct, in the Liskiti land use bylaw, there's a distinct minimum lot size provided for a type

[0:18:36] Voice 1: of subdivision that is specifically for a residence for a relative and that exists because

[0:18:43] Voice 1: of a different section of the local government act that allows that and so this proposed bylaw

[0:18:49] Voice 1: would amend both the minimum lot size from four hectares to 4.05 hectares in subdivision district

[0:18:56] Voice 1: a which is just for that that typical subdivision proposal and for a subdivision that is specifically

[0:19:03] Voice 1: for a relative?

[0:19:06] Voice 7: That's an option, Dave.

[0:19:09] Voice 7: It's either, right now, it exists where we have 600 square foot max for guest

[0:19:15] Voice 7: cottage that can't be rented out, can't be permanently occupied.

[0:19:20] Voice 7: And if you switch that so it can be permanently occupied by a relative,

[0:19:26] Voice 7: you're technically increasing the density to five acres.

[0:19:30] Voice 7: years, that increases the value of the property history shows that usually doubles and it

[0:19:39] Voice 7: does not work. There is not enough

[0:19:42] Voice 5: time. Yeah,

[0:19:46] Voice 7: anyhow, it's just

[0:19:56] Voice 10: so is there any other clarifications or it's just in the local government act section 517

[0:20:03] Voice 10: that allows for that provision but we are making proposing to make the same

[0:20:09] Voice 10: the change the same how does that impact uh current um subdivision requirements for family

[0:20:22] Voice 10: members is there is there a significant change there help me understand what the problem is

[0:20:26] Voice 10: is

[0:20:30] Voice 1: that a question for me chair yes yeah

[0:20:32] Voice 1: okay the there is on the speedy you can have a a guest

[0:20:37] Voice 1: guest cottage on lots and I heard maybe a reference to that what this bylaw relates to is

[0:20:43] Voice 1: when there's a proposed subdivision for a relative it doesn't change that that ability for a lot to

[0:20:51] Voice 1: have a guest cottage maybe that clarifies it I'm not sure

[0:21:03] Voice 17: yeah sure so planner I think if I'm

[0:21:08] Voice 17: getting the just the question there's concern that the um the provisions around subdivision for

[0:21:15] Voice 17: a relative uh could add to uh density and i think that was the the crux of the question for the way

[0:21:24] Voice 17: i heard it so can you speak to that piece sure

[0:21:27] Voice 1: sure so the the change to the minimum lot size

[0:21:31] Voice 1: for subdivision for a relative does not increase the density if anything it would be a very minor

[0:21:38] Voice 1: reduction in that it is increasing the minimum lot size needed for that type of subdivision

[0:21:43] Voice 1: from 4 to 4.05. So that would just make it consistent with the change to subdivision

[0:21:50] Voice 1: district A.

[0:21:51] Voice 17: And then maybe just for clarity, that subdivision for a relative provision is

[0:21:56] Voice 17: already in the existing bylaw. The only part, we're not adding that, that's not new.

[0:22:01] Voice 17: That's correct.

[0:22:02] Voice 17: It's changing the minimum size of such a lot. Is that correct?

[0:22:05] Voice 1: That's right.

[0:22:10] Voice 10: thank you uh do we have other questions on the proposed bylaw

[0:22:14] Voice 8: so there's a lot of locks in spring bays in particular that are small one acre two acres

[0:22:23] Voice 8: half acres does this bylaw change affect them in any way only new subdivisions only new subdivisions

[0:22:34] Voice 10: i'm just checking for the minute taker can you hear questions at that volume just

[0:22:40] Voice 11: okay

[0:22:42] Voice 10: Okay, so we'll ask you to come forward or speak very loudly.

[0:22:47] Voice 10: Yes, sir?

[0:22:49] Voice 6: How does the change in the size affect existing 20-acre or marginal 20-acre

[0:23:00] Voice 6: if they were done under the current size?

[0:23:05] How does that

[0:23:06] Voice 6: affect the density on those properties,

[0:23:09] Voice 6: people that have 30 acres or 20 acres assume that's they could have two homes how does that

[0:23:17] Voice 6: affect that does that alter that okay

[0:23:19] Voice 10: question for the planner did you hear that okay how does

[0:23:23] Voice 10: that affect density on 20 to 30 acre lots so

[0:23:31] Voice 1: on a lot that is 20 acres in the subdivision district

[0:23:36] Voice 1: District A would currently with the minimum lot area of approximately 9.88 acres be permitted to

[0:23:45] Voice 1: subdivide into two lots. If this is changed to be 10.0 acres then it would still be a two lot

[0:23:55] Voice 1: on a lot that size it would remain that you could do a two lot subdivision.

[0:24:01] Voice 10: So it really only

[0:24:02] Voice 10: changes when you're getting to 80s or when you said 160 um yes so this has

[0:24:12] Voice 11: nothing to do with

[0:24:13] Voice 11: um with the questions at hand but for the people that are sitting in the back it's probably very

[0:24:18] Voice 11: difficult to hear bob or anybody that's sneaking oh the planner okay we need to turn that off a

[0:24:24] Voice 11: little bit if that's possible i think

[0:24:27] Voice 17: i don't think we really can i don't think we have a

[0:24:37] Voice 9: if folks

[0:24:38] Voice 10: are hard of hearing we encourage you

[0:24:40] Voice 17: guys could scoot right out front just

[0:24:42] Voice 17: don't knock the camera over but you can scoot right up to it if you have

[0:25:30] Voice 10: so questions on proposed bylaw

[0:25:34] Voice 22: so this is going to lead up to a question but um history shows that when the islands trust came to

[0:25:43] Voice 22: liskiti we had a 10 acre minimum we

[0:25:47] Voice 7: had

[0:25:47] Voice 22: a 10 acre minimum when the islands trust first came here in

[0:25:51] Voice 22: 1975 now we have a 9.88 acre minimum and that's what this public hearing is about so i've looked

[0:26:02] Voice 22: through the archives i don't see any public hearing allowing the public to comment on changing

[0:26:10] Voice 22: the minimum lot size from 10 to 9.88 acres so what that tells me is this is a staff mistake

[0:26:20] Voice 22: an administrative error that happened when the federal government imposed

[0:26:26] Voice 22: the need for all other governments to translate imperial measurements into metric. So if this is

[0:26:36] Voice 22: an administrative error, and I can see no other way that this change from 10 to 9.88 occurred,

[0:26:45] Voice 22: why are we spending, this is the question, why are the trustees choosing to spend public time

[0:26:51] Voice 22: time and money on an administrative correction the staff can simply change this to what everybody on

[0:27:00] Voice 22: this island knows and believes a 10 acre minimum by translating the mistake of truncating 4.0501

[0:27:11] Voice 22: and it goes farther to simply four right so could you answer that question well

[0:27:17] Voice 10: I think you've

[0:27:17] Voice 10: identified the answer in your question that any change to the bylaws needs to go through

[0:27:23] Voice 10: an administrative process that includes a public hearing so that's why we're here today because and

[0:27:30] Voice 10: specifically members of the public members of the liskiti public asked back in february 2023

[0:27:37] Voice 10: there was a request um to go to the second decimal because it was potentially going to have an impact

[0:27:44] Voice 10: So we can't go back and change history, but we can more accurately reflect what the community is asking for today.

[0:27:52] Voice 10: So that's the answer that I've heard from this seat at the table.

[0:27:55] Voice 22: Just to clarify, there was no public hearing changing it from 10 to 9.88.

[0:28:00] Voice 22: day so just a point of

[0:28:01] Voice 17: information here the um official community plan bylaw switched the metric

[0:28:09] Voice 17: in uh it was uh read a third time june 1984 and the land use bylaw um was uh it was adopted in

[0:28:23] Voice 17: 1986 as the metric so i i did dig up the the history on those metric things um and at this

[0:28:30] Voice 17: point to change it we have to follow the procedure that's our advice from staff we can't just ask

[0:28:35] Voice 17: them to fix it it has to go through the process

[0:28:42] Voice 19: it's it's my understanding that if you're doing

[0:28:48] Voice 19: a subdivision particularly a larger subdivision there's no mention been made of the requirements

[0:28:56] Voice 19: which are you have to include in that amount of acreage the roads that the government will

[0:29:03] Voice 19: We'll ask you to put in some up to 66 foot wide.

[0:29:07] Voice 19: You have to have enough property to facilitate those roads and have your minimum lot size.

[0:29:14] Voice 19: That hasn't been mentioned. So, for example, you need well more than 10 acres for each lot to be able to put the road and infrastructure in to do the subdivision anyway.

[0:29:29] Voice 19: Hasn't been mentioned at all. And that's that's a reality.

[0:29:32] Voice 19: The government requires it, and

[0:29:35] Voice 19: it's very expensive as well.

[0:29:36] Voice 19: So you do have to have more land

[0:29:39] Voice 9: than

[0:29:40] Voice 19: one would, on the surface, appear to have.

[0:29:45] Voice 9: You

[0:29:45] Voice 19: have to have over the amount, by quite a bit if you figure it out, especially on a larger one.

[0:29:51] Voice 19: And it can even affect a smaller subdivision of three lots, where you need more than 30 acres to put that.

[0:30:00] Voice 19: subdivision in once you've satisfied the true requirements so

[0:30:05] Voice 10: i heard some observations there

[0:30:06] Voice 10: did you have a question for the planner is

[0:30:10] Voice 19: that true that's the question is that true

[0:30:14] Voice 19: i'd like his response to what i said okay

[0:30:17] Voice 19: that's the question is

[0:30:22] Voice 10: that question clear enough to you

[0:30:23] Voice 10: well

[0:30:24] Voice 1: i didn't hear a question but i can respond by saying that um the bylaw is establishing a

[0:30:32] Voice 1: minimum and you can go you can exceed that and certainly on the ground realities when when

[0:30:38] Voice 1: development occurs um you know don't always mean that there's a um that you can maximize what the

[0:30:45] Voice 1: math might indicate is is the number of lots available is that if that makes sense it's not

[0:30:52] Voice 1: always such a simple division of this many acres yields this many lots when you get into it um it's

[0:30:58] Voice 1: true there's there's realities on the ground that uh that can certainly dictate a different outcome

[0:31:03] Voice 1: i'm

[0:31:04] Voice 19: sorry you didn't hear what i said because i thought it was very explanatory but um

[0:31:11] Voice 19: point in fact is you have to have considerably more land than what the subdivision requires

[0:31:18] Voice 19: to satisfy the government requirements for access road allowance etc so and that hasn't been

[0:31:28] Voice 19: mentioned in this that you need more land by a considerable amount than what it appears you don't

[0:31:35] Voice 19: just need 30 acres to do three you need more than considerably more than that that's the point i'm

[0:31:40] Voice 19: trying to make and i'm wondering how that's being addressed i

[0:31:45] Voice 10: think the scope of this project was

[0:31:47] Voice 10: solely to deal with the discrepancy between 10 acres and 9. what was it 88

[0:31:54] Voice 10: date in the conversion of course roads and access that are required by other levels of government

[0:32:00] Voice 10: are still required so the scope of this project was not to address what other local what other

[0:32:06] Voice 10: governments would would require that still remains the same sorry if that's unsatisfactory but i i

[0:32:16] Voice 10: don't know if i can ask us to clarify anymore no

[0:32:19] Voice 19: if you can't if it can't be figured out i don't

[0:32:22] Voice 19: get it but that's that's all right

[0:32:24] Voice 10: okay um i've i don't there's a question behind first yeah go

[0:32:29] Voice 10: ahead sorry nope

[0:32:33] Voice 9: the uh

[0:32:37] Voice 6: the proposed change as i understand it and this is my question

[0:32:42] Voice 6: the proposed change is affecting density rather than necessarily subdivision because as i

[0:32:53] Voice 6: I understand that the change would affect what happens

[0:32:58] Voice 6: in terms of density on the tenants in common property,

[0:33:02] Voice 6: where the normal subdivision requirements

[0:33:05] Voice 6: of roads and infrastructure isn't relevant.

[0:33:09] Voice 6: Is that correct?

[0:33:16] Voice 6: Was that question clear enough?

[0:33:18] Voice 9: Yep.

[0:33:19] Voice 1: If you could just repeat that.

[0:33:21] Voice 1: The question of what was about whether it's density

[0:33:24] Voice 1: or something.

[0:33:25] Voice 17: Just as a quick rephrase,

[0:33:26] Voice 17: it i'll look to the speaker to see if i got it right uh on a tenants in common situation

[0:33:33] Voice 17: um if there is not a subdivision what would the effect of this be in terms of density

[0:33:41] Voice 1: right okay it is it is a similar change in that it is going from four hectares a minimum lot area of

[0:33:49] Voice 1: of four hectares to a minimum lot area

[0:33:52] Voice 1: of 4.05 hectares per residence.

[0:34:01] Voice 1: So within subdivision district A,

[0:34:04] Voice 1: you can have one dwelling per four hectares of lot area.

[0:34:08] Voice 1: And this bylaw would change that to be one dwelling

[0:34:12] Voice 1: per 4.05 hectares of lot area.

[0:34:19] Voice 7: Yeah, it didn't actually answer the question,

[0:34:21] Voice 7: but it's sort of .

[0:34:22] Voice 7: Are

[0:34:25] Voice 9: we in the front here?

[0:34:31] Voice 10: other questions yeah

[0:34:34] Voice 8: if i understand correctly this bylaw change doesn't affect anything at all

[0:34:41] Voice 8: except future subdivisions and the minimum lot size it doesn't affect the density it doesn't

[0:34:49] Voice 8: affect anything that's come before it only is addressing future subdivisions and the requirement

[0:34:56] Voice 8: for their minimum lot size.

[0:34:58] Voice 8: It doesn't address the province's requirement

[0:35:01] Voice 8: for road access, that's all has to be figured

[0:35:05] Voice 8: into the 10 acreage, is that correct?

[0:35:10] Voice 10: Honourable?

[0:35:11] Voice 1: Oh, the bylaw does, yeah, it is only about

[0:35:14] Voice 1: the minimum lot size for subdivision.

[0:35:17] Voice 1: There is other aspects to the bylaw in terms

[0:35:19] Voice 1: of the minimum lot size per dwelling as well.

[0:35:23] Voice 1: But as far as the subdivision is concerned,

[0:35:25] Voice 1: It is only related to that minimum lot size.

[0:35:29] Voice 1: How

[0:35:30] Voice 8: does it affect minimum lot size per dwelling?

[0:35:35] Voice 1: The Luskete Island Land Use Bylaw states that a lot within subdivision district A can have one dwelling per four hectares.

[0:35:45] Voice 1: And this change would make it so that there's one dwelling per 4.05 hectares.

[0:35:52] Voice 1: So

[0:35:53] Voice 8: it does affect previous subdivisions in that if I've got what was required before

[0:36:03] Voice 8: and I want to put another dwelling for my son, then I can't do it unless I have the

[0:36:09] Voice 8: extra 0.05, is that correct?

[0:36:15] Voice 1: That's correct, there could be some of those very large lots that would lose the ability

[0:36:20] Voice 1: to have one additional dwelling.

[0:36:30] Voice 4: another question can

[0:36:32] Voice 8: the planner think of any other instances which will affect

[0:36:38] Voice 8: people's use of their existing lots based on the old lot size i mean we've identified one

[0:36:46] Voice 8: are there others i'm

[0:36:55] Voice 1: not i mean i'm not sure how to respond to that exactly

[0:36:58] Voice 1: but the changes are we can go through the changes perhaps if that's helpful

[0:37:05] Voice 1: full.

[0:37:08] Voice 10: Yeah, it's sounding like we need some more clarity before we go into the public hearing. So

[0:37:16] Voice 10: perhaps we could go through a more fulsome overview of your report on proposed bylaw number

[0:37:24] Voice 10: 107. And if folks have questions, we'll pause and ask the question. So we're still in a community

[0:37:33] Voice 10: information session does that make sense for everyone does that work wonderful what

[0:37:41] Voice 1: i can do

[0:37:42] Voice 1: is is there's a um and it's within the public hearing binder as well which which people can

[0:37:48] Voice 1: access if they're interested but there's a table in in my staff report from uh really from december

[0:37:56] Voice 1: where the text that is proposed to be changed in the bylaw is outlined with a red

[0:38:03] Voice 1: on one side of the table there's red showing the existing text and on the other side of the table

[0:38:09] Voice 1: there's green showing what's proposed and there's essentially there's eight different

[0:38:15] Voice 1: bylaw provisions that would be affected by this bylaw and i'll i'll just review them verbally

[0:38:20] Voice 1: right now if that if that might help so the first would be 3.92 you know give me a minute because

[0:38:27] Voice 1: i'll just scroll through the bylaw as well as i'm doing this so that i can give any of the

[0:38:34] Voice 1: any more detail about the change, but this relates to the dwellings and guest cabins per lot

[0:38:41] Voice 1: within subdivision district A. So this would change from one dwelling per four hectares of

[0:38:48] Voice 1: lot area being allowed to one dwelling per 4.05 hectares of lot area. That's a change we were

[0:38:56] Voice 1: just discussing. The next change is in 3.10, which relates to lots divided by a zone boundary.

[0:39:04] Voice 1: and this is on a lot within located within more than one zone it speaks to the dwelling density

[0:39:11] Voice 1: not exceeding one dwelling per or six tenting sites per four hectares of land area and this

[0:39:18] Voice 1: would change to one dwelling or six tenting sites per 4.05 hectares of land area and all of these

[0:39:25] Voice 1: changes are similar in that way in that where there's a reference to four hectares it is amended

[0:39:31] Voice 1: to 4.05 hectares so the next is 3.11 which is the subdivision regulations and this is that change

[0:39:39] Voice 1: from four hectare minimum lot area in subdivision district a to 4.05 hectares the next change is

[0:39:53] Voice 1: also related to subdivision in 3.11 and this is stating that no parcel having an area less than

[0:40:00] Voice 1: and four hectares can be subdivided under Section 514 of the Local Government Act.

[0:40:05] Voice 1: We talked about this earlier as well, that specific subdivision to provide a residence for a relative.

[0:40:14] Voice 1: So this also changes from four to 4.05 hectare minimum lot area.

[0:40:21] Voice 1: The next change is within the Commercial 2 zone,

[0:40:27] Voice 1: zone and this changes the density of one retail business per parcel of land for every four hectares

[0:40:33] Voice 1: to one retail business per parcel of land for every 4.05 hectares. I did look and there's no

[0:40:42] Voice 1: there's actually no lot that's four hectares within the commercial two zone so this is

[0:40:47] Voice 1: doesn't really make have any effect on any existing lot but it's consistent with the rest

[0:40:54] Voice 1: of the bylaw uh referring to 4.05 hectares instead of four um the next change as well is within that

[0:41:05] Voice 1: commercial give me a moment lost my place the next change is also within the uh commercial two zone

[0:41:18] Voice 1: um which speaks to split zone parcels of land uh equal to or greater than four

[0:41:23] Voice 1: hectares being

[0:41:24] Voice 1: changed to equal or greater than 4.05 hectares and then the commercial three zone is that one

[0:41:34] Voice 1: a reference as well to one additional dwelling and one guest cabin being permitted for each four

[0:41:40] Voice 1: hectares and and this changes to 4.05 hectares with the proposed bylaw as well similarly the

[0:41:51] Voice 1: commercial three there's not a parcel of land that's zoned that way that is over four hectares

[0:41:57] Voice 1: currently and then the the final change is just on the the map the subdivision district map that's

[0:42:09] Voice 1: attached to the bylaw which just uh adjusts that that wording to say subdivision district a

[0:42:15] Voice 1: the four hectare minimum lot area is changed to 4.05 which is just consistent with the

[0:42:22] Voice 1: the text changes in the bylaw.

[0:42:24] Voice 1: Thanks

[0:42:28] Voice 10: for going through that time, Bob.

[0:42:30] Voice 9: I'd like to...

[0:42:31] Voice 9: Just one moment.

[0:42:33] Voice 9: Yeah,

[0:42:33] Voice 11: one moment, please.

[0:42:36] Voice 11: I just wanted to confirm.

[0:42:38] Voice 11: My understanding

[0:42:39] Voice 3: of this is that

[0:42:40] Voice 3: the only thing that is changing is the number.

[0:42:43] Voice 3: Besides that, the bylaw is not really having

[0:42:47] Voice 3: any substantial changes.

[0:42:49] Voice 10: Well, the density.

[0:42:50] Voice 3: The density.

[0:42:51] Voice 3: I mean, beside the density, obviously.

[0:42:52] Voice 3: Yeah.

[0:42:54] Voice 1: Through the chair, that is the case.

[0:42:57] Voice 1: there's no new provisions here they're existing provisions which we're referring to four

[0:43:04] Voice 1: hectares being changed to 4.05 hectares and as discussed that was 9.88 acres to 10.0 acres.

[0:43:15] Voice 10: Did you have a follow-up question?

[0:43:17] Voice 6: Yeah because I don't think my original question was actually

[0:43:21] Voice 6: I would like to clarify. Anyone who passed 1986 who bought an 8-hectare property would have been led to understand that their density allowed for two homes and two guest cabins.

[0:43:42] Voice 6: if this change goes through how does that affect the density of somebody that has bought

[0:43:51] Voice 6: four hectares it would seem to me and this is what i'd like clarified that that new lot on

[0:43:59] Voice 6: 4.05 would prove to alter that density and allow only one dwelling and one guest cabin

[0:44:08] Voice 6: is that correct yes

[0:44:12] Voice 1: that is correct so

[0:44:14] Voice 6: that's a pretty substantial change to what people bought

[0:44:18] Voice 6: over the last more than 30 years so

[0:44:22] Voice 10: your opportunity to give your feedback and your

[0:44:27] Voice 10: perspective and whether you're in favor or not will be during the public hearing

[0:44:31] Voice 6: right so yeah

[0:44:32] Voice 10: that's a good clarification

[0:44:33] Voice 6: it is in fact it does affect that change yes that if you own

[0:44:39] Voice 6: eight hectares you would no longer have the ability to have two dwelling and two guest

[0:44:46] Voice 6: cottages under this new provision for 4.05 is that correct i

[0:44:51] Voice 10: believe the planner said yes

[0:44:58] Voice 8: I have a question. Are there any existing lots that are under, other than the ones that

[0:45:07] Voice 8: are really small, your 10-acre lots, aren't they all 10 acres? And so doesn't this, when

[0:45:13] Voice 8: it translates to 0.05, they're just acknowledging that we've been having actually 10 acres anyway?

[0:45:19] Voice 8: way are there any of these 10 acre lots that aren't 10 acres i don't i don't see how it could

[0:45:26] Voice 8: be it

[0:45:27] Voice 10: would be pretty tough to do without a survey i think um at the time of subdivision the

[0:45:35] Voice 10: determination at the time would be what's the appropriate lot size under the

[0:45:39] Voice 10: under the land use bylaw at the time and now the proposal is to change the land use bylaw so it

[0:45:46] Voice 10: actually does reflect 10 acres that's

[0:45:49] Voice 8: yeah to reflect what has been happening anyway i hope

[0:45:55] Voice 8: yeah so

[0:45:59] Voice 10: questions yeah yeah

[0:46:01] Voice 14: just to really hammer it home um i have 38

[0:46:05] Voice 14: in kulaka a lot of loads remember the impression that i could build three homes and three jobs

[0:46:12] Voice 9: no

[0:46:13] Voice 14: 30 30

[0:46:14] Voice 9: has

[0:46:15] Voice 14: that changed can i still build three homes and freak out

[0:46:25] Voice 7: to the chair

[0:46:28] Voice 1: if i you want me to respond that i heard there's a for a 30 acre lot

[0:46:35] Voice 1: would there be three dwellings permitted under the proposed bylaw and there would be yes okay

[0:46:44] Voice 14: so for myself that has not changed

[0:46:53] Voice 14: we are

[0:46:54] Voice 10: here to consider a proposed change right yes i

[0:46:58] Voice 14: just wanted to clarify thank you

[0:46:59] Voice 10: thank you any other questions on proposed bylaw number 107

[0:47:12] Voice 9: my

[0:47:13] Voice 24: question is is i just want to make sure i understand correctly so if you had for example

[0:47:18] Voice 24: in this gentleman's case 30 acre lot but it was actually 29.99 acres could he still build three

[0:47:27] Voice 24: houses on that

[0:47:29] Voice 4: there's

[0:47:32] Voice 24: something here i'd like to hear the answer from bob because the lots are

[0:47:36] Voice 24: never exactly they're either a little lower usually a little under that's my curiosity

[0:47:41] Voice 24: there's no fudge factor in this if i understand correctly four four hectares is about 10 acres

[0:47:47] Voice 24: slightly less if you account for allowances like road and stuff but make sure i just want to hear

[0:47:52] Voice 24: from Bob if I'm understanding correct there's no safety factor plus or minus on the 4.05

[0:47:59] Voice 24: is that correct?

[0:48:02] Voice 1: So through the chair if a lot were 29.9 acres it would not be

[0:48:08] Voice 1: subdividable into three lots really the bylaws is using the metric system so more accurately I

[0:48:16] Voice 1: I guess it's, you know, 12.15 hectares.

[0:48:21] Voice 1: If you're any less than that,

[0:48:22] Voice 1: then you would not be able to subdivide into three lots.

[0:48:32] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:48:35] Voice 10: Okay.

[0:48:35] Voice 10: So one more question at the back there.

[0:48:38] Voice 7: You'll have to speak loudly, please.

[0:48:41] Voice 7: I just want to clarify this.

[0:48:44] Voice 7: When you survey an island like this,

[0:48:49] Voice 7: is you start it usually as the north end,

[0:48:53] Voice 7: and the longitude as you go towards the equator gets wider.

[0:48:59] Voice 7: So the north end, there are 168 quarter sections.

[0:49:05] Voice 9: But

[0:49:05] Voice 7: the south end, there are nearly 170.

[0:49:08] Voice 7: Ours is 166.

[0:49:10] Voice 7: So

[0:49:10] Voice 9: that

[0:49:12] Voice 7: was also one of the motives

[0:49:15] Voice 7: of getting it standardized

[0:49:16] Voice 7: eyes so someone couldn't just slip an extra in it

[0:49:21] Voice 9: okay

[0:49:22] Voice 7: thank

[0:49:25] Voice 10: you for some context questions and

[0:49:29] Voice 10: then i'd like to close the community information meeting so save your comments with public no i

[0:49:34] Voice 8: have a question okay

[0:49:35] Voice 10: there's

[0:49:36] Voice 8: a a survey and there's this thing called i believe it's called a

[0:49:39] Voice 8: dog that is it's a survey or do their survey and then holy gee will if it's just this little wedge

[0:49:46] Voice 8: it doesn't fit into anything and i've seen it happen where someone will just claim that

[0:49:53] Voice 8: it doesn't really belong in fact that would belong to a lot two sections a quarter sections away

[0:50:00] Voice 8: so how does this bylaw affect that i

[0:50:08] Voice 10: don't think this bylaw would address an inaccurate boundary

[0:50:13] Voice 10: boundary survey that would need to be remedied

[0:50:17] Voice 8: so I mean if if say I've got I've got 19.8 acres

[0:50:24] Voice 8: and there's this guard that nobody claims next to me I can claim it or can I

[0:50:34] Voice 23: I

[0:50:35] Voice 10: think that's verging beyond

[0:50:37] Voice 10: what we can address through uh the question period on

[0:50:41] Voice 10: best proposed bylaw and that's not really in the scope yeah

[0:50:46] Voice 8: you could i

[0:50:47] Voice 8: didn't actually expect an

[0:50:48] Voice 8: answer that's kind of necessary thank you

[0:50:51] Voice 10: thank you well i think we'll um draw the community

[0:50:56] Voice 10: information meaning to a close now thank you everybody for your questions that does help

[0:51:02] Voice 10: clarify things especially for those of us who lack the context of your local knowledge so thank you

[0:51:11] Voice 10: so we are now going to recess our regular meeting and go into the public hearing portion of the

[0:51:20] Voice 10: meeting to consider and to hear from the public about the proposed bylaw number 107

[0:51:27] Voice 10: the land use bylaw amendment to minimum law science so um forgive me we've got a bit of a

[0:51:36] Voice 10: script to read. This is a very specific process. So I need to convene the public hearing as a

[0:51:43] Voice 10: separate meeting. So we're now recessed out of our regular business meeting. So the public hearing

[0:51:49] Voice 10: for proposed bylaw number 107 is now open. I wish to welcome everyone in attendance and acknowledge

[0:51:57] Voice 10: that we are meeting in the territory of the Coast Salish First Nations and the treaty territory of

[0:52:02] Voice 10: the Tla'am and First Nation. My name is Trustee Toby Elliott. I am the Chair of the Liskete Island

[0:52:08] Voice 10: Local Trust Committee. I'd like to introduce the Liskete Island Local Trust Committee Trustees,

[0:52:13] Voice 10: Manakaila Laroni and Tim Peterson, and Trust Council Chair, Laura Patrick, not forgetting

[0:52:18] Voice 10: you this time. I'd like to also introduce our Islands Trust Planning staff, Stephen Baugh,

[0:52:24] Voice 10: Island Planner, Nadine Moreau, Legislative Clerk, and Lisa Millard, our Meeting Administrator and

[0:52:32] Voice 10: recorder. So there is a fairly large number of speakers, our

[0:52:38] Voice 10: intent is to give everyone the opportunity to speak with

[0:52:41] Voice 10: adequate time to present their comments. There is in some cases

[0:52:47] Voice 10: we we've recessed a public hearing that was read adjourned,

[0:52:52] Voice 10: sorry, adjourned. If we need to do that, we'll we'll let you

[0:52:58] Voice 10: know. Well, I'll make an announcement later in the public

[0:53:00] Voice 10: hearing prior if there's an adjournment if the hearing is to be reconvened but it's our intention

[0:53:05] Voice 10: to give everyone a chance to speak to this bylaw proposed bylaw today so this public hearing is

[0:53:13] Voice 10: being convened pursuant to section 465 of the local government act in order to consider proposed

[0:53:20] Voice 10: bylaw number 107 cited as liskety island land use bylaw number 78 2005 amendment number 1 2025

[0:53:28] Voice 10: 25. all persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed bylaw

[0:53:35] Voice 10: will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting

[0:53:42] Voice 10: matters contained in the proposed bylaw those wishing to speak should commence the presentation

[0:53:47] Voice 10: by clearly stating their name trustee laveroni will be keeping a list of the speakers members

[0:53:53] Voice 10: of the local trust committee may if they wish ask questions of you following your presentation

[0:53:58] Voice 10: however the main function of the local trust committee members is to listen to the views of

[0:54:03] Voice 10: the public it is not the function of committee members to debate the merits of the proposed

[0:54:09] Voice 10: bylaw with individual citizens everyone will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard

[0:54:15] Voice 10: and none should feel discouraged from presenting their views in considering the proposed bylaw

[0:54:23] Voice 10: the Local Trust Committee has received documents which may influence its decision.

[0:54:28] Voice 10: These documents are available for review during this hearing.

[0:54:32] Voice 10: That's the public hearing binder over there.

[0:54:34] Voice 10: They are available on our website and indicated in the public hearing notice.

[0:54:40] Voice 10: Any person who wishes to present a written submission to the Local Trust Committee may do so,

[0:54:45] Voice 10: and all written submissions are available for review during this hearing.

[0:54:49] Voice 10: written submissions must be received by the local trust committee before the close of the hearing

[0:54:56] Voice 10: your final opportunity to comment on the proposed bylaw is during this hearing

[0:55:01] Voice 10: as members of the local trust committee may not receive further submissions nor discuss the

[0:55:06] Voice 10: proposed bylaw with the public after the close of the hearing after this public hearing is concluded

[0:55:12] Voice 10: the local trust committee may without further notice make whatever decision it deems proper

[0:55:17] Voice 10: or with respect to the bylaw that are that is the subject of the hearing so planner bob will

[0:55:25] Voice 10: now summarize the public hearing notice key points of the bylaw and referral agency responses thanks

[0:55:38] Voice 1: chair so a copy of this notice for the public hearing was advertised in two consecutive

[0:55:44] Voice 1: editions of the parksville qualicum beach news on april 22nd and april 29th 2026. all notification

[0:55:51] Voice 1: requirements under the Local Government Act have been completed. There is a copy of the complete

[0:55:56] Voice 1: public hearing binder available during this public hearing, and it is also located on

[0:56:00] Voice 1: Island's Trust website at islandstrust.bc.ca slash island-planning slash Laskiti slash projects.

[0:56:10] Voice 1: Proposed bylaw number 107 will, if adopted, increase the minimum lot size from four hectares

[0:56:16] Voice 1: to 4.05 hectares in subdivision district A on split zone lots and for subdivisions to provide

[0:56:23] Voice 1: residents for a relative. It will increase the minimum lot area per dwelling from 4 hectares to

[0:56:30] Voice 1: 4.05 hectares on split zone lots in subdivision district A on lot zone commercial 2 and commercial

[0:56:37] Voice 1: 3 and increase the lot area per retail business from 4 hectares to 4.05 hectares in the commercial

[0:56:44] Voice 1: 2 zone. Proposed bylaw number 107 was referred to two regional agencies, one provincial agency

[0:56:52] Voice 1: and 16 First Nations. The following comments and responses were received by the Local Trust

[0:56:57] Voice 1: Committee. Cowichan tribes stated that they defer to nearby First Nations. Hulot First Nations

[0:57:05] Voice 1: stated they're not engaging at this time due to limited capacity. Mamalikula First Nation

[0:57:12] Voice 1: indicated Laskete Island is outside of their territory

[0:57:16] Voice 1: and no further information sharing is required.

[0:57:20] Voice 1: Penelaket Tribe deferred to any nations whose title and governing authorities

[0:57:23] Voice 1: are directly affected.

[0:57:25] Voice 1: Stenamek First Nation deferred comment on the referral.

[0:57:29] Voice 1: Tsubasit First Nation deferred to any nations whose title and governing authorities

[0:57:32] Voice 1: are directly affected.

[0:57:34] Voice 1: The Islands Trust Conservancy Board stated their interests were unaffected

[0:57:38] Voice 1: by the bylaw. And the Ministry of Transportation and Transit indicated their interests are

[0:57:44] Voice 1: unaffected by the bylaw. And we received one public submission as of May 3rd, 2026.

[0:57:54] Voice 10: Thank you, Manavar. So I recognize there's limited copies of the agenda, but if anybody

[0:58:03] Voice 10: wants to read, you can please come up here and the proposed bylaw is sitting here at the table.

[0:58:10] Voice 10: um we are now going to hear from the public we've got paper if you want to do a written submission

[0:58:19] Voice 10: you can come get a piece of paper and write your name first and last um and you can take that and

[0:58:27] Voice 10: read it before the close of the public hearing uh and of course you're welcome to speak so

[0:58:32] Voice 10: submissions can be made at any time during and until the close of the hearing any submissions

[0:58:38] Voice 10: are received during the meeting the local trust committee will pause prior to closing to ensure

[0:58:42] Voice 10: that the ltc has had time to review those submissions so we'll begin with the speakers

[0:58:48] Voice 10: list after which we'll invite members of the public who wish to speak to line up and come and

[0:58:53] Voice 10: speak at the front here please state your name prior to making comments and we do want to hear

[0:59:01] Voice 10: what you wish are you in favor or not in favor and your reasons this is your time to state your

[0:59:09] Voice 10: reasons after your presentation of the local trust committee the trustees may ask you questions but

[0:59:14] Voice 10: they are we are primarily here to listen and we'll not debate issues with you and we'll call

[0:59:20] Voice 10: three times for speakers before closing the hearing at which point no further written or

[0:59:23] Voice 10: oral questions can be made we're going to start with three minutes for every speaker and we will

[0:59:30] Voice 10: get a little one minute warning um but you may speak multiple times we just want to make sure

[0:59:36] Voice 10: that everybody has a chance to speak so at least once and then we'll go for second time speakers

[0:59:43] Voice 10: um trustee laroni is within the speakers list so just put up your hands and um we'll call on you

[0:59:54] Voice 9: Thank you.

[0:59:56] Voice 10: You first.

[1:00:00] Voice 10: If you could please state your first and last name.

[1:00:02] Voice 8: My name is Tom Weiner, and I'm in favor of this amendment.

[1:00:07] Voice 8: I've been in favor of it before it was brought to the local custody.

[1:00:12] Voice 8: I was one of the people who said that it was a mistake and it should be corrected.

[1:00:17] Voice 8: It just plain didn't look good.

[1:00:19] Voice 8: So I want to go on record as saying that I am in favor of this amendment.

[1:00:25] Voice 10: Ezra, thank you.

[1:00:33] Voice 6: My name is Ezra Auerbach.

[1:00:35] Voice 6: And I am not in favor of this amendment. I think it's important to clarify the difference between metric and imperial, but the significant impact it has on individuals that bought property under the acres, under the four hectares, will have lost a considerable amount of what they thought they could do with their property.

[1:01:04] Voice 6: however they bought it in good faith so i think the trust needs to take this away and deal with

[1:01:11] Voice 6: that issue one way or another i don't have a great suggestion but i do not think this should pass as

[1:01:17] Voice 6: is it affects people considerably who bought their property good faith

[1:01:22] Voice 4: marty

[1:01:34] Voice 12: went um i thought this

[1:01:35] Voice 12: This was a slam dunk to fix a bureaucratic mistake.

[1:01:40] Voice 12: And today it's been brought up.

[1:01:44] Voice 12: There's another bureaucratic mistake, which could affect a great many people who bought property since 1986.

[1:01:52] Voice 12: In my neighborhood, there have been a subdivision of 30 acres and a subdivision of 40 acres into 10 acre lots.

[1:02:02] Voice 12: but this also entailed roads and now we find out that roads are excluded from that and so

[1:02:10] Voice 12: these people no longer have a 10 acre or a 4.09 because of the roads so i think people bought this

[1:02:23] Voice 12: in good faith and it shouldn't be an issue if people are acting in good faith but we have all

[1:02:29] Voice 12: we all know about how bureaucracies can create problems and so i'm my concern is that somebody

[1:02:39] Voice 12: who wants to be vindictive could hurt their neighbors thank

[1:02:45] Voice 10: you can i ask if you're in

[1:02:47] Voice 10: support or not in support i

[1:02:50] Voice 12: was in support when i got here and now i'm concerned about the issue

[1:02:55] Voice 12: that has been brought up which doesn't mean i'm not in support it means we need to try to figure

[1:03:02] Voice 12: hear this out. This isn't just going to be honest.

[1:03:10] Voice 10: Linda,

[1:03:13] Voice 9: Linda, our back. My

[1:03:25] Voice 21: name is Melinda our back. I have to

[1:03:29] Voice 21: speak against this

[1:03:30] Voice 21: federal amendment. Sir.

[1:03:36] Voice 10: Other speakers, we need everyone to be quiet. Thanks.

[1:03:39] Voice 21: And so I am

[1:03:41] Voice 21: speaking against this bylaw because i was also uh provided a lot with a lot more clarity during this

[1:03:48] Voice 21: public hearing than what i understood before and so it uh and i believe there'd be many people as

[1:03:57] Voice 21: marty says who would be affected and wouldn't really understand what was going on right now

[1:04:02] Voice 21: with that so i would like there to be more uh thought uh put into this bylaw amendment and i

[1:04:10] Voice 21: I do understand where it comes from, but I think it's going to create as many problems as it may have fixed.

[1:04:19] Voice 21: So at this point, I'm against this bylaw.

[1:04:23] Voice 10: Thank you.

[1:04:26] Voice 10: Other speakers, if you can wave your hand.

[1:04:29] Voice 10: Other speakers,

[1:04:29] Voice 10: if you want to wave your hand, and we shall please come forward.

[1:04:38] Voice 3: I'm supportive of the bylaw as it was intended to be, which thinks to minimize the potential for profit in large subdivisions.

[1:04:46] Voice 3: um however with this sort of more understanding of all the different levels that it affects

[1:04:55] Voice 3: um i guess i'm making a suggestion that maybe there's a looking at the dwellings per

[1:05:01] Voice 3: all the clauses that are dwellings per and not changing those

[1:05:07] Voice 9: so you

[1:05:08] Voice 3: can't sell an extra lot but you can still have a number of houses that people

[1:05:12] Voice 3: think they should be able to have with the four acres thank you

[1:05:21] Voice 9: this is

[1:05:27] Voice 10: your time to let us know

[1:05:28] Voice 10: what you think um in support or not we've had a lot of great comments and conversation

[1:05:35] Voice 10: um but we need to hear from the public as to can

[1:05:39] Voice 13: i change my mind

[1:05:47] Voice 8: i'm tom weiner if i'm going to crumble before peer group pressure and the quotient arguments

[1:05:54] Voice 8: of my neighbors and i think this bylaw needs more work for instance you should do something that

[1:06:01] Voice 8: would enable the existing laws that are going to be affected negatively to be kind of grandfathered

[1:06:09] Voice 8: in so that this bylaw amendment didn't affect them but that would take more time so at this

[1:06:16] Voice 8: time i think it should not be passed any

[1:06:28] Voice 10: others yeah

[1:06:35] Voice 19: my name is grover foreman and i'm against it

[1:06:40] Voice 19: because i don't think it's fair to the people who bought under the auspice of 10 acres it's

[1:06:46] Voice 19: been called 10 acres since day one now it's changed if for example if you have a court it's

[1:06:55] Voice 19: it's 32 ounces. If you have a liter, it's 40. I mean, which one would you rather have?

[1:07:02] Voice 19: It's just not fair to the people who have always thought 10 acres was good enough to put another

[1:07:08] Voice 19: dwelling on. And it becomes especially important as you go up a bit to people that presently own

[1:07:15] Voice 19: property. It's a good idea to change it for future dealings because it's what it's actually

[1:07:23] Voice 19: supposed to be 10 acres is truly you know it's it's true to what it says it is it's not 9.88

[1:07:31] Voice 19: it's 10 but it affects the the past i like the grandfather idea if you already own and you think

[1:07:39] Voice 19: you have the capacity for three lots and you bought under that good faith under the word

[1:07:48] Voice 19: 10 or 30 acres, you should be able to do that.

[1:07:53] Voice 19: That's my...

[1:07:56] Voice 11: I

[1:07:57] Voice 10: think that was Grover Foreman.

[1:08:02] Voice 10: Yes?

[1:08:14] Voice 23: I'm William Clark. I like to keep

[1:08:19] Voice 23: density at a minimum. I don't see

[1:08:23] Voice 23: the difference between future

[1:08:26] Voice 23: for some future subdivision because all the land is owned now.

[1:08:34] Voice 23: So everybody that owns land, bought land under the provisions that we all find are a problem

[1:08:44] Voice 23: because 10 acres or 4.5.

[1:08:50] Voice 23: So if we were to change this bylaw, which seems to be where the community wants to go,

[1:08:59] Voice 23: to previous owners then i don't there's no more land being created so i think that

[1:09:08] Voice 23: i don't think there's a fix so i'm in favor it

[1:09:32] Voice 13: works in andrew fall

[1:09:35] Voice 13: i'm in favor of the subdivision part of this but i'm not in favor of the 1.1 which is about

[1:09:41] Voice 13: explain this seems to be as we've talked about uh an issue about rounding i don't think it was a

[1:09:48] Voice 13: a fault i think it's just a rounding issue should be round to convert to metric metric round you

[1:09:54] Voice 13: know 10 acres rounded to no decimal places is four hectares rounded to two decimal places

[1:09:59] Voice 13: i don't think there's a right or wrong i think that just makes it a bit more precise

[1:10:04] Voice 13: we've heard concerns i share concerns about density i think on large properties that want

[1:10:09] Voice 13: to subdivide then uh you know allowing someone who's got a quarter section to say what was a

[1:10:14] Voice 13: hardship because they can't get this thing they didn't think they had we've all thought about 10

[1:10:18] Voice 13: acres our whole time we've been here so to imagine oh i got an extra property oh i don't get that

[1:10:22] Voice 13: extra property well who who i think that's fair enough and i think that's what we want

[1:10:27] Voice 13: personally that's what i want in terms of subdivision and you know some concerns were

[1:10:31] Voice 13: raised by previous speaker about roads which are fair enough but but i want to keep in mind if you

[1:10:35] Voice 13: have an eight acre property and you need to put you have a long you have a long property that's

[1:10:41] Voice 13: got lots of road frontage you don't maybe need any roads if you have it perpendicular to the

[1:10:44] Voice 13: existing roads and you have a 500 or 600 meter road through there that could easily exceed a

[1:10:49] Voice 13: hectare of road 20 meter wide dedication to the ministry of transportation 500 meters long that's

[1:10:56] Voice 13: a hectare so the difference of 0.05 or 4.05 is almost nothing it's not going to mean anything

[1:11:02] Voice 13: it may reduce the density of large properties i think that's that's right where i have concerns

[1:11:07] Voice 13: is the concern that was raised by a speaker if you have 19.9 acres he bought four hectares he

[1:11:14] Voice 13: about eight hectares I should say and you have you're allowed to have two dwellings and two cabins

[1:11:19] Voice 13: and if that now goes down to one that impacts our housing you know affordability housing

[1:11:24] Voice 13: availability I think that's a hard that's that's more of a hardship because that's that's a small

[1:11:28] Voice 13: owner who's now going from two to one going from 17 to 16 that's someone you know it's not that to

[1:11:34] Voice 13: me that's not the issue the issue is if someone goes from two to one so I think it's really

[1:11:38] Voice 13: something to um think about um you know I think the intent I'm totally in favor of I think I'm

[1:11:43] Voice 13: in favor of all the changes except for that first one and i would uh i think it maybe needs a little

[1:11:48] Voice 13: bit more thought and maybe looking into how many properties are actually affected

[1:11:53] Voice 4: thank

[1:11:53] Voice 9: you i

[1:12:02] Voice 10: guess we're a second time speaker now yeah second

[1:12:05] Voice 6: time i'll try to be really short

[1:12:07] Voice 6: that's

[1:12:07] Voice 10: okay you've got time i'm

[1:12:11] Voice 6: still as your hour back um i would i would be in favor of this

[1:12:16] Voice 6: bylaw if the first section had some amendment to address existing laws what happens in the future

[1:12:26] Voice 6: it would be clearly spelled out in any bylaw but something has to be addressed for existing laws

[1:12:34] Voice 6: and people's understanding of what the density they bought was so that's i'm opposed to it as

[1:12:42] Voice 6: it is i would be very happy to have it come back with those amendments comments

[1:12:56] Voice 10: feedback yep hello

[1:13:10] Voice 2: carl i think most of you know me i keep hearing in this um about future subdivisions and density

[1:13:18] Voice 2: and one of the problems with the skating is we don't have a population large enough to support

[1:13:25] Voice 2: very much uh hornby island's got a permanent population of about 900 and they're supported

[1:13:34] Voice 2: by their summer population which allows them to have a great co-op store and we have half of that

[1:13:44] Voice 2: population. And we don't have the population to build on a group or enough, you know, just enough

[1:13:58] Voice 2: permanent population to have a full-time, you know, a better store, bigger store, and better services

[1:14:06] Voice 2: for all of us and i'm just saying that the density isn't that much allowing greater density

[1:14:15] Voice 2: or being able to rent a rent a guest cabin or something like that allows more people and we're

[1:14:24] Voice 2: not short of water here people just haven't built them water systems all right there's water all

[1:14:31] Voice 2: all over this island if you look for it and find it.

[1:14:35] Voice 2: And the notion that there's not enough firewood

[1:14:40] Voice 2: has been disproven many times, all right?

[1:14:44] Voice 2: Because the regrowth on the forest vastly exceeds

[1:14:48] Voice 2: what's used for firewood and cut for lumber.

[1:14:52] Voice 2: So I'm just saying, be careful about fretting about density

[1:14:56] Voice 2: because we could use more people here.

[1:15:00] Voice 2: and i just want you to look around at the age group that came out to this the young people

[1:15:05] Voice 2: aren't here you know why they're working okay and that is a big deal thank you

[1:15:17] Voice 10: i'm not entirely sure if i understood are you in support of this proposal i'm in support of

[1:15:23] Voice 2: the proposal as it's written it's such a minor operation that it's not going to make a hill

[1:15:30] Voice 2: will be interested thank you so

[1:15:45] Voice 10: this is your opportunity uh for anybody who wishes to tell

[1:15:50] Voice 10: us what you think now is the time um if it looks like we're coming to a close of speakers i'm going

[1:15:59] Voice 10: to call a second time or maybe close the public hearing i'm pausing here and if you don't feel

[1:16:12] Voice 10: comfortable speaking you could always write something down tell us what you think write

[1:16:17] Voice 10: your name on it we've got some paper pens up here and we'll read that if not we're going to move to

[1:16:27] Voice 10: close the public hearing so please note after the public hearing closes the local trust committee

[1:16:33] Voice 10: will no longer be able to receive public submissions prior to making a decision i'm asking

[1:16:40] Voice 10: asking once more for more speakers okay I'm asking a second time for any more speakers

[1:16:58] Voice 10: we

[1:17:03] Voice 5: have to receive

[1:17:04] Voice 17: it before the end of the end of this hearing we

[1:17:10] Voice 10: are starting to close

[1:17:11] Voice 10: the public hearing so if you want to say or write something we do need to receive it before the

[1:17:18] Voice 10: the close of the hearing.

[1:18:53] Voice 9: I'm

[1:19:29] Voice 10: calling a third time for any more speakers or any more written submissions.

[1:19:52] Voice 10: I will

[1:19:53] Voice 15: ask

[1:19:58] Voice 10: once more for any speakers or written submissions, we'll ask a second time for any

[1:20:15] Voice 10: Any more speakers or written suggestions?

[1:20:26] Voice 11: My name is Bev Finch, and I just want to ask you if you are looking for, not votes,

[1:20:32] Voice 11: well, I guess, yes, votes.

[1:20:34] Voice 11: Do you need votes from the community as to whether we're for or against?

[1:20:38] Voice 11: Does that benefit or detract in any way from what you're doing right now?

[1:20:43] Voice 11: Like if we vote, yes, I'm in favor, does that sway a vote one way or the other?

[1:20:50] Voice 11: do you need all of us to vote in order

[1:20:53] Voice 10: to it's all it's all whoever has relevant information

[1:20:57] Voice 10: or if your interests are affected we want to hear about that thank you so it's less about a vote

[1:21:03] Voice 10: it's what's relevant to consider the proposed bylaw but we do want to hear your perspective

[1:21:09] Voice 10: of course if you're affected if you're in support if you're not this is the time for that well i

[1:21:14] Voice 11: only have i think i have 10 acres so it doesn't affect me um but i do i would like to uh just to

[1:21:22] Voice 11: know and to help everybody else understand whether our our whether it affects us negatively or

[1:21:29] Voice 11: positively is going to affect the bylaw outcome negatively or positively i'm not sure i understand

[1:21:39] Voice 11: okay so if i

[1:21:45] Voice 17: may i think what you're asking is to what degree are the decision is the decision

[1:21:50] Voice 17: swayed by whether you know before and against that essentially yeah so

[1:21:57] Voice 17: i i mean i think that's

[1:21:58] Voice 17: an individual question part of what the the process is about and part of the notion of

[1:22:06] Voice 17: of not uttering our discretion as decision-makers

[1:22:10] Voice 17: is that the point of this is to hear for or against

[1:22:17] Voice 17: arguments that may sway our decision when we get there.

[1:22:21] Voice 17: It's not so much, I mean, from my point of view,

[1:22:25] Voice 17: it's less about numbers per se,

[1:22:27] Voice 17: because we don't have the whole community here.

[1:22:29] Voice 17: It's not a referendum, but it's, so in that sense,

[1:22:34] Voice 17: yeah, it's not the numbers don't matter,

[1:22:36] Voice 17: but an argument is more that i hadn't thought of either for or against is much more likely to sway

[1:22:44] Voice 17: my vote than strictly the numbers in the room for or against if that helps but it's individual

[1:22:50] Voice 17: that's i'm just speaking for me

[1:22:52] Voice 11: thank you i'll

[1:23:03] Voice 13: still i'll just add one more little bit

[1:23:05] Voice 13: what i said earlier which is just a second it's closed i really think it would be really useful

[1:23:11] Voice 13: goal and i suggest i encourage the ltc to look into the number of properties in the range of 20

[1:23:19] Voice 13: to 40 acres that would be affected people as we talked about under 20 acres already under under

[1:23:24] Voice 13: you know whatever two times 9.88 so 19.76 acres aren't affected by this and maybe we're not as

[1:23:32] Voice 13: worried about these larger properties but the number of properties that are in that 20 to 40

[1:23:37] Voice 13: acre range that are affected because maybe it's none or maybe it's one or two and then

[1:23:41] Voice 13: or maybe it's lots because that's what matters if none of them are affected the number zero and

[1:23:46] Voice 13: you know then my answer is yes to clarify it we uh since i came to the island you know everyone

[1:23:52] Voice 13: talks about 10 acres it's never been 10 acres since you know since this change in the 80s it's

[1:23:56] Voice 13: been 9.88 and four hectare but we always talk about 10 acres if we want it to be in line with

[1:24:00] Voice 13: our culture and what we talk about each other 10 acres make it so but i think finding that out and

[1:24:05] Voice 13: if it's you know and then if there are one or more then think about what might be done to mitigate

[1:24:10] Voice 13: that because that especially in the smaller end might have a serious effect on the landowners of

[1:24:17] Voice 13: what they were planning on doing

[1:24:18] Voice 13: maybe some of them weren't planning but some of them might have

[1:24:20] Voice 13: had expectations of what they were going to do

[1:24:22] Voice 4: thank you it's

[1:24:32] Voice 10: all really good uh information

[1:24:34] Voice 10: as trustee peterson said it's information the local trust committee needs in order to consider

[1:24:39] Voice 10: are all the potential impacts or effects of this proposed bylaw. So thank you for speaking, go ahead.

[1:24:56] Voice 12: I want to just add to what Andrew said is that there are lots of quarter sections up on this

[1:25:01] Voice 12: island that are a group of people who are working together and so there may be 16 different pieces

[1:25:11] Voice 12: is on what is 160 acres this doesn't affect me because we have six shares in 120 acres but there

[1:25:20] Voice 12: are other that there are many people in this room who are in a group on a large piece where they

[1:25:27] Voice 12: you know they're 10 10 acres per shareholder or whatever

[1:25:32] Voice 4: and

[1:25:33] Voice 12: i think that that's part of the

[1:25:35] Voice 12: concern.

[1:25:49] Voice 10: So as we're beginning to close now, again, I will ask once more for any more speakers

[1:25:56] Voice 10: or written submissions on proposed bylaw number 107. I'll ask a second time for any more speakers

[1:26:13] Voice 10: or written submissions on proposed bylaw number 107. And I'll ask a third time for any more

[1:26:28] Voice 10: speakers or written submissions on proposed bylaw number 107. This is now the final opportunity

[1:26:37] Voice 10: opportunity one last time for you to hand in a written submission to the local trust committee

[1:26:41] Voice 10: once the hearing is closed no additional submissions will be accepted okay so we are now

[1:26:50] Voice 10: closing the public hearing and please be advised that we are now in the post-public hearing stage

[1:26:57] Voice 10: of the review of the proposed bylaw number 107 the luskinia and local trust committee can now

[1:27:04] Voice 10: no longer receive information pertaining to the proposed bylaws however you can still submit any

[1:27:10] Voice 10: outstanding questions and comments directly to the planner the local trust committee may give further

[1:27:18] Voice 10: readings to the bylaw or defeat the bylaw or make minor amendments that do not affect the use or

[1:27:25] Voice 10: or density without further notice or hearings.

[1:27:32] Voice 10: Okay, so we will now recall to order.

[1:27:42] Voice 10: And yes, we're gonna move to 12.1 at this point,

[1:27:53] Voice 10: rather than, would you suggest an after seven town hall?

[1:28:00] Voice 15: Yeah, I guess we're already at 1230 though,

[1:28:03] Voice 15: so it would have been an hour to wrap, ideally.

[1:28:09] Voice 10: proposed that we move to 12.1 to actually um do the post public hearing uh on the minor project

[1:28:17] Voice 10: and then we have time because we've just been hearing from everybody on that it's fresh

[1:28:22] Voice 10: so um we will move to item 12.1 which is page 18 in our agenda and then we'll return to our

[1:28:34] Voice 10: our town hall and other items.

[1:28:37] Voice 10: So are you available?

[1:28:44] Voice 1: Hi Chair, yes, I am.

[1:28:47] Voice 1: I can introduce this report here.

[1:28:51] Voice 1: Then this report just contains next steps,

[1:28:54] Voice 1: supports next steps for the local trust committee

[1:28:56] Voice 1: with proposed bylaw number 107.

[1:28:59] Voice 1: The recommendation is that the LTC give second

[1:29:01] Voice 1: and third reading to bylaw number 107

[1:29:04] Voice 1: and forward the bylaw to executive committee

[1:29:06] Voice 1: to consider approval.

[1:29:08] Voice 1: The recommendations are supported

[1:29:09] Voice 1: as all statutory requirements have been completed,

[1:29:12] Voice 1: including the required notification

[1:29:14] Voice 1: and holding of a public hearing

[1:29:15] Voice 1: consistent with the Local Government Act,

[1:29:17] Voice 1: public government agency,

[1:29:19] Voice 1: and First Nation concerns raised with the proposed bylaws

[1:29:24] Voice 1: have been considered by the LTC

[1:29:26] Voice 1: and all the SCETI bylaw amendments require approval

[1:29:29] Voice 1: of the executive committee prior to adoption.

[1:29:31] Voice 1: option. I'll just recognize as well that there were a number of comments in the public hearing

[1:29:40] Voice 1: and there are alternatives to the recommendation listed at the end of the report as well. So

[1:29:46] Voice 1: over to you, LTC.

[1:29:52] Voice 10: So just in regard to those alternatives, we provided that the

[1:30:00] Voice 10: amendments do not alter use or increase density

[1:30:03] Voice 10: or decrease density without a landowner's consent.

[1:30:07] Voice 10: So just for clarity, if the local trust committee

[1:30:09] Voice 10: is to direct an amendment regarding the general provisions

[1:30:16] Voice 10: of section 3.9 or 3.10,

[1:30:20] Voice 10: which would that potentially affect or alter use

[1:30:24] Voice 10: or increase or decrease density

[1:30:26] Voice 10: density if we sort of sever those provisions or request amendments to them so

[1:30:38] Voice 1: if the LTC were to

[1:30:40] Voice 1: I believe the if the LTC were to consider not moving forward with those to amend the proposed

[1:30:47] Voice 1: bylaw to remove those sections of the amendment bylaw that would be acceptable if there was a

[1:30:55] Voice 1: they're contemplating and you know an increase beyond the existing bylaw in density uh then

[1:31:02] Voice 1: then that might not be but but to just sever those sections out of the proposed bylaws should be uh

[1:31:09] Voice 1: okay

[1:31:10] Voice 10: okay so so

[1:31:17] Voice 17: i think that answered my my first uh question so we could um just not advance the

[1:31:26] Voice 17: part 1.2 on section 3.9 and or 1.1 and 1.2 section 3.9 and section 3.0 um there's a couple

[1:31:38] Voice 17: of questions raised and i'm just wanting before i recommend that we do so i'm just trying to make

[1:31:46] Voice 17: sure we get clarity on the questions i heard uh for consideration of amendment so that we're not

[1:31:52] Voice 17: and intentionally advancing given what we've heard from the the public hearing that we're

[1:32:02] Voice 17: not advancing a bylaw that will have unintended effects so if we were to remove consideration of

[1:32:13] Voice 17: the section 3.9 and section 3.10 amendments the question is on some of the hypotheticals that we

[1:32:21] Voice 17: heard earlier uh uh if they if the if the current lot size before any amendment allows for example

[1:32:36] Voice 17: two or more dwellings uh if we advance this bylaw without without uh amending the four hectare

[1:32:45] Voice 17: number in the current bylaw then we have affected no change on the potential subdivision of those

[1:32:51] Voice 17: lots is that correct

[1:33:00] Voice 9: are you

[1:33:04] Voice 1: referring to section 3.9 yeah

[1:33:06] Voice 17: um the uh section 3.9 section

[1:33:10] Voice 1: 3.9 is

[1:33:13] Voice 1: one moment it is not related to subdivision it is related to that the number of dwellings per lot

[1:33:24] Voice 17: correct okay so if we if we don't include section 3.9 for amendment

[1:33:30] Voice 17: then the dwelling existing dwelling provisions are not changed

[1:33:35] Voice 1: that's that's correct yes

[1:33:38] Voice 1: three uh section 3.10 as well speaks to that um just um just uh for lots that are split zoned

[1:33:47] Voice 1: right and divided by his own boundary which

[1:33:51] Voice 17: i'm not sure there's anyone know are there

[1:33:55] Voice 17: certainly not man um and then to me i mean i think that the meat of what we're trying to accomplish

[1:34:03] Voice 17: here are in section uh uh 3.11 in the subdivision regulations because that's around the creation of

[1:34:18] Voice 17: new laws what because what i've heard is that members of the public think it's fine to limit

[1:34:27] Voice 17: uh creation of new lots as long as the essentially as long as they're not

[1:34:36] Voice 17: if they're 160 acres you shouldn't be able to create 17 but if there are 40 acres you should

[1:34:42] Voice 17: be able to create four so that's you know or 60 acres we should be able to create six so that's

[1:34:49] Voice 17: what we're aiming for so in your um estimation are there other than section 3.9 and section 3.0

[1:35:00] Voice 17: are there any further amendments in here that would need to be removed to affect that you're

[1:35:14] Voice 1: you're looking to only if you're only looking at the subdivision aspects it is part 1.3 and or

[1:35:22] Voice 1: section 1.3 and 1.4 of the amendment bylaw um those would be the two uh as well as as well as

[1:35:31] Voice 1: part two um which is just an amendment to the schedule c

[1:35:36] Voice 1: yeah right

[1:35:38] Voice 17: so in other words if we

[1:35:41] Voice 17: only advance with section 1.3 1.4 and uh 2.1 in schedule 2 then there would be no inadvertent

[1:35:50] Voice 17: limiting of the existing subdivision potential um for lots say 30 acres or 60 acres is that correct

[1:36:01] Voice 17: no

[1:36:02] Voice 1: no there's not these those two sections would change the um minimum lot size for subdivision

[1:36:10] Voice 1: they would not change the uh minimum lot area for dwellings right

[1:36:20] Voice 17: subdivision not dwellings

[1:36:22] Voice 17: okay so i'm going to pass the mic over to the moment here but it looks to me like there's no

[1:36:29] Voice 17: quick fix today for this like we may need some analysis on how many lots um and what size

[1:36:38] Voice 17: of lots could be affected we don't want to unintentionally um we don't want to cause

[1:36:45] Voice 17: issues around land use that we're not intending to restrict so that's sort of where i'm at right well

[1:36:56] Voice 10: Yeah, I was leaning in the same way as I was hearing the conversation and some of the concerns raised about, you know, limiting density unintentionally.

[1:37:09] Voice 10: That wasn't the intent of the proposed bylaw.

[1:37:13] Voice 10: I guess my question is, would it make the Lantus by-law really incoherent if we've got one unit of measurement for determining the number of, you know, the density, the number of dwellings, and a different unit of measurement for the subdivision?

[1:37:32] Voice 10: um that's the first question and the second question is if you have a property of whatever

[1:37:40] Voice 10: 100 acres and you can have 10 dwellings 10 primary and 10 cabins and then you

[1:37:50] Voice 10: subdivide it like if this proposed bylaw goes through with without changing the number of

[1:37:56] Voice 10: dwellings but changing the subdivision regulation to reflect 4.05 you wouldn't have an even

[1:38:07] Voice 10: division of

[1:38:08] Voice 10: lots with let's say you maximize the density and you have 10 houses and 10 cabins

[1:38:14] Voice 10: but now you can only do you can't have 10 lots if the 105 or if the 405 conversion is used

[1:38:24] Voice 10: am i correct i mean i'm using 10 that's not the right number it should be 160 but

[1:38:30] Voice 10: can we get into a situation where we've got more houses but then the subdivision

[1:38:39] Voice 10: prevents the lots from being divided by by what makes sense my brain is breaking a little bit

[1:38:48] Voice 10: because math is not

[1:38:48] Voice 10: my strong suit but i'm trying to figure out a situation that could make it

[1:38:54] Voice 10: really difficult and i think i agree that maybe a little more analysis is needed but um yeah so

[1:39:02] Voice 10: my first question um now i forgot my first question planter bob do you remember my first

[1:39:08] Voice 10: question i

[1:39:10] Voice 1: don't know i will so what i think what you were asking about is if there's an

[1:39:16] Voice 1: inconsistency between the minimum lot area for subdivision and the minimum lot area for dwellings

[1:39:25] Voice 1: if those numbers are different then you know is that possible yes that's possible

[1:39:31] Voice 1: is it but it could cause that scenario you described where there's 10 dwellings permitted

[1:39:40] Voice 1: on a lot and the lot could not could only be subdivided into nine lots which is that's just

[1:39:50] Voice 1: the way it would be um right but but it's that's probably a good reason for why those numbers are

[1:39:56] Voice 1: the same in the current bylaw and the proposed

[1:40:00] Voice 4: now

[1:40:03] Voice 10: so i guess one further question because

[1:40:06] Voice 10: subdivision is is um you know requires going to another agency and there does need to be absolute

[1:40:15] Voice 10: clarity of course because we're talking numbers and roads and easements and all that um but

[1:40:23] Voice 10: that density can be determined by you know the ocp and uh our local community process so

[1:40:34] Voice 10: i'm thinking that the the absolute clarity that the community was asking for which is

[1:40:44] Voice 10: you know uphold our 10 acre minimum that's been the standard and make sure that that's reflected

[1:40:52] Voice 10: in future subdivision I do think that it's important to ensure that that's upheld

[1:41:01] Voice 10: with the conversion by 4.05 I think if there's a need to rezone to allow more houses or less

[1:41:13] Voice 10: houses or protect land that can be done at the local trust committee level and maybe the conversion

[1:41:18] Voice 10: to 4.05 hectares is not as necessary in section 3.9 and 3.10.

[1:41:26] Voice 10: I'm just kind of trying to work this through in my head.

[1:41:32] Voice 10: So if we go forward today and sever part 1.1 and 1.2,

[1:41:39] Voice 10: which have to do with the density, and just proceed with the last 1.3 to 1.7,

[1:41:49] Voice 10: what's your advice, Planter Bob?

[1:41:51] Voice 10: Bob, do you think we should get some more analysis

[1:41:53] Voice 10: and do some more work on this

[1:41:54] Voice 10: to think of the potential implications

[1:41:57] Voice 10: or is this

[1:42:00] Voice 10: something we could go forward with today

[1:42:02] Voice 10: and give further readings

[1:42:04] Voice 10: without

[1:42:06] Voice 10: causing

[1:42:09] Voice 10: more

[1:42:11] Voice 10: problems than we are trying to solve?

[1:42:17] Voice 10: Sorry, now you'll have your

[1:42:19] Voice 10: time for public comment during

[1:42:20] Voice 10: the town hall. We're not quite there yet.

[1:42:23] Voice 10: Thanks.

[1:42:26] Voice 1: to the chair i just generally i can respond you know i think if you're feeling uh uncertain and

[1:42:32] Voice 1: like you would like some more reporting or information then that is something you could

[1:42:38] Voice 1: request at this point and that way you'd be able to move forward at some point with you know with

[1:42:43] Voice 1: more a higher degree of certainty of in terms of what the impacts are um to you know to landowners

[1:42:50] Voice 1: or to residents on Mesquitee, yeah.

[1:42:56] Voice 10: That's great, thank you.

[1:42:57] Voice 10: Did you have a question?

[1:42:58] Voice 10: Oh, nice.

[1:43:00] Voice 10: Perspective, yeah.

[1:43:01] Voice 10: I think I'm on the same page.

[1:43:08] Voice 10: I thought this was very simple,

[1:43:09] Voice 10: but after hearing from the public, nothing is simple.

[1:43:12] Voice 10: I remember nothing, nothing at all.

[1:43:14] Voice 10: Well, I'm thinking that we maybe need to look at this

[1:43:18] Voice 10: a little bit more to be able to make sure

[1:43:21] Voice 10: we're not doing anything inadvertent.

[1:43:31] Voice 10: well thank you um i see trustee peterson is madly writing away so am i assuming a motion's coming

[1:43:40] Voice 10: forward we do have some alternatives here we can make amendments to the bylaw we can defer

[1:43:47] Voice 10: second or third reading to a future ltc meeting thinking right now that the local trust committee

[1:43:55] Voice 10: is prepared to give further readings without a little more work but um hearing where you want

[1:44:03] Voice 10: to go with this yep planner bob yeah

[1:44:09] Voice 1: thanks chair i just just wanted to make you aware as well or

[1:44:14] Voice 1: remind you that if you are asking for more information uh that is going to um mean another

[1:44:22] Voice 1: public hearing that would be held in the future as well so just so you're aware process wise that

[1:44:27] Voice 1: that that would be a future step

[1:44:29] Voice 10: thanks so i think what i'm hearing is there's there trustee peterson

[1:44:38] Voice 10: you think we need some more analysis i think we i need more time to consider so i'd be happy to

[1:44:44] Voice 10: defer um rather than make amendments today but if somebody if we want to do some analysis then

[1:44:53] Voice 10: if we need to give direction

[1:45:02] Voice 4: okay

[1:45:13] Voice 17: i'm hoping this will achieve what the information we're looking

[1:45:18] Voice 17: for and of course before we second it add anything we're missing i move that the luskete island local

[1:45:25] Voice 17: trust committee requests staff to return with an analysis of proposed bylaw 107 to determine

[1:45:33] Voice 17: how many lots under 80 hectares will be affected by the proposed bylaw in terms of subdivision

[1:45:40] Voice 17: potential and how many current lots would be affected by a reduction in dwelling density

[1:45:47] Voice 17: maybe it should be dwelling density of dwellings that makes sense yeah two

[1:45:55] Voice 17: things we heard

[1:45:56] Voice 9: existing

[1:45:57] Voice 17: shared lots we're not we don't want to inadvertently take away someone's right to their

[1:46:03] Voice 17: dwelling lots that are not the big big lots that this was the initial target right it's the big

[1:46:10] Voice 17: big lots so lots of aren't the big big lots that are existing are we going to inadvertently take

[1:46:16] Voice 17: away subdivision potential for people who think they've got room to make two more lots or three

[1:46:23] Voice 17: more lots so that's the information i think we need to know before we can

[1:46:26] Voice 10: read your motion again

[1:46:31] Voice 17: uh analysis to determine how many lots under 80 hectares would be affected by the proposed

[1:46:37] Voice 17: proposed by a lot in terms of subdivision potential and how many current Lots would

[1:46:42] Voice 17: be affected by a reduction in uh density of inter well in by a reduction uh in dwelling

[1:46:51] Voice 17: density is what I put it but the shooting just number of dwellings and I think those are the

[1:47:03] Voice 17: two main pieces from my at you know before we second it if there's something else that we need

[1:47:09] Voice 17: to request and

[1:47:14] Voice 10: why the specific of uh how many lots under 80 hectares

[1:47:23] Voice 17: because that's as i said we're the initial my initial thought here was

[1:47:29] Voice 17: initial thought here and what i'd heard from the community was about our expectation

[1:47:36] Voice 17: a 160 acre lot our expectation has been that you should get 16 lots out of that you know with our

[1:47:46] Voice 17: current bylaw with 10 acres uh with the hector situation you can you can get 17 out of it

[1:47:56] Voice 17: that was the rationale that spurred me to bring this to make it so it matches the

[1:48:05] Voice 17: community expectation 160 acres you shouldn't get 17 lots you should get 16 lots however

[1:48:13] Voice 17: like that's what we want to prevent is extra lots being created that we're not expecting

[1:48:18] Voice 17: at the same time we don't want people who have a 30 acre lot which may not be exactly 30 acres it

[1:48:28] Voice 17: may not be exactly 4.05 hectares but they think they have a 30 acre lot we don't want to prevent

[1:48:36] Voice 17: them from realizing their expectation of getting three lots out of that which is what they thought

[1:48:42] Voice 17: when they bought it so we're trying to prevent you know that situation unintentionally we're just

[1:48:52] Voice 17: trying to get some clarity we don't who knows how many

[1:48:54] Voice 17: lots there are

[1:48:55] Voice 14: 30

[1:48:56] Voice 17: acres 40 acres i mean it's

[1:48:59] Voice 17: easy to look at on map and see where the full quarter sections are there aren't many and i

[1:49:03] Voice 17: guess the other question and maybe this is something for planner ba um as an alternative

[1:49:10] Voice 17: approach to what we've been the way we've been trying to do it is if there is uh a way to look

[1:49:18] Voice 17: at a subdivision district that only speaks to those very large lots and maybe that's a more

[1:49:25] Voice 17: elegant approach than the one we're taking right now um but i don't we don't need to delve into

[1:49:32] Voice 17: that deeply i just think if we're going this route these are the two questions the two big questions

[1:49:38] Voice 17: i think we need to answer my

[1:49:44] Voice 10: question is how much information would you need to hold together for

[1:49:50] Voice 10: that kind of an analysis do we have a build out like an accurate build out map and updated um

[1:49:58] Voice 10: you know, number of dwellings per lot, for instance, like, this can't be anecdotal,

[1:50:06] Voice 10: it's got to be based on information we have. And do we have that sort of information for you to

[1:50:11] Voice 10: hold together?

[1:50:16] Voice 1: Through the chair, what we do have access to reported lot sizes that, that

[1:50:24] Voice 1: But through the GIS system, my experience is that legal surveys are not always 100, you know, there's sometimes there's some variation in terms of what the legal survey says that's done, you know, on site for a particular lot and what the GIS says.

[1:50:45] Voice 1: And so if we're getting to where there needs

[1:50:48] Voice 1: to be a really high level of precision, that might be challenging, but we can do a report back on, you know, based on the information we have, how many lots would be impacted in these ways.

[1:51:03] Voice 1: um yeah i

[1:51:06] Voice 4: think

[1:51:08] Voice 1: if the intent of the bylaw is only for those larger lots it's true that we could

[1:51:14] Voice 1: look at alternative approaches as well okay

[1:51:20] Voice 16: and it would be helpful to have that alternative

[1:51:21] Voice 16: approach identified in a in a motion i would imagine if

[1:51:26] Voice 1: you would like me to report back

[1:51:28] Voice 1: with that yes yeah

[1:51:29] Voice 9: so and options for

[1:51:32] Voice 10: limiting subdivision or um what's

[1:51:39] Voice 15: the i think it would be

[1:51:45] Voice 15: um as

[1:51:54] Voice 9: well the

[1:51:56] Voice 16: previous one i did yeah

[1:51:58] Voice 9: previous

[1:52:30] Voice 15: motion wasn't seconded so we can just move on

[1:52:36] and

[1:52:38] Voice 15: then so i'll just read out what i've got draft here and see if that

[1:52:43] Voice 16: makes sense to you

[1:52:45] Voice 17: what i have is that uh local let's see the local trust committee request staff

[1:52:49] Voice 17: to report back on options to limit subdivision potential on lots 80 hectares or more do you

[1:52:57] Voice 20: mean acres you've been saying hectares all along i

[1:53:00] Voice 17: am saying 80 hectares or more that's 160 acres

[1:53:04] Voice 17: No,

[1:53:05] Voice 7: it's not. No, it's not right.

[1:53:09] Voice 7: Uh,

[1:53:12] Voice 7: 200.

[1:53:13] Voice 7: 20.

[1:53:14] Voice 9: 20 is Florida.

[1:53:16] Voice 17: Options still, because we're trying to limit the subdivision potential on the big lots. We're trying to not limit the subdivision potential on a 60-acre lot.

[1:53:27] Voice 17: Like, not further.

[1:53:28] Voice 17: further right because you can't realize an extra lot with the with the 0.5 you can't realize that

[1:53:36] Voice 17: extra lot before you get to 80 hectares that's

[1:53:38] Voice 10: why I said into the debate with community members

[1:53:41] Voice 10: and

[1:53:41] Voice 17: I wanted to ask the planners

[1:53:43] Voice 10: and does

[1:53:45] Voice 17: that make sense please

[1:53:47] Voice 10: wait until we have a public

[1:53:48] Voice 10: comment period I see how it's going out your chance will be then but we need to get this

[1:53:54] Voice 10: motion clear um so the intent can we just call it lots over 106 lots like what

[1:54:12] Voice 4: are the larger

[1:54:12] Voice 10: largest lot that you can imagine problem 160.

[1:54:19] Voice 7: now

[1:54:20] Voice 17: the smallest lot that can be subdivided that will provide an extra lot in the 4.0

[1:54:29] Voice 17: is 80 hectares if you have a lot that's 79 hectares you cannot realize an extra lot at 4.0

[1:54:37] Voice 17: that's the math so that's 80 hectares you can squeak out 17 lots if it's 79 acres you cannot

[1:54:52] Voice 17: there's

[1:54:52] Voice 20: 70 hectares

[1:54:53] Voice 17: sorry the damn hectares acres thing this is the point of the problem is

[1:54:59] Voice 17: it's confusing for so

[1:55:01] Voice 10: lots of years over 80 hectares yes

[1:55:04] Voice 17: which is 160

[1:55:05] Voice 10: hectares and over

[1:55:06] Voice 10: so that is so they were also looking for options to restrict subdivision potential

[1:55:17] Voice 10: in lots that are 80 hectares or over

[1:55:21] Voice 17: that's what i'm saying okay

[1:55:22] Voice 10: report

[1:55:23] Voice 17: back on option to limit

[1:55:24] Voice 17: limit subdivision potential of lots 80 hectares or more okay

[1:55:30] Voice 1: that's clear

[1:55:31] Voice 10: that's clear for you

[1:55:33] Voice 10: okay so we're asking for do we still want the analysis or just options if we

[1:55:40] Voice 17: have if there's

[1:55:41] Voice 17: a viable option to just do the large lots that's going to be way more straightforward we're not

[1:55:48] Voice 17: going to run into any of the problems that have been raised today it's just going to target the

[1:55:53] Voice 17: large large lots and restrict them to 16 instead of 17. so i don't think we need the other analysis

[1:56:00] Voice 17: if we can if we can proceed on this basis and it's realistic to do so

[1:56:04] Voice 10: it's

[1:56:05] Voice 17: simpler okay

[1:56:08] Voice 10: i'm hearing that is a good approach if you can read your motion then we can debate it okay

[1:56:13] Voice 17: i

[1:56:14] Voice 10: move

[1:56:16] Voice 17: that the mesquite island local trust committee requests staff to report back on

[1:56:20] Voice 17: on options to limit subdivision potential

[1:56:22] Voice 17: of lots 80 hectares or more.

[1:56:31] Voice 4: So

[1:56:37] Voice 10: the motion is moved and do I have a seconder?

[1:56:46] Voice 10: Yeah.

[1:56:46] Voice 10: So to the CDL and local trust committee request staff,

[1:56:51] Voice 10: it's really hard for me to see.

[1:56:53] Voice 10: Just read it again, please.

[1:56:55] Voice 17: To request staff to report back on options

[1:56:58] Voice 17: to limit subdivision potential of lots 80 hectares

[1:57:06] Voice 10: please folks folks if you need to discuss you can go outside

[1:57:17] Voice 1: uh through the chair yeah um

[1:57:20] Voice 1: i'm just thinking about this as we're kind of going on the fly here

[1:57:25] Voice 1: and another option it was just to request staff to draft a bylaw to limit subdivision on

[1:57:33] Voice 1: and and that way you're not receiving a report and then perfect if if that's the single option

[1:57:39] Voice 1: and that's what you're looking to accomplish then um then that's that's possible to to just

[1:57:46] Voice 1: request staff to draft bylaws to um and then

[1:57:51] Voice 1: you'll what you might want to specify though

[1:57:53] Voice 1: is to to what limit subdivision on those lots to um no more than to you know one lot per

[1:58:02] Voice 1: 4.05

[1:58:03] Voice 1: 4.05

[1:58:04] Voice 1: yeah okay

[1:58:07] Voice 17: let me take a stab of it at it here so i move that uh skidiana local

[1:58:12] Voice 17: trust committee to request staff to draft a land use bylaw amendment to limit subdivision potential

[1:58:26] Voice 17: potential of lots 80 hectares or more to a minimum lot size of 4.05 hectares

[1:58:43] Voice 17: I see his head nodding hit the sweet spot much

[1:58:48] Voice 10: more clear hooray so that has been moved I think

[1:58:56] Voice 10: it's pretty clear to request stuff let's keep it on the local trust committee request staff to drop

[1:59:03] Voice 10: what is the correct wording amendments to not the proposed bylaw but why

[1:59:10] Voice 17: don't we ask uh the

[1:59:11] Voice 17: minute taker what she got because she's amazing yes

[1:59:18] Voice 18: chair elliott what i have so far is that the

[1:59:21] Voice 18: liskety island local trust committee requests staff to draft a land use bylaw amendment to

[1:59:26] Voice 18: limit subdivision potential of lots 80 hectares or more to a minimum lot size of 4.05 hectares

[1:59:35] Voice 10: excellent and that's clear to connor bob thumbs up excellent so move do i have a seconder

[1:59:43] Voice 10: seconded by trustee laroni any discussion we have amply discussed i think we are finally

[1:59:52] Voice 10: concurrent at the uh shortest route to the goal that was actually the intent of this amendment

[2:00:00] Voice 10: might be achieved by this proposal. So I'm in support. Thank you for this. And I'll call for

[2:00:07] Voice 10: the vote. All those in favor? And that is carried. Thank you. That's excellent. So we are going to

[2:00:17] Voice 10: have to redo this whole process of a new public hearing with a new drafted bylaw.

[2:00:25] Voice 10: on and um thank you everyone for your input on this it was really good so we

[2:00:37] Voice 19: have a short

[2:00:37] Voice 19: yeah i

[2:00:38] Voice 10: think we're going to take a very short 10 minute can we do a 5-10 minute recess

[2:00:44] Voice 10: and then we'll come back into our town hall portion and at which point you can speak to

[2:00:53] Voice 10: to other items on the agenda or items of interest

[2:00:58] Voice 10: in land use planning for the Lesketo Forecast Committee

[2:01:01] Voice 10: and more generally,

[2:01:04] Voice 10: and then we'll try to speak to the rest of our business.

[2:01:06] Voice 10: So let's say five minutes.

[2:01:09] Voice 10: We'll come back at

[2:01:10] Voice 10: 1, so 1.11, please and thank you.

[2:10:34] Voice 1: Chair, you're muted.

[2:10:36] Voice 1: I don't know if you're started again yet, but.

[2:10:38] Voice 1: Thank

[2:10:40] Voice 10: you. It's always got to be somebody who's muted, but I got away with it. So we are going to consider an amendment to the previous motion, and then we'll go into our town hall portion. Just some math was done with the help of calculators, so take it away, Trustee Peterson.

[2:10:59] Voice 10: so okay

[2:11:01] Voice 17: so it would be to amend the previous motion by changing the reference to 64.798

[2:11:10] Voice 17: hectares not 80 because 160 acres is 64 uh hectares not 80 hectares and i apologize for

[2:11:19] Voice 17: trying to do math on the fly probably not a great idea that might be why we have the problem we're

[2:11:25] Voice 17: in today and i see yeah yes

[2:11:29] Voice 10: lisa did

[2:11:31] Voice 18: you know that clarification

[2:11:32] Voice 10: there yes

[2:11:34] Voice 18: chair elliott um

[2:11:35] Voice 18: could trustee peterson please repeat the number 60 point 64.79

[2:11:41] Voice 17: thank

[2:11:43] Voice 18: you and

[2:11:44] Voice 17: then uh process wise

[2:11:47] Voice 17: is Planner Ba is amending the previous motion the correct procedure no no

[2:11:55] Voice 17: we

[2:11:57] Voice 9: have to we have

[2:11:58] Voice 17: to rescind it and we have a new motion

[2:12:01] Voice 1: I'm not sure I will I would need to report back to you

[2:12:05] Voice 1: on that okay

[2:12:06] Voice 17: well I don't think there's any harm in rescinding and having a new motion

[2:12:10] Voice 9: yeah I think okay

[2:12:12] Voice 17: so I mean we rescind the previous motion which of course I don't have

[2:12:17] Voice 17: the number to refer to it um

[2:12:23] Voice 10: wrote it somewhere else so i

[2:12:37] Voice 15: just read the motion lisa can we

[2:12:40] Voice 10: can we have your help here um we need to rescind the previous motion or replace it with this new

[2:12:46] Voice 10: motion um what would be the reference for that previous motion uh

[2:12:55] Voice 18: charlotte just give me one

[2:12:56] Voice 18: One moment, please.

[2:12:57] Voice 18: I could

[2:13:25] Voice 10: return to this.

[2:13:26] Voice 10: Perhaps in

[2:13:34] Voice 18: the interest of time.

[2:13:35] Voice 18: Oh, thank you.

[2:13:36] Voice 18: Sorry.

[2:13:37] Voice 18: Go ahead.

[2:13:38] Voice 18: The motion would read that the Liskety Island Local Trust Committee

[2:13:43] Voice 18: rescind resolution LA-2026-007.

[2:13:52] Voice 10: 2026.

[2:13:53] Voice 10: Did you get it all?

[2:13:54] Voice 10: 2026-007.

[2:13:58] Voice 10: So that the Liskety Island Local Trust Committee rescind motion LA-2026-007

[2:14:03] Voice 10: 2026-007 is that correct correct

[2:14:08] Voice 12: okay

[2:14:09] Voice 10: move that i

[2:14:11] Voice 17: still move okay

[2:14:12] Voice 10: seconder seconded by trustee

[2:14:15] Voice 10: laroni any discussion all those in favor and that is carried and to your next motion i'm in

[2:14:25] Voice 17: the mosquito on the local trust committee request staff to report back on options to

[2:14:29] Voice 17: limit subdivision potential of lots no

[2:14:32] Voice 10: no no no no your previous version was to draft bylaws

[2:14:37] Voice 17: oh to draft oh sorry i don't have that one where is it ah to draft i move that the skin island local

[2:14:46] Voice 17: trust committee request staff to draft a land use bylaw amendment to limit subdivision potential of

[2:14:55] Voice 17: lots 64.74 hectares or more to

[2:15:02] Voice 10: a minimum lot to

[2:15:02] Voice 17: a minimum lot size of 4.05 hectares

[2:15:10] Voice 10: is that clear for the minute taker and the planner yeah

[2:15:15] Voice 18: yes all right

[2:15:17] Voice 10: so do i have a seconder

[2:15:20] Voice 10: second address any discussion all those in favor and that is carried for the second time

[2:15:29] Voice 17: correctly now correctly all

[2:15:31] Voice 10: right so now we will go back into our agenda thank you everyone for

[2:15:36] Voice 10: your patience i know some of you are waiting uh to speak during town hall um islands trust has

[2:15:42] Voice 10: published uh new decorum guidelines uh for public engagement and so they were written on the front

[2:15:51] Voice 10: of our agendas but just a few quick notes for those who may be new to our process um

[2:15:59] Voice 10: to state that we really do want to hear from you.

[2:16:02] Voice 10: We want to hear your perspectives.

[2:16:04] Voice 10: This helps us inform decision-making, planning, and program development.

[2:16:09] Voice 10: Every participant brings valuable opinions, ideas, knowledge, and lived experience,

[2:16:14] Voice 10: and all voices deserve to be heard.

[2:16:16] Voice 10: To ensure constructive and respectful engagement,

[2:16:20] Voice 10: comments must focus on the issue, not individuals.

[2:16:24] Voice 10: Participants must allow others to speak without interruption.

[2:16:28] Voice 10: Tone and language must remain courteous and non-abusive.

[2:16:32] Voice 10: No clapping, booing or cheering.

[2:16:35] Voice 10: Further, Islands Trust has zero tolerance for bullying, harassment, racism, anti-Indigenous racism, discrimination, hate speech, personal attacks or disruptive behaviour that interferes with others' ability to participate.

[2:16:48] Voice 10: state anyone engaging in such behavior will be required to leave the meeting immediately

[2:16:52] Voice 10: an additional action may be taken if necessary and when addressing trustees speakers are requested

[2:16:59] Voice 10: to speak to the issue at hand and not to other individuals speakers should be clear and concise

[2:17:05] Voice 10: and respectful and as we have commitments to reconciliation and to working in partnership

[2:17:14] Voice 10: and cooperation with First Nations whose lands and waters we strive to govern together in a good

[2:17:23] Voice 10: way. We do want to hold our meetings in a way that promotes cultural safety, inclusion, and

[2:17:29] Voice 10: acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples for whom the lands and waters of the Islands Trust area have

[2:17:34] Voice 10: been home since time immemorial. Finally, Islands Trust meeting place is also a place of employment.

[2:17:41] Voice 10: trustees and staff have the right to a safe and respectful workplace so these are sort of the

[2:17:48] Voice 10: just a clear guidelines and i'll just recall you to remind them if we stray from them okay but um

[2:17:55] Voice 10: and we'll keep to three minutes if that's all right can you drop a time and uh yeah if anybody

[2:18:02] Voice 10: wants to address the trust committee please raise your hand uh

[2:18:09] Voice 7: do you want me to come closer or

[2:18:10] Voice 7: sure yeah

[2:18:12] Voice 22: first question is uh how is it that we have the honor of the chair of islands trust with

[2:18:19] Voice 22: us today it's public meeting she's here oh wonderful yay i hope you come to every meeting

[2:18:28] Voice 22: oh awesome next question is uh what's the difference you just read this out chair elliott

[2:18:36] Voice 22: what's the difference between racism and anti-indigenous racism so

[2:18:51] Voice 10: uh the human rights

[2:18:52] Voice 10: codes does describe peoples and groups who are protected from discrimination because they have

[2:19:02] Voice 10: historically experienced discrimination and racism and so as we are a public place with

[2:19:12] Voice 10: a responsibility to uphold the laws of British Columbia

[2:19:18] Voice 10: We will not entertain racism against racist comments or racist comments against Indigenous people. That's protected by law.

[2:19:31] Voice 22: I don't think that answers the question, but thank you for the response.

[2:19:36] Voice 22: The next question is to the trustees. I'm going to make it easy so that this can be done quicker.

[2:19:45] Voice 22: I'm just wondering, I'm hoping that the truth is really important to each of you.

[2:19:51] Voice 22: And so I'm going to make a quick statement that the truth must prevail above all else.

[2:19:58] Voice 22: And if you disagree with that, please raise your hand.

[2:20:02] Voice 22: So the truth must prevail above all else.

[2:20:05] Voice 22: Your annual report on page 32 of the agenda package says quote, work for this period focused

[2:20:13] Voice 22: focused on advancing Liskety Island LTC priorities

[2:20:16] Voice 22: to update their land use by-law

[2:20:18] Voice 22: to preserve and protect the Liskety Island local trust area

[2:20:21] Voice 22: and its unique amenities and environment.

[2:20:24] Voice 22: Well, that was in the next paragraph.

[2:20:28] Voice 22: Liskety LTC advanced these priorities through a project

[2:20:32] Voice 22: to amend the Liskety Island land use by-law.

[2:20:35] Voice 22: The proposed by-law amendment

[2:20:37] Voice 22: would will increase the minimum lot area

[2:20:41] Voice 22: for subdivision and subdivision district a from four hectares to 4.05 hectares end quote so

[2:20:50] Voice 22: this is your annual report this is the only substantive portion of it my suggestion to you

[2:20:56] Voice 22: is that you be truthful first of all that second paragraph as you saw today hasn't happened for

[2:21:05] Voice 22: for your annual report last year.

[2:21:07] Voice 22: So I strongly suggest that you delete that paragraph.

[2:21:10] Voice 22: But the previous first paragraph saying

[2:21:14] Voice 22: that you're advancing the land use bylaw,

[2:21:17] Voice 22: and I assume the official community plan review as well,

[2:21:23] Voice 22: that has not happened at all.

[2:21:26] Voice 22: It hasn't happened for three years.

[2:21:28] Voice 22: And in the same agenda package,

[2:21:31] Voice 22: Chair Laura Patrick's letter,

[2:21:33] Voice 22: which is dated February 2nd, 2026, to the NANUSPAN states, and it's on page 23,

[2:21:41] Voice 22: quote, moving the OCP review forward in a timely and thoughtful way depends on renewed dialogue

[2:21:47] Voice 22: and meaningful collaboration. So the question is, will you be truthful and admit that the OCP review

[2:21:53] Voice 22: has been stopped in its tracks for three years, at least this past year, because you have been

[2:22:00] Voice 22: directed by staff to cease work on it until the news band meets with you in person again

[2:22:07] Voice 10: so as to where the ocp project is at and how that's reflected in our annual report

[2:22:16] Voice 10: um those are i can understand that's related um we will consider your comments when we come to

[2:22:26] Voice 10: to discussing the draft language for the annual report

[2:22:30] Voice 10: and might amend a word or two.

[2:22:33] Voice 10: That's what we're here for.

[2:22:36] Voice 10: And as to the second question,

[2:22:38] Voice 10: it's totally normal practice for a government to refer

[2:22:42] Voice 10: and give opportunity for another government

[2:22:47] Voice 10: such as the Senats First Nation.

[2:22:51] Voice 10: The courtesy of early engagement of this is our intent

[2:22:55] Voice 10: to amend our land use bylaw and that's been a practice for many many years so not sure what's

[2:23:02] Voice 10: oh

[2:23:03] Voice 22: could you tell us when that started that practice i'm

[2:23:07] Voice 17: not going to speak to your last

[2:23:09] Voice 17: question there your previous question i rejected your premise there staff does not direct the local

[2:23:17] Voice 17: trust committee um to advance or not to advance projects what you would know having attended these

[2:23:24] Voice 17: meetings regularly is that as we were advised that the ocp project no longer met the requirements to

[2:23:33] Voice 17: be a minor project we had to request funding through trust council to become a major project

[2:23:39] Voice 17: which we have done you had that in place this time right

[2:23:42] Voice 2: so we have the

[2:23:43] Voice 17: funding what we do not have

[2:23:44] Voice 17: is the staffing um availability major projects are conducted through the regional planning team

[2:23:51] Voice 17: we are still on their list we are hoping that our project is the next one that they take up

[2:23:58] Voice 17: and so that's that's the current delay and as you know that delay has been oh i think it was

[2:24:04] Voice 17: december of the year before last we're advised about the scope of the project and having to

[2:24:08] Voice 17: change it

[2:24:09] Voice 9: um

[2:24:10] Voice 17: so as much as i would like us to already be deep into that process we have to

[2:24:16] Voice 17: wait our turn yeah

[2:24:17] Voice 10: thank you um any more questions or comments yes uh

[2:24:25] Voice 8: i'd like to comment on

[2:24:27] Voice 8: the removal of the recording of the last meeting from public discussion many of us made foi requests

[2:24:36] Voice 8: so we have copies of that recording and there's an accusation the pilot made it and well everybody

[2:24:43] Voice 8: made it that there were racist comments from the public during that meeting yes point of order

[2:24:50] Voice 17: chair pardon uh i i don't i'd like to know how this relates to our agenda today or to the work

[2:24:58] Voice 17: of the local trust committee

[2:24:59] Voice 8: minutes of the last meeting and that's how that's what i'm referring

[2:25:04] Voice 8: to um i would like to know what racist comments were made that's a that's a very serious accusation

[2:25:13] Voice 8: is labeled this whole community as racist and i'd like to know one or two examples of what

[2:25:20] Voice 8: would erase this comments well

[2:25:22] Voice 10: obviously i'm not going to repeat comments in a meeting that

[2:25:25] Voice 10: were deemed unacceptable and not meeting the standards of decorum and respect that we have

[2:25:31] Voice 10: pulled here uh the decision was made by

[2:25:34] Voice 5: island's trust

[2:25:34] Voice 10: to not post the recording of the last

[2:25:37] Voice 10: meeting based on a determination that some of the statements that were made do not meet our

[2:25:43] Voice 10: standards of conduct and respect that we must uphold in our meetings we're not debating this

[2:25:49] Voice 10: topic you've already had ample i'm

[2:25:51] Voice 8: not i'm not asking for a debate i'm asking for an example

[2:25:54] Voice 8: we're

[2:25:54] Voice 10: not that's a very

[2:25:55] Voice 8: serious accusation we're

[2:25:57] Voice 10: not giving examples in this meeting or

[2:25:59] Voice 8: repeating because there is no example you're

[2:26:01] Voice 10: not repeating statements that are right

[2:26:03] Voice 17: point of order

[2:26:04] Voice 17: this is turning into a debate that's inappropriate to deflect criticism

[2:26:09] Voice 8: decision or not acceptable

[2:26:11] Voice 10: in our meeting places are a decision of the chair and the ltc and we

[2:26:17] Voice 10: are bound by the laws of british columbia to uphold practices that do not discriminate against

[2:26:26] Voice 10: any group of people and if so

[2:26:29] Voice 8: give me an example if

[2:26:30] Voice 10: you can chair

[2:26:31] Voice 17: this is turning into a back and

[2:26:33] Voice 17: for a debate can we just have comments it's

[2:26:36] Voice 8: a serious accusation we've answered your question

[2:26:43] Voice 15: any

[2:26:44] Voice 11: other

[2:26:44] Voice 15: comments

[2:26:48] Voice 10: or questions um

[2:26:53] Voice 24: is it normal practice to

[2:26:56] Voice 24: uh vote on items that affect the land use and uh of luskete without any public engagement

[2:27:10] Voice 10: the local trust committee as a body must make its decisions in open meeting an open meeting is

[2:27:19] Voice 10: um required to give notice and there are certain procedures that must be followed okay

[2:27:24] Voice 24: so so you're

[2:27:25] Voice 24: not allowed to just make any changes so in 2003 when you when the three of you voted for the

[2:27:35] Voice 24: protocol with the small uh nation the new state the new span to to uh have a protocol with them

[2:27:44] Voice 24: where was the public was there any public engagement so

[2:27:48] Voice 10: protocol agreements are held

[2:27:50] Voice 10: by islands trust and that would have been a vote of trust council not this body um and so trust

[2:27:57] Voice 10: council did direct that um staff engaged with non-osphers nation at their request to develop a

[2:28:03] Voice 10: protocol agreement that agreement has not been signed yet was

[2:28:07] Voice 24: was any of luskeedee the director

[2:28:10] Voice 24: people who would be impacted by that protocol were they ever engaged so

[2:28:16] Voice 10: a protocol agreement

[2:28:17] Voice 10: does not change land use bylaws.

[2:28:19] Voice 10: A protocol agreement sets out the terms

[2:28:22] Voice 10: by which two autonomous governing bodies

[2:28:25] Voice 10: can work together towards understanding

[2:28:29] Voice 10: one another's interests and concerns.

[2:28:32] Voice 10: And then those decisions are brought in a public process

[2:28:36] Voice 10: before the Leskete community, before any changes are made.

[2:28:39] Voice 24: If the protocol includes language that allows

[2:28:44] Voice 24: or instructs the First Nations

[2:28:49] Voice 24: to have rights and title over the land on Mesquite.

[2:28:54] Voice 24: Does that not impact the local people?

[2:28:57] Voice 10: The Mesquite Iron Rope Trust Committee

[2:28:59] Voice 10: and Islands Trust does not determine rights and title.

[2:29:03] Voice 10: Rights and title already exist.

[2:29:05] Voice 10: The Royal Proclamation of 1854

[2:29:09] Voice 10: have ensured that Aboriginal title is a fact.

[2:29:13] Voice 10: we do not create those facts we simply um we govern land use planning there is no title

[2:29:20] Voice 10: questions that come into effect in that process that's

[2:29:25] Voice 24: not true in your protocol

[2:29:26] Voice 17: point of order we're straight way down of our jurisdiction here rights and title are not

[2:29:32] Voice 17: local government jurisdiction and

[2:29:35] Voice 9: we don't need to spend our time

[2:29:37] Voice 17: debate it's an important

[2:29:38] Voice 17: important discussion but it's not something this body has any jurisdiction over so there's you we

[2:29:44] Voice 17: could talk about regional district matters it's just as relevant we don't decide on them okay

[2:29:49] Voice 17: excuse me

[2:29:52] Voice 10: sir please a protocol agreement is different than I think what you are understanding

[2:29:58] Voice 10: And I encourage you to

[2:30:00] Voice 10: email north info at islandstrust.bc.ca and we will direct your inquiry for further information about

[2:30:08] Voice 10: what a protocol agreement actually does it does not fetter the discretion of the local trust

[2:30:12] Voice 10: committee and our jurisdiction remains the same i'm not taking any more comments on this topic

[2:30:17] Voice 10: thank you it's

[2:30:23] Voice 24: a gray area and you guys are pushing okay

[2:30:30] Voice 10: are we i think we've extended our

[2:30:33] Voice 10: 15 minutes so i'm going to close the public participation time is

[2:30:38] Voice 17: there anyone that hasn't

[2:30:39] Voice 17: spoken today maybe first her and then close yes

[2:30:43] Voice 5: thank you um i just point to um information

[2:30:50] Voice 5: and i know you're speaking about something that's not necessarily

[2:30:53] Voice 5: something to speak about the royal proclamation is 1763 oh yes 1854 was uh the time when they

[2:31:02] Voice 5: signed the treaties thank you

[2:31:03] Voice 5: you're welcome i

[2:31:05] Voice 10: appreciate the clarification royal proclamation of

[2:31:09] Voice 10: 17 63 63 thank you

[2:31:12] Voice 4: that's a very quick question i

[2:31:15] Voice 10: think we are going to close the public comment

[2:31:17] Voice 10: period unless they're absolutely germane to the uh

[2:31:20] Voice 22: absolutely germane to the agenda

[2:31:22] Voice 22: so one uh this is another quote from carol or patrick's letter dated february 2nd 2026

[2:31:31] Voice 22: on page 23 of your agenda package that's addressed to the news band i quote one ongoing initiative

[2:31:41] Voice 22: is the listini island local trust committee's renewed renewed interest in it to advance a

[2:31:48] Voice 22: substantive review of the official community plan that guides land use in keeping with principles

[2:31:54] Voice 22: of reconciliation this work goes beyond acknowledgement and seeks to actively strengthen

[2:32:00] Voice 22: in the committee's relationship with sanana's first nation including re-establishing the joint

[2:32:06] Voice 22: working group so my question was when was this joint working group first established and when

[2:32:14] Voice 22: has it met i'll

[2:32:19] Voice 10: need to reflect my notes but the protocol agreement predates uh the discussion on

[2:32:27] Voice 10: protocol agreement going back to before july 2023 um i believe that's where the first discussion

[2:32:39] Voice 10: was had this was a request from san jose first nation to um establish a protocol agreement as

[2:32:48] Voice 10: As I stated, it's with Islands Trust, and it was definitely in around 2023.

[2:32:57] Voice 22: Through Freedom of Information requests, the staff report shows that the protocol was complete in March of 2023.

[2:33:06] Voice 22: It also shows that the three of you met with the Sonata Nation before you had your first LTC meeting as an LTC.

[2:33:15] Voice 22: see so in december of 2022 the staff have said in the report that you three plus chair patrick over

[2:33:24] Voice 22: there so all four of you who met with sanas are here today um was that a joint working group

[2:33:32] Voice 22: session if the protocol hadn't been written yet then you met after your first meeting in early

[2:33:40] Voice 22: early 2023 I believe it was January but it could have been early February um and you met briefly

[2:33:47] Voice 22: soon after your first LTC meeting with the sanasa again and I believe the protocol was completed

[2:33:56] Voice 22: either at that meeting or soon after that protocol creates this joint working group

[2:34:03] Voice 22: which

[2:34:04] Voice 17: allows you to share I I'm sorry we're not going to sort this out today you're quoting

[2:34:09] Voice 17: dates

[2:34:10] Voice 17: that we're going to have to go back if we're going to give you accurate information we're

[2:34:13] Voice 17: going to have to go back and we're already past our time so i'm

[2:34:17] Voice 22: going to ask

[2:34:17] Voice 17: that we move on

[2:34:18] Voice 17: we

[2:34:19] Voice 22: have a funeral

[2:34:19] Voice 17: to go to and it's way more important than talking about yes this stuff and

[2:34:23] Voice 17: i'd also encourage you if you want us to have these answers for us for you in public email

[2:34:29] Voice 17: email them

[2:34:30] Voice 17: we'll dig this all out so we don't have like i don't have this information at hand

[2:34:34] Voice 17: okay i will email it to you

[2:34:36] Voice 10: bring it in ahead

[2:34:36] Voice 17: of the meeting and we'll have the answers waiting

[2:34:38] Voice 17: and we can tell you the answers in public this

[2:34:41] Voice 10: comment is closed and i'm closing down this

[2:34:43] Voice 10: debate okay the last question is

[2:34:45] Voice 22: your time

[2:34:46] Voice 10: i'm sorry but your time is up we are closing three

[2:34:49] Voice 10: minutes your time is up and we are closing you you are consistent i'm

[2:34:53] Voice 24: sorry sir i'm going to

[2:34:54] Voice 24: have

[2:34:54] Voice 10: to ask you to leave if you're going to continue speaking

[2:34:56] Voice 24: extinguishment has not been

[2:34:59] Voice 24: resolved it has nothing to do with this 100 never answer questions thank

[2:35:06] Voice 10: you everyone for your

[2:35:07] Voice 10: comments today if you do have questions that are specific it really does help if you email us

[2:35:13] Voice 10: and we can direct those to staff we can clarify dates

[2:35:17] Voice 7: we can get

[2:35:18] Voice 10: information to you thank you sir

[2:35:20] Voice 10: if you need to speak you can go outside so now we're going to turn to our not the work program

[2:35:29] Voice 10: thank you 15.1 public notification bylaw amendment number 80 final adoption we have a staff report

[2:35:38] Voice 10: six and uh this is here for adoption that the musketeer it's regarding the public notification

[2:35:49] Voice 10: bylaw number one of six uh again for final adoption i don't think we need staff to introduce

[2:35:55] Voice 10: it um i know this has been challenging for the whiskey local trust committee

[2:36:03] Voice 10: but how are you

[2:36:07] Voice 17: I move that the Mesquite Island Local Trust Committee by-law number 106 cited as

[2:36:12] Voice 17: Mesquite Local Trust Committee Public Notification by-law number 106 2025 be adopted. Thank you.

[2:36:18] Voice 10: No, do I have a seconder? Seconded by Trustee Leroni. Any discussion? All those in favor?

[2:36:25] Voice 17: I have a quick point. I just wanted to point out that the two provisions in here are the

[2:36:33] Voice 1: minimum

[2:36:33] Voice 17: provisions they're not the maximum present provisions the point of not having a whole bunch

[2:36:38] Voice 17: of provisions is if things change um we don't have to go change the bylaw so the important thing to

[2:36:46] Voice 17: me is that it lists a newspaper that publishes at least once a month on the speedy islands we

[2:36:52] Voice 17: have a print as as one of the bylaw required methods of public notification and that was

[2:37:00] Voice 17: the important part to me and i therefore support the motion thank

[2:37:03] Voice 10: you excellent and may that

[2:37:07] Voice 10: newspaper continue to publish once a month so that this can be upheld all right and include

[2:37:13] Voice 10: the discussion all those in favor that is carried thank you two so 15.2 our annual report uh so we

[2:37:29] Voice 10: had some feedback on the wording this is for the 2025-26 annual report for approval by trust

[2:37:36] Voice 10: council submission to the ministry of fiscal affairs so this doesn't mention that work did

[2:37:47] Voice 10: or did not advance on the ocp project although it was intended to advance last fiscal should that

[2:37:58] Voice 10: say to update the ocp instead of what is going on i mean it's

[2:38:05] Voice 17: i don't think it's material but

[2:38:08] Voice 17: we should at least fix the typo which

[2:38:10] Voice 9: type of uh

[2:38:12] Voice 17: it would be we should remove will it says would

[2:38:17] Voice 17: will so will should be third paragraph okay the proposed bylaw amendment would increase instead

[2:38:28] Voice 17: instead of would will increase okay

[2:38:33] Voice 10: so uh to lisa we're making a change to remove the word will so

[2:38:40] Voice 10: that it just reads the proposed bylaw amendment would increase the minimum law area for subdivision

[2:38:45] Voice 10: from four actors to four point oh four five sorry

[2:38:54] Voice 9: any further changes

[2:39:17] Voice 10: that the Luskegee Island Local Trust Committee

[2:39:19] Voice 10: approves the attached text for inclusion to the 2025-2026

[2:39:24] Voice 11: annual report for approval by a trust counselor

[2:39:27] Voice 11: and submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs as amended.

[2:39:31] Voice 10: Thank you. No for a seconder. Seconded by

[2:39:34] Voice 10: Trustee Peterson.

[2:39:36] Voice 10: Any discussion? All those in favor?

[2:39:40] Voice 10: And that is carried. I

[2:39:49] Voice 15: think we should probably move to 18.1.

[2:39:52] Voice 15: minutes okay so

[2:40:04] Voice 10: our next um we'll approve minutes by rwm and do anything else and we're going to

[2:40:12] Voice 10: go to 18 or 17.1 our upcoming meetings our next regular meeting is scheduled for monday july 6th

[2:40:20] Voice 10: 20 26 at 11 a.m here at the musketeer community hall in the ski and uh we need to go into a closed

[2:40:30] Voice 10: meeting at which time we will recall to order ryzen report and then adjourn so that um folks

[2:40:39] Voice 10: can get out to the other important community work today is that good yeah

[2:40:46] Voice 17: everything else could be

[2:40:47] Voice 17: deferred

[2:40:47] Voice 10: all right is there anything that we're missing uh

[2:40:54] Voice 1: no no i think that's okay you'll just

[2:40:58] Voice 1: we'll just defer other items till to your next meeting

[2:41:01] Voice 10: okay i think we can approve the

[2:41:04] Voice 10: so i need a motion to close the meeting the

[2:41:18] Voice 15: meeting be closed to the public in

[2:41:20] Voice 15: according to the

[2:41:20] Voice 17: community chartered perk for division three section 91 a purpose of considering

[2:41:26] Voice 17: a personal information about an identifiable identifiable individual who holds or is being

[2:41:31] Voice 17: considered for a position as an officer employee or agent of the municipality or other position

[2:41:36] Voice 17: appointed by the municipality and the recorded staff and the meeting

[2:41:40] Voice 10: thank you do i have a

[2:41:43] Voice 10: seconder, seconded by Trustee Leroni. Any discussion? All those in favor? That is carried.