North Pender Island Local Trust Committee regular meeting, July 16, 2026

[0:00:04] Voice 1: okay uh so starting off with um john i think you're muted yes

[0:00:21] Voice 5: yep i feel like you're right

[0:00:24] Voice 5: awesome i thought you were trying to talk yeah

[0:00:27] Voice 4: no i was talking to somebody else

[0:00:29] Voice 4: offline okay

[0:00:30] Voice 5: wonderful we're not missing anything

[0:00:32] Voice 6: then mute yourself

[0:00:38] Voice 1: okay yeah so welcome everybody to the uh north pender island board of variants meeting um uh

[0:00:47] Voice 1: so starting off with our agenda um everyone have the agenda before them yes sir

[0:00:55] Voice 1: okay um so

[0:00:57] Voice 1: So we've got the call to order, approval of the agenda.

[0:01:04] Voice 1: I guess this is all done by the chair, I believe.

[0:01:10] Voice 1: Is that the typical process?

[0:01:13] Voice 5: Well, yeah, typically it is called to order,

[0:01:17] Voice 5: but I think that three, we need to select a board of variance chair.

[0:01:22] Voice 5: So when that's happened

[0:01:23] Voice 5: in the past,

[0:01:26] Voice 5: Islands Trust has run the meeting up until that point.

[0:01:31] Voice 1: okay so

[0:01:32] Voice 5: if you want to do a quick call to order vote to approve agenda agenda we'll select the

[0:01:38] Voice 5: chair and get on with the show sound cool sure

[0:01:42] Voice 1: i'll try to do that i haven't done that before

[0:01:44] Voice 1: but we'll see how it goes so yeah

[0:01:47] Voice 6: challenging yeah

[0:01:48] Voice 1: call the order okay

[0:01:51] Voice 6: good okay

[0:01:53] Voice 1: and uh

[0:01:56] Voice 1: Okay, so that's complete. Approval of the agenda. Any changes to the agenda ahead of this?

[0:02:01] Voice 1: No changes.

[0:02:02] Voice 1: No changes.

[0:02:03] Voice 1: Okay, move on to number three, selection of the Board of Variants chair.

[0:02:10] Voice 1: Do I have a

[0:02:11] Voice 1: nominee or a volunteer?

[0:02:17] Voice 5: I'm happy to stay in the hot seat. Bert, do you want to turn?

[0:02:25] Voice 6: No, I'm okay with you doing it, Andrew.

[0:02:29] Voice 4: John, thoughts?

[0:02:31] Voice 4: Yeah, I'm delighted to pick on Andrew as the chair.

[0:02:35] Voice 4: Okay.

[0:02:37] Voice 5: You guys are amazing.

[0:02:38] Voice 5: Thank you so much.

[0:02:44] Voice 5: You have the minutes.

[0:02:46] Voice 5: Should I take over here, Bruce?

[0:02:48] Voice 5: Sure.

[0:02:48] Voice 5: Let us know that we have the minutes of the September 28th,

[0:02:54] Voice 5: 2023 meeting are attached.

[0:02:56] Voice 5: I have no objection to those meetings.

[0:02:58] Voice 5: We call it to those minutes.

[0:03:00] Voice 5: can we call a motion to

[0:03:01] Voice 5: approve those minutes motion

[0:03:03] Voice 6: to approve yeah

[0:03:04] Voice 5: second update from

[0:03:07] Voice 5: secretary uh

[0:03:09] Voice 1: yes so that would be from me uh so there's no update in terms of like the processing

[0:03:16] Voice 1: of you know new members or anything of the board of variance um the only update i can

[0:03:22] Voice 1: would provide was just that

[0:03:26] Voice 1: all of us met on the property

[0:03:30] Voice 1: with the applicant ahead of

[0:03:33] Voice 1: this meeting and completed a site visit.

[0:03:38] Voice 1: And yeah, so the Board of Variants will need to consider

[0:03:42] Voice 1: whether hardship is being caused by the North Pender

[0:03:45] Voice 1: land use bylaw and if the variance is minor or not.

[0:03:49] Voice 1: um and yeah we're you're jumping way

[0:03:55] Voice 5: ahead of us here bruce so

[0:03:56] Voice 1: i've just yeah i'll just

[0:03:58] Voice 1: leave it at that for now and then yeah we

[0:04:01] Voice 1: do we want to

[0:04:02] Voice 5: jump into part six applications do you

[0:04:04] Voice 5: want to give a quick

[0:04:05] Voice 5: brief of the application bruce and sure i

[0:04:08] Voice 1: can do that

[0:04:09] Voice 5: let us know your

[0:04:10] Voice 5: report your findings i'll

[0:04:11] Voice 2: call you back if there's

[0:04:12] Voice 5: oh bert's hands up

[0:04:14] Voice 6: okay no i was just

[0:04:15] Voice 6: wondering if

[0:04:16] Voice 2: the applicant was going to join us thank you very much for answering and

[0:04:19] Voice 6: i see danny

[0:04:20] Voice 6: has just joined so good that's all gentlemen

[0:04:23] Voice 2: are you able to hear me we are thanks

[0:04:26] Voice 2: danny okay sorry

[0:04:27] Voice 2: i couldn't come up with the video but uh i'm here for the audio whenever you gentlemen are ready

[0:04:32] Voice 2: ladies okay

[0:04:33] Voice 5: yeah we're about to dive into it i was going to ask bruce just with us joining as

[0:04:39] Voice 5: panelists does that mean that there are other people who might be viewing or caught in the

[0:04:44] Voice 5: the wings or is the meeting participants the seven people that we see the seven people who

[0:04:49] Voice 5: are able to see the meeting uh

[0:04:52] Voice 1: so i think that there's there is a separate like waiting room

[0:04:57] Voice 1: which i think emily is monitoring um but uh and i think the the meeting also is probably being

[0:05:07] Voice 1: streamed online so there may be other people just viewing it on the on the web page i think this is

[0:05:13] Voice 1: yeah it is it's available to be watched live so there could be other people watching live but

[0:05:18] Voice 1: um well

[0:05:20] Voice 6: just uh for transparency we've got the three panelists we've got you as staff and i see

[0:05:26] Voice 6: their south office and who's that one

[0:05:29] Voice 1: that's emily emily

[0:05:31] Voice 6: hello emily and we've got danny and

[0:05:33] Voice 6: then somebody named kathy is on here do we know who kathy is hello

[0:05:38] Voice 4: i'm the minute taker okay hi

[0:05:40] Voice 6: So now we know everybody who's on the call.

[0:05:44] Voice 6: Good. Thank you.

[0:05:45] Voice 6: Wonderful.

[0:05:48] Voice 4: Sorry, there are other people who may join the call?

[0:05:54] Voice 1: No one else is scheduled or going to, is intending to join.

[0:06:02] Voice 1: There might be people viewing, but yeah.

[0:06:06] Voice 4: All right.

[0:06:06] Voice 4: Got it.

[0:06:07] Voice 4: Okay.

[0:06:07] Voice 4: Okay.

[0:06:09] Voice 1: Uh, yeah, so I can do a quick summary of the staff report. Uh, so, uh, this is a new

[0:06:19] Voice 1: application to the board of variants to vary the North Pender Island land use bylaw, um, for a

[0:06:26] Voice 1: proposed shoreline concrete retaining wall, a two-tiered boulder wall, and a new, um, wood

[0:06:32] Voice 1: staircase for foreshore access, which is all within or right along the natural boundary

[0:06:39] Voice 1: setback within 0.0 meters of the natural boundary of the sea.

[0:06:46] Voice 1: And the proposed variance is to section 3.31a, which currently states that no building or

[0:06:53] Voice 1: buildings or structures other than those in subsection 3.32 may be cited nor feel placed

[0:07:01] Voice 1: to support a building or structure within 15 meters upland of the natural boundary of the sea

[0:07:06] Voice 1: or within 1.5 meters from the natural boundary of the sea as measured on a vertical plane.

[0:07:13] Voice 1: So the applicant is intending to build these structures to prevent

[0:07:18] Voice 1: and manage the ongoing erosion on the property and to secure the shoreline and also to prevent

[0:07:29] Voice 1: prevent the hazard of erosion to the existing structures on the property as a previous beach

[0:07:40] Voice 1: house building was, I guess, destroyed by the erosion or is no longer able to be used.

[0:07:55] Voice 1: A geotechnical assessment was also completed prior to the application, which informed the design of these structures and identified the shoreline border walls and concrete retaining wall as the most effective solution to prevent further erosion of the bank, which was given based on the steepness of the slope.

[0:08:22] Voice 1: there's also a recommendation for reshaping those steepest parts of the slopes and replanting with

[0:08:30] Voice 1: native plants as well yeah so maybe I'll just leave it at that and then if you guys have further

[0:08:42] Voice 1: questions I can get into that right

[0:08:50] Voice 4: I've got a couple questions for Bruce I guess the wood

[0:08:57] Voice 4: Wood staircase, this is a replacement of an existing staircase.

[0:09:03] Voice 4: So can you just clarify why?

[0:09:08] Voice 4: So is this not a replacement of a lawful non-conforming use?

[0:09:16] Voice 1: so uh it could be that we didn't go down that route because uh in order to you need to prove

[0:09:24] Voice 1: that the the existing staircase was uh constructed prior to the land use bylaw uh

[0:09:35] Voice 1: um restricting the the wood staircase so we didn't go down that path but we just included it

[0:09:43] Voice 1: in this variance along with the other structures and the reason that it is included where the

[0:09:51] Voice 1: where the stairs are a permitted exemption from the natural boundary setback is because they

[0:09:59] Voice 1: are only exempted if they are three meters in length or less and because these extend

[0:10:07] Voice 1: further than three meters in that natural boundary setback they require a variance

[0:10:12] Voice 1: So there is a chance that they have pre-existing non-conforming status. We didn't look into that. So if they were constructed prior to a specific date when that bylaw was enacted, then they would be pre-existing non-conforming and you would be able to repair them and manage them. But yeah, so that's why they're included.

[0:10:43] Voice 4: So I have quite a bit of confusion around the boulder walls.

[0:10:51] Voice 4: So they're listed on the drawing as landscape walls.

[0:10:56] Voice 4: And I'm not sure that they're, you know,

[0:11:09] Voice 4: So I wonder why we're considering them as a variance.

[0:11:15] Voice 4: As I see it, the applicant is removing natural material

[0:11:23] Voice 4: and replacing it with other natural material, much like landscaping.

[0:11:28] Voice 4: uh and that uh if uh you know i i while your definition of the bile in the bylaw definition

[0:11:40] Voice 4: says says if you place anything it's considered a structure um i have some uh some personal

[0:11:48] Voice 4: experience with or i'm aware of a situation where an individual dumped a truckload of soil on

[0:11:55] Voice 4: their property on the property line and the by-law enforcement officer was adamant that

[0:12:01] Voice 4: that pile of soil was not a structure. It also was on another island but a very similar definition of

[0:12:13] Voice 4: structures. It just seems to me that we may be going down a route here that isn't required.

[0:12:22] Voice 1: Yeah, so I guess the structure definition, I'll just bring that up so we're all clear on that.

[0:12:32] Voice 5: That would be useful. I think that John's questions are actually quite important. And I wonder if when we include these items in this variance, we're not suggesting that anyone in the future would require a variance for these items, are we? We're not.

[0:12:50] Voice 4: Well, it's precedential, I believe.

[0:12:52] Voice 4: leave so i

[0:12:53] Voice 5: think there is a thing in the and this gets into a gray area and john i'm sure you

[0:12:58] Voice 5: understand the law far better than i do but my understanding is that border variance findings

[0:13:03] Voice 5: are not supposed to be precedent setting at all though my understanding and my own experience is

[0:13:12] Voice 5: that they can be because sometimes as an architect i look at variance findings and say well this guy

[0:13:18] Voice 5: got a variance or had to get a variance for that why does this apply to me differently so i think

[0:13:24] Voice 5: these are important questions that we should know i

[0:13:28] Voice 4: i think you're right i think that technically

[0:13:30] Voice 4: they're not there's no press of jurisprudence but on the other hand you know practically speaking

[0:13:36] Voice 4: people tend to build on other you know previous experience or history so um

[0:13:42] Voice 5: go

[0:13:44] Voice 4: ahead bruce yeah

[0:13:45] Voice 1: Yeah, so I'll just speak to the precedent aspect first is that, yeah, they're not precedent setting, and they should be considered within their own context.

[0:13:57] Voice 1: Obviously, if someone does get a variance, it may spark more applications within that similar, if there's a similar request.

[0:14:06] Voice 1: But the requirement is for the Board of Variants to look at that application individually, look at the context of it, and see if it's meeting the hardship and minor variance requirements.

[0:14:24] Voice 1: And that's the same for the development variance permit process with the local trust committees.

[0:14:28] Voice 1: There's no precedent, per se.

[0:14:33] Voice 1: And

[0:14:33] Voice 5: then in our findings, are we limited to a yes or no answer, or may we decide to, say, approve a variance and then suggest that a variance may not be required for certain parts of the application?

[0:14:48] Voice 5: um

[0:14:50] Voice 1: so you would approve you can approve a variance you can also you can also change

[0:14:58] Voice 1: you can you can send considering that there's more than one um part to this application you

[0:15:04] Voice 1: could approve uh uh any number of those or you could approve just one and deny the rest

[0:15:11] Voice 1: or you could request um or you could approve it for a chain a different uh a lesser uh uh

[0:15:22] Voice 1: infraction per se like so you could reduce that amount of distance that they're allowed to be

[0:15:28] Voice 1: within that setback um as well as far as changing the saying what can and what should and shouldn't

[0:15:40] Voice 1: require a variance is kind of more into the semantics of the actual structure definition

[0:15:47] Voice 1: which i'll i'll mention here is is um a structure as defined in the north penderland use bylaw is

[0:15:55] Voice 1: anything that is constructed or erected and that is fixed to supported by or sunk into land or

[0:16:03] Voice 1: water but excludes fences septic fields concrete and asphalt paving and similar similar surfacing

[0:16:11] Voice 1: of the land um so there is no like specific exemption for uh rock walls so in the past we've

[0:16:22] Voice 1: we have reviewed uh retaining walls and rock walls as being structures um under that definition

[0:16:30] Voice 1: So I guess my

[0:16:33] Voice 6: point would be that staff have already looked at what the application is and has determined that these are the items that require variances because they are considered structures by staff.

[0:16:47] Voice 6: So I think there's some level of trust that we have to have for the staff report in that there's a design made, there's structures on the design and the structures need to have a variance because they fall within that definition.

[0:17:00] Voice 6: And I feel comfortable with the fact that these structures are considered structures per the bylaw and therefore need our approval on the variance.

[0:17:15] Voice 6: And further that, I would just add that I don't think that there's any harm in approving something that may not require the variance anyway.

[0:17:27] Voice 6: way. But as far as the precedent is concerned, I agree that there is no precedent set. And as to

[0:17:33] Voice 6: whether it sets examples for other applications, I think that every application is site-specific.

[0:17:42] Voice 6: And so this site, we went and we walked the property and we saw what the unstable land

[0:17:49] Voice 6: looks like and why it needs these particular remediations. I also went by boat and went by

[0:17:56] Voice 6: the site a couple of days ago just to see it from the water to see what and envision what the

[0:18:02] Voice 6: future structures might change in the way of the appearance or the visual impact on the shoreline

[0:18:12] Voice 6: and and I could also see how much the slippage has impacted you know the property from the water

[0:18:18] Voice 6: because it's quite striking when you see it from there as well so I just wanted to add that that's

[0:18:21] Voice 6: That's an interesting perspective to be able to see this from.

[0:18:25] Voice 6: Anyway, just wanted to put those things forward.

[0:18:29] Voice 4: Yeah, Bert, I think that you're a good point.

[0:18:33] Voice 4: I think I'm raising this.

[0:18:37] Voice 4: It's not necessarily per se to this, not entirely focused on this application.

[0:18:46] Voice 4: case and it just seems to me that you know we have a new condition which is climate change

[0:18:52] Voice 4: and you know sea level uh uh driven that affects the large larger parts of the island

[0:19:00] Voice 4: and that um that you know on this in it you know the um the the the i'm i'm concerned that we're

[0:19:16] Voice 4: We're being very general in our focus and not really able to get at some of the specifics.

[0:19:29] Voice 4: Sorry, I'm dithering here.

[0:19:33] Voice 4: It's really overall a concern about the generality of the bylaw, which is confusing from the perspective of what's an allowable treatment to manage the slope stability and what's not an allowable treatment.

[0:19:57] Voice 4: So it's probably something that should be dealt with outside of the Board of Variants applications.

[0:20:04] Voice 4: I'll hang up my phone on that one.

[0:20:07] Voice 6: I concur that we don't have the ability to amend bylaws.

[0:20:13] Voice 6: We don't, but it's...

[0:20:14] Voice 6: So we have to live with what this bylaw says for now.

[0:20:17] Voice 6: Now, in the past, we have made some recommendations,

[0:20:20] Voice 6: and I don't know how far those go, but...

[0:20:22] Voice 5: Yeah, and I think it is important to capture in the minutes

[0:20:26] Voice 5: that this discussion has happened in relation to this bylaw.

[0:20:31] Voice 5: I do think that, you know, as John points out,

[0:20:33] Voice 5: with climate change and basically all the oceanfront homes

[0:20:39] Voice 5: that we are going to need to see perhaps a more nimble bylaw

[0:20:43] Voice 5: because people are going to have to shore up their properties

[0:20:47] Voice 5: to defend against the erosion that we see from massive rainfall events

[0:20:52] Voice 5: and raising sea levels.

[0:20:56] Voice 5: Just out of curiosity, Danny, how long have you spent working

[0:21:00] Voice 5: working on this on this variance application since

[0:21:05] Voice 3: the beginning of this year approximately

[0:21:07] Voice 3: so

[0:21:08] Voice 5: we're at about seven months to the point where you could maybe be approved to start construction

[0:21:15] Voice 5: so i think my concern is just the time from application to when danny would be or might

[0:21:22] Voice 5: be able to start considering how to properly shore up his property would be very impactful

[0:21:28] Voice 5: to someone who is rapidly losing property.

[0:21:32] Voice 7: So

[0:21:32] Voice 5: I just, yeah, I wanted to mention that

[0:21:34] Voice 5: and have that in the minutes.

[0:21:36] Voice 5: I think that we can move forward

[0:21:38] Voice 5: with looking at this particular application now

[0:21:41] Voice 5: and determining if, I believe we have to determine

[0:21:45] Voice 5: not only if there is hardship,

[0:21:47] Voice 5: but what that particular hardship may be.

[0:21:49] Voice 5: Is that correct, Bruce?

[0:21:50] Voice 5: Can we just broadly say,

[0:21:52] Voice 5: we think there is hardship and proceed,

[0:21:53] Voice 5: or should we say there is hardship

[0:21:59] Voice 5: I

[0:22:00] Voice 1: think you can sort of use your own judgment in what that hardship is and just determining that there is hardship. I don't think you necessarily need to say what specifically the hardship is. It's more so, is the bylaw restricting the property owner in a way that's creating a hardship?

[0:22:28] Voice 5: And Bert and John, are you happy with that?

[0:22:30] Voice 6: Yeah, and I'll speak to, I mean, our job here is to determine if it's a minor variance to the bylaw and if it's a hardship.

[0:22:41] Voice 6: So I did want to point out about climate change that the RISAC report does mention that they are anticipating climate change in their recommendations for the remedial work that's being done.

[0:22:55] Voice 6: um so is there a hardship yes i believe there is because if um these remedial works are not allowed

[0:23:06] Voice 6: there will be continued slippage of the land which will put the existing house at risk potentially

[0:23:13] Voice 6: and um also i think a couple of things that are bear mentioning is that with that slippage there

[0:23:22] Voice 6: There is land, you know, upland soils that is being washed into the sea, which I don't

[0:23:29] Voice 6: think is necessarily good for the environment.

[0:23:35] Voice 6: There's one of the parts of the report that I was looking at was the intent of the bylaw

[0:23:42] Voice 6: and the natural boundary setbacks.

[0:23:44] Voice 6: And I think it says ensure the buildings and structures are outside of environmentally

[0:23:48] Voice 6: sensitive areas.

[0:23:49] Voice 6: While we looked at the site and determined that it's going to be above the natural boundary,

[0:23:52] Voice 6: which is and it's going to preserve some of the environmental aspects of the uplands

[0:23:58] Voice 6: and probably protect the environmental impact on the water-covered lands.

[0:24:09] Voice 6: Is it consistent with you know what's going on around it? When I look at it from the water I

[0:24:13] Voice 6: think the envisioning what the remedial works will look like I thought that it will not negatively

[0:24:20] Voice 6: impact the surrounding lands. And we've got support letters from the adjacent owners.

[0:24:27] Voice 6: It will protect the property from hazards as well, because right now, you know, the hazard is that

[0:24:34] Voice 6: the land is slipping. And I think by doing this remedial work, we will protect the property from

[0:24:39] Voice 6: potential additional hazards and from the hazards continuing. And then the visual impact I've

[0:24:45] Voice 6: i've already spoken to from the from the um from the water you know i can see what that would look

[0:24:52] Voice 6: like so um i think there is a hardship that we need to consider in approving this um i believe

[0:25:00] Voice 6: that the works that are being proposed are necessary and will mitigate the hardships

[0:25:09] Voice 6: as to whether this is minor or not i think that i would would say that i appreciate the fact that

[0:25:16] Voice 6: the wall is low, it's made of natural materials being boulders being stepped and allowing for

[0:25:23] Voice 6: some landscaping to be able to make the impact of the visual impact of those boulder walls minimal.

[0:25:30] Voice 6: And then as far as this concrete wall which when I first saw the application and I saw an eight foot

[0:25:36] Voice 6: concrete wall I think when I saw the site conditions I could see that that part where

[0:25:41] Voice 6: the interface with the existing dock, which is an approved dock, you need to have that type of

[0:25:48] Voice 6: wall to be able to get the access repaired down to the dock in a safe manner. So I guess all that

[0:25:57] Voice 6: is to say that I believe it's a minor variance and there is a hardship that we need to consider

[0:26:06] Voice 6: consider in whether we approve this or not. And I'm on the side of approval at this point in time.

[0:26:16] Voice 5: Yeah, I think to go one step at a time that I would agree that there is hardship. I think,

[0:26:25] Voice 5: John, I'm not sure if you would agree, but I think we can move forward and suggest that,

[0:26:31] Voice 5: yes, there

[0:26:31] Voice 5: is hardship on that site. Yes, it is my own nature. And by the three of us agreeing,

[0:26:36] Voice 5: and that enables us to look at the specifics of this application.

[0:26:40] Voice 4: I'm interested if Bruce has a

[0:26:43] Voice 4: comment on the nature of minor. I mean, as Bert says, because of the terrain, the construction

[0:26:56] Voice 4: itself appears to be driven by the geometry of the terrain, and we're being asked to make a

[0:27:06] Voice 4: variance against um you know the setback and the height of the of the proposed wall so um

[0:27:15] Voice 4: it it you know a minor is a difficult uh uh measure to apply but it it doesn't seem that um

[0:27:27] Voice 4: that there is an extraordinary um uh change being uh being required in where where the wall was

[0:27:37] Voice 4: is 20 feet high because they wanted to increase the level area on the upland side.

[0:27:45] Voice 4: So I think this is, that's the only way I can sort of evaluate it.

[0:27:50] Voice 4: But if Bruce had another perspective on what minor versus significant is, that'd be interesting.

[0:27:59] Voice 1: Yeah, so the minor aspect is quite up for discussion among the Board of Variants, and that's kind of the intention within the Local Government Act is to give you the ability to look at that within the context of each land use pilot.

[0:28:18] Voice 1: So there's nothing really tied to it in terms of, you know, given size or changes to that land use bylaw.

[0:28:30] Voice 1: But yeah, I think considering the nature of the property is the right way to look at if it's minor and how much it is impacting the surrounding properties and the public use, considering it's along the foreshore.

[0:28:58] Voice 1: But yeah, I think there's not really too much I can add to the minor aspect, but yeah.

[0:29:09] Voice 5: Go ahead, John.

[0:29:11] Voice 4: Yeah, okay, fair enough.

[0:29:13] Voice 4: I mean, the minor is sort of a dynamic term.

[0:29:19] Voice 4: I just, you know, again, this is commenting back on the bylaw,

[0:29:23] Voice 4: But there are situations where people have constructed similar retaining walls and people have gotten quite excited about it, you know, despite the, you know, was it higher than the existing bank or whatever?

[0:29:41] Voice 4: And it seems that if the bylaw had some wording about shoreline mitigation measures that, you know, it would probably make it a little easier for us to determine whether it's minor or major.

[0:30:00] Voice 5: Yeah. Personally, when I look at the scope and breadth of the bylaw and consider that what we're really, the heart of this matter is, should we be able to vary the setback from the ocean? This does feel, in this case, somewhat minor. It's a small variance from what may be allowed.

[0:30:18] Voice 5: And then we look at how we change the property and the way the property relates to the neighbors.

[0:30:25] Voice 5: To me, that all seems like something that we could wrap as minor.

[0:30:29] Voice 5: So I would suggest that there does indeed exist hardship and that it is minor in nature.

[0:30:36] Voice 5: When I look at this application as a whole, I tend to agree with Bert that I think that a fair amount of work has been done by Danny

[0:30:47] Voice 5: to make sure that he has something which is a viable solution.

[0:30:50] Voice 5: It's definitely not pulled out of thin air or made up.

[0:30:53] Voice 5: There are engineers' reports.

[0:30:56] Voice 5: We understand that if we permit Danny to build this,

[0:31:01] Voice 5: it will work as intended and stop future erosion

[0:31:06] Voice 5: and defend his land, not only his oceanfront,

[0:31:10] Voice 5: but that of the neighbors as well from some type of erosion.

[0:31:15] Voice 5: ocean. I recall that we were involved in another variance where a client had looked at or a

[0:31:24] Voice 5: proponent had looked at a retaining wall similarly close to the ocean. And we very carefully reviewed

[0:31:30] Voice 5: that one to make sure that it was done in an environmentally respectful manner and that there

[0:31:37] Voice 5: were no real other options for them. And I wanted to point out that in this case, when we had our

[0:31:43] Voice 5: site visit the Board of Variants and Island Trust did go through and question Danny

[0:31:50] Voice 5: a fair amount to make sure that there was no real other viable option that would

[0:31:57] Voice 5: work in an environmentally friendly manner where he's able to he's come up with a porous retaining

[0:32:03] Voice 5: wall of natural materials that fits in with the landscape and what's around him and in the small

[0:32:09] Voice 5: portion where that approach did not work. He has elected to construct this concrete retaining wall,

[0:32:19] Voice 5: which I felt similarly to Bert when I first saw this application. I'm thinking an eight-foot

[0:32:25] Voice 5: concrete retaining wall is not going to work here. It's going to diminish the appearance of

[0:32:31] Voice 5: Pender Island shoreline, which is something that I think we should take into account.

[0:32:34] Voice 5: But when we went out on site and we saw the way that this concrete wall was fit into the shore and the particular placement of the concrete wall in relation to runoff from properties and streets above and the natural landscape existing, I think that the concrete wall actually does work in this situation.

[0:32:58] Voice 5: So it's something that I feel like we could move to approve.

[0:33:03] Voice 4: Yeah, likewise.

[0:33:04] Voice 4: was? I

[0:33:12] Voice 5: don't really have too many more comments other than that it's a very complete report.

[0:33:17] Voice 5: Looks like all options were examined. We have reports from geotechnical engineers,

[0:33:24] Voice 5: structural engineers. We have letters in support from neighbors. I think we've done everything that

[0:33:29] Voice 5: we need to do. My only concern with this application as a whole is the amount of time

[0:33:36] Voice 5: and effort it took to get here

[0:33:38] Voice 5: because I do feel that there will be time in future

[0:33:41] Voice 5: where Pender Island's zoning needs to be more nimble

[0:33:44] Voice 5: to allow people to quickly shore up their properties.

[0:33:49] Voice 6: Good point.

[0:33:53] Voice 6: So I guess this is a question for Bruce.

[0:33:56] Voice 6: The next step would be to make a motion.

[0:34:00] Voice 6: Is there a draft motion for us to consider

[0:34:03] Voice 6: or do we just make the motion,

[0:34:06] Voice 6: which I'm prepared to make just on the fly?

[0:34:09] Voice 6: what's your recommendation on that?

[0:34:12] Voice 1: So there is a draft motion

[0:34:17] Voice 1: that I can provide to you if you like.

[0:34:25] Voice 5: I would love if you could email or report us that motion.

[0:34:28] Voice 5: That would be fantastic.

[0:34:30] Voice 5: I'm looking at the staff report right now

[0:34:34] Voice 5: and I'm on the page one of the staff report

[0:34:38] Voice 5: where it discusses what is being varied

[0:34:41] Voice 5: And I'm

[0:34:42] Voice 5: also looking down into the RISAC report, simply just two pages later, there's a page of two photographs, and there's a figure two site plan not for construction, which shows the two boulder retaining walls, the concrete retaining wall, and it shows existing wood stairs and proposed landing.

[0:35:04] Voice 5: And so I guess my question for Bruce and for Danny, and I do want to see the motion, but does us reviewing the siting of the two-tiered 1.2-meter boulder wall, the siting of the 0.6-meter rock wall, the siting of the reinforced concrete retaining wall, and the siting of the new wood staircase enable Danny to go forward with the plan that he has?

[0:35:36] Voice 5: invested in, I see that there is a proposed landing, proposed pathway, and things on this

[0:35:46] Voice 5: RISAC drawing which are not mentioned in the staff report.

[0:35:52] Voice 5: And so I guess my question for you, Bruce, is why the difference?

[0:35:59] Voice 1: So is that you're looking at the site plan in the RISAC report?

[0:36:05] Voice 1: Yeah,

[0:36:06] Voice 5: Figure 2 site plan highlighted sections requiring variance.

[0:36:09] Voice 5: I assume that the highlighted sections requiring variance implies that the rest does not require a variance.

[0:36:14] Voice 1: That's right.

[0:36:15] Voice 1: So we've made sure that everything that does require a variance is included.

[0:36:23] Voice 1: A pathway, you're allowed to have a pathway that's not considered a structure.

[0:36:27] Voice 1: structure. And the other like landing area that's also like wouldn't require a variance

[0:36:36] Voice 1: to be cited within the natural boundary setback. So it's just those four parts that do require

[0:36:43] Voice 1: a variance that have been included.

[0:36:45] Voice 6: Which are highlighted in yellow on that site plan. Yeah,

[0:36:48] Voice 1: that's right.

[0:36:50] Voice 6: Which correlates to the to the staff report.

[0:36:54] Voice 6: that's

[0:36:55] Voice 1: right and i've just uh sent the motion the draft motion yeah got

[0:37:00] Voice 4: that bruce on on so on these

[0:37:03] Voice 4: on the variances so the let's just take the proposed boulder walls which is on the left

[0:37:09] Voice 4: hand side of the site drawing the variances for the setback from the um uh the natural boundary

[0:37:17] Voice 4: i'm assuming that's what we're asked being asked for

[0:37:19] Voice 1: that's right yeah okay

[0:37:21] Voice 4: and um there's another

[0:37:24] Voice 4: The center around the proposed landing says a proposed two foot high rock wall.

[0:37:30] Voice 4: Is the variance for the height of the wall or is it just the setback?

[0:37:38] Voice 1: It's the setback both from, it's not for the height, but it's a setback from the sea, both horizontally and vertically.

[0:37:48] Voice 1: so uh because the yeah the the it must be uh is it 1.5 meters above the uh natural boundary setback

[0:38:01] Voice 1: or natural boundary of the sea on a vertical plane so it's both of those aspects um so it's

[0:38:08] Voice 1: It's not the height, it's where it's located.

[0:38:14] Voice 1: Is that greater than 1.5 meters vertically above the natural boundary or less?

[0:38:25] Voice 1: Yeah, so it's both of those aspects.

[0:38:27] Voice 1: And

[0:38:28] Voice 6: given that it comes

[0:38:29] Voice 1: right up to that natural boundary, that's why we've included both of those.

[0:38:33] Voice 1: because

[0:38:35] Voice 6: the proposed wall is 2.5 meters in height vertically above the

[0:38:40] Voice 4: above the natural boundary

[0:38:43] Voice 4: yeah

[0:38:43] Voice 6: um

[0:38:45] Voice 4: i

[0:38:47] Voice 5: uh bruce i have a question for you that i think i would really value john's input in

[0:38:55] Voice 5: the way the motion that you've sent us refers back to the staff report it says you know approve

[0:39:05] Voice 5: approve application as presented and shown in Schedule A of the staff report. When I look at

[0:39:09] Voice 5: the staff report, this kind of goes back to a point you mentioned earlier about having something

[0:39:19] Voice 5: that we would be able to maintain. If we approve this and Danny builds this, is he permitted to

[0:39:25] Voice 5: maintain the structures that are approved in perpetuity or is he bound to the terms of the

[0:39:32] Voice 5: the variance itself. The difference I see is that in the variance, we discussed that he may

[0:39:38] Voice 5: be permitted to site his boulder wall within 0.0 meters of the natural boundary of the sea

[0:39:44] Voice 5: and the siting of a rock wall within 0 meters of the natural boundary of the sea.

[0:39:49] Voice 5: What I see in other jurisdictions that I work in is that being described as the present natural

[0:39:55] Voice 5: boundary of the sea. What we see in other jurisdictions at times, especially those

[0:40:00] Voice 5: around the Fraser River is that the natural boundary of the sea changes and so some properties

[0:40:06] Voice 5: that I've worked on and variances that I've seen the boundary of the sea accretes into someone's

[0:40:15] Voice 5: land so does that mean that if you know 40 years from now the boundary of the sea is moved

[0:40:21] Voice 5: and the instructors require replacement is Danny permitted to replace them in place or because the

[0:40:29] Voice 5: boundary of the sea has moved and our variance says within the natural boundary of the sea,

[0:40:34] Voice 5: is he moving them upland to meet the boundary of the sea? Is it worth us looking at changing

[0:40:39] Voice 5: that wording to say within 0.0 meters of the present natural boundary of the sea so that

[0:40:45] Voice 5: we understand that the variance is in effect at this time? Or John, does that even matter

[0:40:49] Voice 5: at all?

[0:40:50] Voice 4: John Greenewald I think it's a really good point. But particularly

[0:40:55] Voice 4: with respect to maintenance the the boulder walls are going to move you know i mean it's

[0:41:02] Voice 4: not a huge amount but there will continue to be just regardless of all the mediation that's being

[0:41:09] Voice 4: designed into it there will continue to be you know through flow uh you know and in the

[0:41:16] Voice 4: sediments behind those walls and potentially uh and so i understand from other conversations on

[0:41:24] Voice 4: other projects with with ryzak actually with geotechnical people that that a rock wall has a

[0:41:30] Voice 4: life a lifespan landscape wall and typically uh the the commentaries that i've heard is that

[0:41:38] Voice 4: within 10 years you're going to have to do some maintenance to that wall

[0:41:43] Voice 4: and within 25 years it's likely that you're going to have to rebuild

[0:41:47] Voice 4: build um uh you know and not i don't think that applies universally but it's a it's a rule of

[0:41:55] Voice 4: thumb to be to be considered and with the rising sea level which you know has been consistently

[0:42:01] Voice 4: there um the natural boundary will change it will it will start to incorporate the you know some of

[0:42:09] Voice 4: the stuff that saw the zero point so i you know i i like i like um the you know the comment about

[0:42:17] Voice 4: the you know the present boundary uh natural boundary you know circa the state today but i

[0:42:26] Voice 4: think that there's another issue around maintenance because um danny's going to or future landowners

[0:42:31] Voice 4: are going to be uh you know need to address this um you know some of those changes and shifting

[0:42:40] Voice 4: particularly where you where you look at the area that's below the natural boundary which

[0:42:46] Voice 4: is quite dynamic and and you know storms can remove the sediments quite quick quite rapidly

[0:42:52] Voice 4: and uh and potentially undermine that uh that wall so anyways yeah good point uh andrew yeah

[0:43:01] Voice 5: i'd like i would like if this were approved for danny to be able to maintain that structure in

[0:43:07] Voice 5: its place for perpetuity yeah

[0:43:11] Voice 1: so as part of the the variance that he's being per he would be

[0:43:16] Voice 1: permitted um the siting of these structures uh and as part of that you know you'd be allowed to

[0:43:23] Voice 1: maintain them uh provided there it's that the that what has been maintained as hasn't been

[0:43:30] Voice 1: extended, but it can be maintained within what was approved. So if the natural boundary was to

[0:43:39] Voice 1: change, I believe it would need to, if he was extending closer, I believe it wouldn't be

[0:43:56] Voice 1: be approved within this board of variants because the specific plan is what uh you would be approving

[0:44:04] Voice 1: um so the change would uh then trigger a new variance if that was the that was what was

[0:44:15] Voice 1: requested i

[0:44:16] Voice 5: think my my main concern is that if we cite uh if we enable danny to cite his

[0:44:21] Voice 5: two tiered 1.2 meter boulder wall within 0.0 meters of the natural boundary of the sea

[0:44:26] Voice 5: if sea level rises and in 10 to 20 years danny has to rebuild i don't i would want assurance for

[0:44:35] Voice 5: danny and future property developers that they may maintain that boulder wall in place whether

[0:44:41] Voice 5: that in 20 years be within negative zero point whatever meters of the sea as you know the sea

[0:44:47] Voice 5: has risen rather than he has to step back and move his thing to the natural boundary of the sea i

[0:44:54] Voice 5: feel like confident that that's in the meeting at minutes and that we understand all that we're

[0:45:00] Voice 5: proving that danny be permitted to leave the boulder wall as is and maintain it in place

[0:45:09] Voice 5: the

[0:45:11] Voice 4: problem is is that that uh the natural boundary of the sea and below it is outside

[0:45:17] Voice 4: side down and trust jurisdiction well

[0:45:20] Voice 5: i don't think i can build a retaining wall there though

[0:45:23] Voice 5: i might love to try it yeah

[0:45:26] Voice 4: i you know yeah so i i think um you know uh there's not a whole lot

[0:45:34] Voice 4: we can do about the the jurisdictional issue but we i think uh maintenance of that wall

[0:45:44] Voice 4: wall uh not the concrete wall but the the landscape wall is one that uh uh could look

[0:45:51] Voice 4: different i mean you might have to add material or you might have to add boulders you might have

[0:45:56] Voice 4: to increase the height of it yeah i i

[0:45:58] Voice 4: i'm not i mean you just just make you know um sort of

[0:46:02] Voice 4: pulling this stuff out i hadn't given it a whole bunch of thought but the um uh you know so there

[0:46:09] Voice 4: There could be changes, and hopefully that maintenance that did include, you know, adding material or changing the, you know, the shape to a certain extent that was, you know, only intended to deal with the issue that we're addressing, which is the slumping of that slope, you know, would be a valid thing if that's within our purview.

[0:46:38] Voice 4: Well,

[0:46:45] Voice 6: just reading through the Local Government Act, there is a part in there that Section 532 references the ability to repair even if something is damaged as long as there's a building inspector approves it and that it is destroyed to the extent 75% or more as determined by the building inspector.

[0:47:14] Voice 6: then there's repair allowed just under that act.

[0:47:19] Voice 4: That's a lawful non-conforming replacement

[0:47:22] Voice 4: of non-conforming uses?

[0:47:24] Voice 4: Yeah.

[0:47:25] Voice 6: So we're approving the non-conforming use

[0:47:28] Voice 6: under Section 531,

[0:47:30] Voice 6: and then 532 allows further to the repair

[0:47:33] Voice 6: and replacement of its damage and that sort of thing.

[0:47:38] Voice 4: I don't know, Bruce.

[0:47:42] Voice 4: We're digging deep here,

[0:47:44] Voice 4: but um you got any perspective

[0:47:46] Voice 1: on this so i believe that section so given that if you were

[0:47:52] Voice 1: to approve this it would no longer be considered a non-conforming structure that would be if a

[0:47:59] Voice 1: structure was built prior to a bylaw uh and then it was destroyed to a certain extent then someone

[0:48:05] Voice 1: would be able to reconstruct it given that uh 75 or more or whatever is is maintained or or 25

[0:48:15] Voice 1: um so in this case that wouldn't it wouldn't if the if the wall was destroyed or or or need to be

[0:48:24] Voice 1: repaired it doesn't need to comply with that i believe because it is can would be considered

[0:48:30] Voice 1: considered conforming based on the board of variance if it was approved Andrew

[0:48:40] Voice 4: you got some

[0:48:41] Voice 4: ideas on what our our motion should be then I

[0:48:48] Voice 5: don't I don't know if we need to change the motion

[0:48:51] Voice 5: at all do you what's your feeling there

[0:48:54] Voice 6: I don't think we need to change the motion I think this

[0:48:59] Voice 6: is just sort of the one of the outcomes that we wanted to consider I'm not sure that I mean

[0:49:07] Voice 6: I mean, if we provide the variance, then it becomes, it's non-conforming, but then it becomes, I think it does fall under Section 532 to be able to repair it as long as there's, you know, 25% remaining of the structure.

[0:49:25] Voice 6: But I guess that's the way I read it, because we're approving this and it's non-conforming, but they can continue to be non-conforming if you have some part of it destroyed and you can rebuild it.

[0:49:38] Voice 6: I mean, it's like a building, right?

[0:49:39] Voice 6: Same thing.

[0:49:40] Voice 6: You've

[0:49:40] Voice 5: got a non-conforming building.

[0:49:41] Voice 6: It burns down.

[0:49:42] Voice 6: You build a new one on the same foundation.

[0:49:45] Voice 6: You're allowed to do that.

[0:49:47] Voice 5: Yeah, I would definitely agree with you.

[0:49:49] Voice 5: I'm not a lawyer, but I've read some John Grisham novels.

[0:49:52] Voice 5: But while we have John here, it might be useful to have him weigh in and see if he feels like the motion needs changed or if we're good as is.

[0:50:09] Voice 4: I'm reading the application.

[0:50:13] Voice 4: as presented and shown on Schedule A.

[0:50:18] Voice 4: So Schedule A is

[0:50:23] Voice 4: the staff report

[0:50:26] Voice 5: that we're talking about.

[0:50:28] Voice 5: That's my understanding, though. I don't see it specifically labeled as Schedule A.

[0:50:32] Voice 1: So that's actually, the motion is

[0:50:35] Voice 1: referring to what was sent out in the

[0:50:39] Voice 1: notice. So it is the

[0:50:43] Voice 1: same i believe it's the same same one without the yellow

[0:50:46] Voice 4: shading no disappearing yeah

[0:50:48] Voice 1: yeah um

[0:50:53] Voice 5: the appeal is to permit good

[0:50:55] Voice 4: yeah yeah i don't i mean i think that the schedule lay is is quite

[0:50:59] Voice 4: good because it really just addresses the uh proposed construction and you know other than

[0:51:05] Voice 4: one throw away about native plants um i uh you know which is difficult boilerplate for geotext

[0:51:16] Voice 4: Yeah, I mean, it doesn't imply any other additional work.

[0:51:23] Voice 4: And I'm assuming that Danny's prepared to go ahead and follow that plan.

[0:51:29] Voice 4: I think it's good.

[0:51:30] Voice 4: Yeah, I'm fine with the.

[0:51:33] Voice 4: In fact, I'll if everybody's OK with that, I'll make that motion.

[0:51:39] Voice 5: I wonder if we should should we hear from Danny first or should we make the motion first?

[0:51:43] Voice 5: Danny, are you satisfied that this addresses all of your concerns?

[0:51:48] Voice 3: Yes, for sure.

[0:51:49] Voice 3: I've learned a lot here.

[0:51:51] Voice 3: Lots of things to consider.

[0:51:53] Voice 3: So I've been sitting back absorbing all of this.

[0:51:55] Voice 3: But, yeah, you guys have definitely – I didn't even think about the maintenance thing.

[0:51:59] Voice 3: So it was very good to hear that.

[0:52:02] Voice 5: Awesome.

[0:52:02] Voice 5: Okay, let's go back to John.

[0:52:03] Voice 5: Sorry to interrupt, John.

[0:52:04] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:52:05] Voice 5: John

[0:52:05] Voice 4: made the motion, so I'll second it.

[0:52:07] Voice 4: I'll make a motion, yeah.

[0:52:08] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:52:10] Voice 5: It seems like motion's passed.

[0:52:11] Voice 5: All in favor?

[0:52:14] Voice 4: That's me.

[0:52:16] Voice 5: yeah

[0:52:16] Voice 4: congratulations danny thank

[0:52:19] Voice 3: you gentlemen yeah

[0:52:21] Voice 4: yeah no

[0:52:23] Voice 6: good luck with construction yeah yeah

[0:52:27] Voice 4: get going soon

[0:52:27] Voice 4: absolutely um uh just want to ask you know we made some comments about the

[0:52:35] Voice 4: bylaw and i wonder if we can make a motion that uh to the trust on that or is that outside of

[0:52:42] Voice 4: our purview uh

[0:52:45] Voice 1: i believe that would be outside of your uh what you can do but i can i can pass

[0:52:50] Voice 1: those comments and and i can also make sure that uh uh brad smith the island planner for north

[0:52:57] Voice 1: pender he i can i can make sure he can see the see the minutes and i can have that discussion

[0:53:02] Voice 1: with him so he can he's aware of the concern yeah i think

[0:53:06] Voice 6: we had a similar situation on a previous

[0:53:09] Voice 6: application. Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong, but we did

[0:53:14] Voice 6: ask the planner at that one to go

[0:53:17] Voice 6: to the area planner to consider

[0:53:21] Voice 6: making some recommendations for changes to a by-law.

[0:53:25] Voice 6: I think this is the process we went through the last time as well.

[0:53:28] Voice 5: I agree. I like capturing things in the minutes. If there was a better way to

[0:53:34] Voice 5: do it, I would appreciate that.

[0:53:36] Voice 5: Yeah.

[0:53:38] Voice 4: Well, we could, we could make a motion as, you know, it could be a throwaway, but, you know, I think, I think this is, this is something that, that the, the bylaw could provide more guidance and, and certainly in terms of our, our decisions as a port of variance would make it easier to deal with.

[0:54:00] Voice 4: So, you know, but maybe we just say to Bruce, we know where you live.

[0:54:13] Voice 4: And so if you don't see this, we don't see any action.

[0:54:16] Voice 4: We'll be talking to you later.

[0:54:18] Voice 4: Yeah.

[0:54:20] Voice 6: I'm satisfied to let staff sort of work with us.

[0:54:23] Voice 6: I mean, we've given the recommendations.

[0:54:25] Voice 6: And I think

[0:54:25] Voice 7: Bruce

[0:54:26] Voice 6: will speak to the area planner.

[0:54:29] Voice 6: or the area planner will probably you know talk it'll come up with the trustees and then it's in

[0:54:34] Voice 6: their ball court and we there's nothing we can do to control that so um i did want to address one

[0:54:40] Voice 6: thing and we have talked about this at a previous meeting and that is that we have ended up with

[0:54:45] Voice 6: minutes of this of the previous meeting to approve at this meeting that um this is the first time

[0:54:53] Voice 6: we're seeing them their draft minutes for the september 28th 2023 minutes um and we've got

[0:54:59] Voice 6: a new trustee who wasn't hasn't isn't familiar with these my request before was to see these

[0:55:06] Voice 6: minutes sent out um shortly after the meeting so that we can do um not the final approval but at

[0:55:13] Voice 6: least a tentative approval on the minutes while they're fresh in our minds so that when you know

[0:55:19] Voice 6: when this comes up to a future Board of Variants board who may or may not be the same because it

[0:55:27] Voice 6: might be two or three years from now, then at least they've been reviewed and we understand

[0:55:32] Voice 6: that they can be moved forward with approval.

[0:55:34] Voice 4: Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with that.

[0:55:41] Voice 4: Yeah, absolutely. So

[0:55:45] Voice 6: I guess we can leave that with Bruce to review the minutes of the meeting

[0:55:49] Voice 6: and maybe get a draft copy out to the three of us so that we can at least review them,

[0:55:54] Voice 6: have any comments back, and then we can close the loop on the next Board of Variants meeting

[0:55:58] Voice 6: to do the true approvals.

[0:56:01] Voice 5: Definitely. I fully agree with that.

[0:56:03] Voice 5: I'd also like to add that I would love there to be a way for our applicants

[0:56:08] Voice 5: to be able to get to the Board of Variants faster

[0:56:10] Voice 5: and maybe without necessarily having to have spent tens of thousands of dollars

[0:56:15] Voice 5: in engineering fees to sit on the one day.

[0:56:20] Voice 5: So, you know, seven months and three engineers seems a lot.

[0:56:25] Voice 5: I understand it's all important to build it, but I'd like to

[0:56:29] Voice 4: go faster.

[0:56:33] Voice 4: Yeah.

[0:56:34] Voice 4: So if there's nothing else, I could move to adjourn.

[0:56:39] Voice 5: I'll second that.

[0:56:40] Voice 5: My coffee's cold.

[0:56:42] Voice 5: Very good.

[0:56:43] Voice 4: Okay.

[0:56:43] Voice 5: Thanks, Bruce.

[0:56:44] Voice 4: Thanks, Kathy.

[0:56:45] Voice 5: Thanks, Bruce.

[0:56:46] Voice 4: Thanks, Dan.

[0:56:47] Voice 6: Okay, bye-bye.

[0:56:48] Voice 6: Thank you as well.

[0:56:49] Voice 5: All right.

[0:56:50] Voice 5: Have a good day, everyone.

[0:56:51] Voice 5: You too.

[0:56:52] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:56:52] Voice 5: Bye.

[0:56:53] Voice 5: Thank you.