Gabriola Island Local Trust Committee special meeting, August 6, 2026

[0:00:02] Planner Chadwick: Chair Patrick you're good to go.

[0:00:04] Trustee Patrick: All right well good morning everyone. I really thank you for

[0:00:07] Trustee Patrick: joining us this morning and I'm going to call this special meeting of the Gabriel Local Trust

[0:00:12] Trustee Patrick: Committee to order. We are live streaming and recording this meeting and the recording will

[0:00:16] Trustee Patrick: be available in a few days. I begin with acknowledging with respect and humility that

[0:00:21] Trustee Patrick: the lands and waters of the Gabriel Local Trust area have been home to Indigenous people since

[0:00:26] Trustee Patrick: time immemorial. Their deep connection to these islands continues to this day and we

[0:00:31] Trustee Patrick: We honor their enduring presence,

[0:00:33] Trustee Patrick: constitutional rights and responsibilities.

[0:00:36] Trustee Patrick: I was honored on Monday to walk alongside

[0:00:39] Trustee Patrick: an elegant elder sent the annual walk for the children

[0:00:42] Trustee Patrick: in Sheminis, sorry for the noise.

[0:00:46] Trustee Patrick: It's a very somber moment to think of the,

[0:00:50] Trustee Patrick: all the children that did not come home

[0:00:51] Trustee Patrick: from the Cooper residential school

[0:00:53] Trustee Patrick: located on Penelope Island

[0:00:55] Trustee Patrick: and the harm that it's caused,

[0:00:57] Trustee Patrick: caused uh ongoing harm to um the the parents and the families um i'm laura patrick i'm elected on

[0:01:07] Trustee Patrick: salt spring island and i'm the chair of this local trust committee i'm joined today by trustee

[0:01:11] Trustee Patrick: toby elliott and trustee susan yates and together we make up your local trust committee today we

[0:01:17] Trustee Patrick: have a number of staff that are joining us today we have a planner chadwick planner bob we have

[0:01:23] Trustee Patrick: I have Chloe Straw, who is working with us.

[0:01:27] Trustee Patrick: We have, I see, we have Morgana, and we have Didi,

[0:01:34] Trustee Patrick: and we have Catherine Boat is doing the recording.

[0:01:36] Trustee Patrick: Did I miss any of the staff that are here?

[0:01:38] Trustee Patrick: We really appreciate you, and we can't have this meeting without you.

[0:01:45] Trustee Patrick: So this meeting is a special meeting.

[0:01:48] Trustee Patrick: It's an opportunity to hear from you on the questions for the OCP.

[0:01:55] Trustee Patrick: It's also a place of employment, and our staff have a right to a safe and respectful workplace.

[0:02:02] Trustee Patrick: Today, there will be a time when we're going to answer your questions and answers.

[0:02:08] Trustee Patrick: You'll need to type your questions in, and as you have them, we appreciate that you enter

[0:02:14] Trustee Patrick: them now if you have them, if you haven't sent them in in advance, so that staff can

[0:02:18] Trustee Patrick: and put them in a document so we all have access to it

[0:02:21] Trustee Patrick: and be able to answer the questions as they come along.

[0:02:24] Trustee Patrick: So please, staff, I understand there should be a Q&A

[0:02:27] Trustee Patrick: or question button at the bottom of the screen

[0:02:30] Trustee Patrick: for the participants.

[0:02:31] Trustee Patrick: So if you just click there and type your question in,

[0:02:34] Trustee Patrick: we would greatly appreciate that.

[0:02:37] Trustee Patrick: Okay, so trustees, we have an agenda before us.

[0:02:41] Trustee Patrick: Are there any additions or changes to this agenda?

[0:02:44] Trustee Patrick: Seeing none, can we approve it through general consent?

[0:02:46] Trustee Patrick: set thank you um so this is going to put us right into the question and answer period i know a number

[0:02:53] Trustee Patrick: of you have sent your questions in advance we really appreciate the time that you've taken to

[0:02:57] Trustee Patrick: write those questions and i'm going to turn over to staff to uh read out the questions

[0:03:08] Voice 9: thank

[0:03:08] Voice 3: you chair patrick um we'll start off and thank you to all those who submitted questions

[0:03:13] Voice 3: ahead of the meeting and we're going to go through them in the order that they were received

[0:03:16] Voice 3: So, to begin with, we had some questions around logistics of the Official Community Plan Land Use By-law project process.

[0:03:25] Voice 3: So, the first one is, are the Land Use By-law and Official Community Plan separate documents?

[0:03:35] Voice 3: I

[0:03:36] Planner Chadwick: can answer that question.

[0:03:37] Planner Chadwick: Please do.

[0:03:39] Planner Chadwick: They are indeed separate documents.

[0:03:41] Planner Chadwick: The OCP provides policy direction based on the community's vision, value, and goals.

[0:03:49] Planner Chadwick: And the land use bylaw, as we like to say, implements the OCP policies through bylaws.

[0:03:58] Planner Chadwick: So that's where it's really clearly defined what can and cannot be done.

[0:04:03] Planner Chadwick: And that's what we use when there are violations.

[0:04:09] Planner Chadwick: That's how we can measure based on what's identified in the land use by-law.

[0:04:18] Voice 3: Thank you.

[0:04:19] Planner Chadwick: The

[0:04:19] Voice 3: next question is regarding public engagement.

[0:04:25] Voice 3: Folks wondering, will there be another series of consultations for the land use by-law?

[0:04:32] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, so the land use by-law is not a plan to be introduced until first reading.

[0:04:39] Planner Chadwick: The first reading isn't planned to be until February.

[0:04:43] Planner Chadwick: February. So there is a period of time and staff will be, you know, working with trustees to see

[0:04:50] Planner Chadwick: what type of engagement may be developed for that.

[0:04:57] Voice 3: And just adding on to that, Planner Chadwick,

[0:05:00] Voice 3: we've got a question. What further public input will there be into the draft before and after

[0:05:05] Voice 3: first reading? The

[0:05:08] Voice 3: draft OCP?

[0:05:09] Trustee Patrick: Yeah, I was going to say, let's be clear of which document we're

[0:05:12] Trustee Patrick: talking about.

[0:05:13] Voice 3: I think we're talking about the official community plan.

[0:05:17] Planner Chadwick: So the question was, what kind of opportunities there for community input before and after first reading?

[0:05:25] Planner Chadwick: That's correct.

[0:05:26] Planner Chadwick: So before first reading, it's very limited at this point.

[0:05:30] Planner Chadwick: The purpose of this meeting, this is a very technical meeting that's focused on the trustees making some decisions about comments that have been received and some of the potential changes that have been identified based on those comments.

[0:05:49] Planner Chadwick: So the idea is that at the end of this meeting, staff will have direction to move towards preparing a document for first reading.

[0:05:58] Planner Chadwick: And that takes a little bit of time, so we will not have the opportunity to integrate any additional comments or changes at that point.

[0:06:06] Planner Chadwick: However, after first reading, there is still opportunity to make changes.

[0:06:12] Planner Chadwick: and second reading is not scheduled until, I believe it's February, March.

[0:06:21] Planner Chadwick: So there's a long period of time.

[0:06:25] Planner Chadwick: After first reading, we're also going to be sending out referrals to agencies and First Nations.

[0:06:33] Planner Chadwick: And so there's time where we'll be integrating those suggested changes potentially as well.

[0:06:42] Planner Chadwick: So during that period of time, there's an opportunity to continue to entertain information that comes from the public.

[0:06:56] Trustee Patrick: Next question then.

[0:06:58] Voice 3: Thank you. Will there be an opportunity for the community to review the Indigenous context that is included in the draft OCP?

[0:07:07] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, so it wasn't included in what was posted on the website because we still are working with staff to confirm that.

[0:07:20] Planner Chadwick: Staff made a call, a bit of a judgment call, and felt that we did need to share the draft that we've been working on.

[0:07:30] Planner Chadwick: However, that hasn't been completely confirmed by SNAEMUC, so we're still working with them to ensure that that intro section is going to be what they are comfortable with.

[0:07:46] Planner Chadwick: And also, so it exists in the draft that was posted with the staff report for this meeting.

[0:07:55] Planner Chadwick: It has the potential to change.

[0:07:57] Planner Chadwick: And I would emphasize that really the focus here is on supporting the interests of First Nations and how they'd like that section to be represented.

[0:08:14] Voice 7: Next question.

[0:08:15] Voice 7: um

[0:08:17] Voice 3: we've got some questions around the flexible housing section of the draft ocp and the first

[0:08:23] Voice 3: one is what kind of restrictions will be placed on flexible housing yeah

[0:08:29] Planner Chadwick: so that's a a fairly broad

[0:08:31] Planner Chadwick: um question and it's it's it's something that uh has kind of emerged from uh this question has kind

[0:08:38] Planner Chadwick: of come from a number of different uh folks in the community um there's been concern that the

[0:08:46] Planner Chadwick: The flex housing, as written in the OCP, is pretty open, and the intention is to identify those clear restrictions on maximum combined floor area and number of units per size of lot in the land use bylaw.

[0:09:08] Planner Chadwick: However, based on the fact that there are so many strong concerns, while the OCP is not really designed to be a regulatory document, staff have put forward some suggestions that we can have some discussion with the LTC today about in terms of being more regulatory with respect to that particular policy.

[0:09:36] Trustee Patrick: Well, I think, can I add is that I think sometimes you have to think of the OCP as it enables something. So it enables the local trust committee to consider having flexible housing within the land use bylaws. If a future local trust committee chooses to bring in flexible housing, they would design and develop those bylaws through the land use bylaw. And that's where all the details would go. Would that be a correct way to say that?

[0:10:03] Trustee Patrick: Yeah, that's a

[0:10:03] Planner Chadwick: really well way. Well, very good way to frame it. Thank you, Chair Prattick.

[0:10:07] Planner Chadwick: Thank you.

[0:10:09] Trustee Patrick: Next question.

[0:10:15] Voice 3: Someone has asked, what will the ownership model for flexible housing look like?

[0:10:20] Voice 3: So that's really to be

[0:10:21] Planner Chadwick: determined. The purpose of the flexible housing is to introduce a model for housing that provides a few different opportunities.

[0:10:32] Planner Chadwick: One of the examples that I frequently point to is the opportunity to provide housing for your adult children on your lot or for an aging parent, for example.

[0:10:50] Planner Chadwick: But there's also the opportunity for a shared property approach as well when you have more than one unit.

[0:11:01] Planner Chadwick: So really, that's not something that the OCP really governs. That's something that would be determined by the property owners.

[0:11:14] Voice 7: Thank you. Next question.

[0:11:17] Voice 3: Will there be a prohibition on houses on wheels, for example, movable housing?

[0:11:23] Voice 3: So all homes, to

[0:11:26] Planner Chadwick: be legal, need to demonstrate that they meet building code requirements or Canadian standards approved standards for mobile homes. So basically, that prohibition already exists.

[0:11:54] Trustee Patrick: Go ahead, Trustee Elliott.

[0:11:56] Trustee Patrick: Yeah,

[0:11:58] Voice 5: so maybe you could expand a little bit on the fact that Regional District of Nanaimo regulates through their building bylaw, building standards bylaw, what standard houses are to be built.

[0:12:13] Voice 5: And because they hold that area or servicing area of authority, how can we stipulate in our OCP or how is it proposed to be stipulated what types and forms of housing are, you know, legally allowed that we're not opening the door to something that the RDN cannot permit?

[0:12:36] Voice 5: it yeah

[0:12:38] Planner Chadwick: and i think we have we have a policy that reflects that currently thanks for providing that

[0:12:44] Planner Chadwick: additional could

[0:12:45] Voice 5: you reference that policy just for people's information or we could look it up

[0:12:49] Planner Chadwick: and

[0:12:49] Voice 5: maybe post it

[0:12:50] Planner Chadwick: yeah we can look it up and if somebody wants to look it up and um and just put

[0:12:55] Planner Chadwick: the um the number and then in um i can come back to that um it's uh yeah what uh steven do you want

[0:13:07] Planner Chadwick: have a quick look and and find the the policy number and then we can we can identify that one

[0:13:16] Voice 9: yeah yeah sure all

[0:13:23] Planner Chadwick: right oh there it is thanks did

[0:13:27] Trustee Patrick: you want to read that out loud there so

[0:13:34] Voice 2: i can read that one it says uh the policy 2.7.2.65 multi-unit housing may consist of clustered

[0:13:43] Voice 2: detached units such as tiny homes including tiny homes on wheels or manufactured homes

[0:13:48] Voice 2: in addition to traditional forms of housing and the second the second policy that's pasted here

[0:13:56] Voice 2: is policy 2.7.2.6 and i believe these numbers look like they are from the version of the ocp

[0:14:03] Voice 2: that's attached to the agenda um it's because i know the numbering has shifted a bit so

[0:14:09] Voice 2: this one says for bylaw amendment applications to permit detached multi-unit housing the following

[0:14:16] Voice 2: consideration should be addressed units can consist of tiny homes including tiny homes on

[0:14:21] Voice 2: wheels or manufactured homes units will be construct will be constructed to the bc building

[0:14:27] Voice 2: code or csa standards or manufactured homes or equivalent and receive a building permit from the

[0:14:33] Voice 2: rdn units must be connected to a pot a source of potable water and connected to an approved

[0:14:39] Voice 2: wastewater system.

[0:14:42] Trustee Patrick: Thank you.

[0:14:44] Trustee Patrick: So next question then.

[0:14:46] Voice 3: We'll move on to questions

[0:14:48] Voice 3: submitted regarding water.

[0:14:50] Voice 3: The first one is, will there be a

[0:14:52] Voice 3: hard cap on development based on

[0:14:54] Voice 3: aquifer limits?

[0:14:57] Voice 3: So

[0:14:57] Planner Chadwick: the way that this OCP

[0:14:59] Planner Chadwick: has been designed is

[0:15:01] Planner Chadwick: to really

[0:15:03] Planner Chadwick: focus on

[0:15:07] Planner Chadwick: ensuring

[0:15:07] Planner Chadwick: that

[0:15:08] Planner Chadwick: that additional density happens in areas where it can be supported.

[0:15:14] Planner Chadwick: So the criteria that has been identified for any changes, any amendments,

[0:15:20] Planner Chadwick: so that this includes or changes to what exists, this includes rezoning,

[0:15:25] Planner Chadwick: it can include temporary use permits, and even development variance permits.

[0:15:33] Planner Chadwick: The criteria is quite strong, and there's a very detailed focus on groundwater

[0:15:38] Planner Chadwick: water and aquifer protection so that that is where the limits are um uh and i think you know

[0:15:49] Planner Chadwick: it's a bit more it can be more effective than just having a hard cap number because that doesn't

[0:15:56] Planner Chadwick: necessarily identify where you can have additional um development um yeah okay

[0:16:10] Voice 3: um next question

[0:16:13] Voice 3: Why has a hydrological integrity framework not been integrated into the official community plan and will it be done before the community plan is released?

[0:16:24] Voice 3: So the

[0:16:25] Planner Chadwick: work that we've done with the freshwater footprint has been extremely progressive.

[0:16:35] Planner Chadwick: It's been sort of the first of its kind in the Islands Trust and all the data that we have available to us based on related to water and fresh groundwater and aquifer system has been used.

[0:16:54] Planner Chadwick: And so this work effectively, as effectively as possible, integrates a water protection perspective into the OCP.

[0:17:11] Trustee Patrick: I guess you could also say as time goes on and we monitor and continue to have data that changes could occur over time.

[0:17:19] Trustee Patrick: Go ahead, Trustee Elliott.

[0:17:20] Trustee Patrick: Yeah,

[0:17:24] Voice 5: I think it might be helpful for people to understand what actions could be taken in the future, that while the freshwater footprint is the scientific study that provides the basis for the information that we know right now, and there are a number of policy options in there that could serve the community into the future,

[0:17:45] Voice 5: sure, should LTCs in the future decide, for instance, to make up a project of community

[0:17:53] Voice 5: monitoring networks, that would be a potential outcome. But this is the science, it doesn't

[0:17:58] Voice 5: direct policy is my understanding. But it informs how we can shape policy and therefore

[0:18:06] Voice 5: for the land use bylaw regulations to ensure that the information

[0:18:13] Voice 5: that's captured in that freshwater report is utilized, actually.

[0:18:19] Voice 5: We need to action it.

[0:18:21] Planner Chadwick: Absolutely. Yeah.

[0:18:23] Planner Chadwick: So in that respect, it is, you know, it's a great starting point,

[0:18:27] Planner Chadwick: and we've done as much as we can right now with the OCP review,

[0:18:31] Planner Chadwick: you and there's a lot of opportunity to to to build on um on the information that we we have

[0:18:38] Planner Chadwick: available to us thank

[0:18:40] Voice 4: you trustee aids thank you chair patrick and thank you uh planner chadwick

[0:18:46] Voice 4: and fellow trustee elliott for expanding on that a bit um and we we have the option

[0:18:53] Voice 4: as an outgoing local trust committee to um ask for this to be on a future projects list

[0:19:01] Voice 4: and my inclination would certainly be to do that.

[0:19:07] Voice 4: And I know from looking at other island water monitoring

[0:19:12] Voice 4: and preservation projects like Sewepa on Salt Spring,

[0:19:19] Voice 4: that this is really a dedicated project unto itself.

[0:19:23] Voice 4: It can be done in different local trust areas.

[0:19:26] Voice 4: And I understand from freshwater specialist Shoba

[0:19:29] Voice 4: that the freshwater footprint project

[0:19:32] Voice 4: will continue across the trust area as budget permits,

[0:19:38] Voice 4: but the actual continuation of monitoring

[0:19:42] Voice 4: and coordination of that information on Gabriola

[0:19:47] Voice 4: is really a separate project

[0:19:50] Voice 4: and certainly one that a future trust committee can support

[0:19:54] Voice 4: and certainly one that I think my fellow trustee Elliot

[0:19:57] Voice 4: and I would like to support as well.

[0:20:02] Voice 4: Thank you.

[0:20:04] Voice 7: Thank you very much.

[0:20:05] Voice 3: Next question.

[0:20:07] Voice 3: How will groundwater aquifers and recharge be supported

[0:20:10] Voice 3: by the draft official community plan?

[0:20:14] Voice 3: So

[0:20:14] Planner Chadwick: there are policies in the draft currently

[0:20:18] Planner Chadwick: that do ensure that there is consideration

[0:20:23] Planner Chadwick: of aquifer projection and groundwater

[0:20:28] Planner Chadwick: water when making any decisions around changes in use and density.

[0:20:37] Planner Chadwick: In addition to that, in the implementation section, the OCP prioritizes the development

[0:20:47] Planner Chadwick: of a critical aquifer protection development permit area.

[0:20:52] Planner Chadwick: And this is because of the work that's been done on the freshwater footprint.

[0:20:57] Planner Chadwick: print there is a lot of we have the information that's that can be used we've done this work on

[0:21:04] Planner Chadwick: on galliano so we are we've already been through the process of identifying guidelines and so we

[0:21:11] Planner Chadwick: we have material to work with and so essentially this would be a minor project that would

[0:21:17] Planner Chadwick: effectively implement the goals and objectives of the ocp and you know staff will be recommending

[0:21:23] Planner Chadwick: mending this to the LTC, the new LTC as a priority project.

[0:21:32] Voice 7: Thank you. Next question.

[0:21:36] Voice 3: We'll move on to some other more general questions. And I believe this question is

[0:21:40] Voice 3: referring to the housing section of the document. How is low moderate income defined?

[0:21:46] Voice 3: Stephen, you want to take that one?

[0:21:50] Voice 2: Sure, I can do my best here. One thing I'll note is that

[0:21:55] Voice 2: that the definitions in the version of the OCP

[0:22:01] Voice 2: that's attached to the agenda have been reviewed.

[0:22:07] Voice 2: And some of this, I think that affected

[0:22:09] Voice 2: some of the definitions around affordability

[0:22:13] Voice 2: and that low moderate income.

[0:22:17] Voice 2: But there is a definition for low income

[0:22:19] Voice 2: and for moderate income in that definition section.

[0:22:23] Voice 2: And I can just read them out maybe

[0:22:25] Voice 2: as the best way to do it.

[0:22:26] Voice 2: The low income means a level of income at which an individual or household has fewer economic

[0:22:31] Voice 2: resources than typical members of society, measured as having an adjusted household income below

[0:22:37] Voice 2: 50% of the median population income, accounting for household size. And moderate income means a

[0:22:44] Voice 2: level of income that falls between the low income threshold, commonly defined as 50% of median

[0:22:50] Voice 2: income, and the median income of the population, indicating modest but not severely constrained

[0:22:56] Voice 2: strained economic resources. And actually, as I was reading that, I did just look to see what

[0:23:01] Voice 2: changes were made between the two drafts. And actually, I think it was just one word was

[0:23:08] Voice 2: removed from the low income. So those definitions are pretty much the same as what you would have

[0:23:13] Voice 2: seen previously.

[0:23:16] Voice 7: Thank you. Next question.

[0:23:20] Voice 3: Why does the official community plan restrict the

[0:23:23] Voice 3: the building of lands buildings or structures for the manufacturing of or research of genetically

[0:23:29] Voice 3: engineered seeds plants or animals i

[0:23:34] Voice 2: can i can respond to this too if you like which is just

[0:23:37] Voice 2: please do

[0:23:37] Voice 2: my simple response really it's just that this is uh something that was is in the existing

[0:23:42] Voice 2: ocp uh and and this it's been held it just continued in this document as well um it's it's

[0:23:50] Voice 2: and reflected in the land use bylaw,

[0:23:52] Voice 2: existing land use bylaw as well.

[0:23:55] Voice 2: And so it's just been maintained in this new OCP document.

[0:24:02] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:24:04] Voice 3: Next question.

[0:24:06] Voice 3: The next question is, what is a chance find protocol?

[0:24:11] Voice 3: And then how are they monitored or reviewed?

[0:24:19] Voice 7: Who's going to answer that?

[0:24:20] Planner Chadwick: Do you want me to take that one, Stephen?

[0:24:22] Planner Chadwick: Go ahead.

[0:24:24] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, so a chance find protocol

[0:24:26] Planner Chadwick: is a set of procedures that explains what to do

[0:24:30] Planner Chadwick: if you find archaeological or cultural

[0:24:34] Planner Chadwick: heritage materials on your

[0:24:37] Planner Chadwick: property. And we actually

[0:24:42] Planner Chadwick: often send materials out to

[0:24:47] Planner Chadwick: folks that are in the process of

[0:24:51] Planner Chadwick: doing work on their property. And it's the

[0:24:55] Planner Chadwick: It's the provincial archaeology branch that administers all the archaeological provisions under the Heritage Conservation Act.

[0:25:06] Planner Chadwick: So they have oversight over this type of work.

[0:25:16] Voice 3: Thank you. Next question.

[0:25:19] Voice 3: Why do some policies have the word will and some are should?

[0:25:27] Voice 3: Do you want to take that,

[0:25:28] Planner Chadwick: Stephen, or do you want me to take it?

[0:25:30] Voice 2: We can do it together if you want. I can start. I'll just say that there's a limited opportunity or there's only some, the OCP is set up to, as a policy, this overarching policy document, and it can't better any future decisions than an LTC to require them to make some decisions.

[0:25:54] Voice 2: And so much of the policy is it can't be saying that the LTC must do this or must make this particular decision. And so instead, it's the language around should.

[0:26:08] Voice 2: And so that's kind of why there's that tends to be that language that kind of encourages the value, but doesn't require necessarily that a certain decision being made into the future.

[0:26:25] Voice 2: Yeah,

[0:26:26] Planner Chadwick: and must, we can use the word must, it's generally reserved for circumstances where the OCP reflects mandatory requirements by, that are established through provincial legislation.

[0:26:40] Planner Chadwick: So there are some things that have to be done, and they, that they are not left to LTC decision.

[0:26:50] Planner Chadwick: decision. And there is also this question around should and shall, and that I think is also

[0:26:58] Planner Chadwick: important to point out that shall is really being avoided in OCPs. We've been told

[0:27:08] Planner Chadwick: very explicitly from

[0:27:13] Planner Chadwick: lawyers and others not to use shell because

[0:27:18] Planner Chadwick: it appears very

[0:27:23] Planner Chadwick: interpretive and very challenging

[0:27:26] Planner Chadwick: sometimes. So essentially

[0:27:31] Planner Chadwick: the shell is being

[0:27:32] Planner Chadwick: is being um removed uh from planning documents thank

[0:27:39] Trustee Patrick: you trustee yates yes

[0:27:42] Voice 4: i am sorry to report

[0:27:43] Voice 4: that i've had another alarming um alert on my computer even though i'm accessing zoom from the

[0:27:50] Voice 4: workplace app it says that zoom us is accessing my screen and um planner bow you were blanked out

[0:27:59] Voice 4: out for me for a few seconds there while that came in. I think I need to quickly get out of

[0:28:07] Voice 4: this meeting and join again. I'm sorry about that.

[0:28:12] Planner Chadwick: Okay. Trustee Yates, there's also an

[0:28:16] Planner Chadwick: opportunity for you to join in the office if that continues to be a problem. Okay. Thanks.

[0:28:29] Trustee Patrick: All right. Does anybody want to just go ahead and hear the next question and do the best we can?

[0:28:33] Trustee Patrick: or yeah

[0:28:43] Voice 2: if that whatever the LTC is kind of comfortable with if they if it's if it's um

[0:28:48] Voice 2: I think

[0:28:49] Voice 3: we can proceed with the next

[0:28:50] Trustee Patrick: question go ahead okay

[0:28:51] Voice 3: um again relating to language used in

[0:28:54] Voice 3: the official community plan document why do policies read as aspirational yeah

[0:29:00] Planner Chadwick: so this this

[0:29:01] Planner Chadwick: question uh and I know the writer of this question also pointed to some of the goals and objectives

[0:29:04] Planner Chadwick: and I mean essentially that's that is what we need to be doing uh goals and objectives are often

[0:29:10] Planner Chadwick: and are meant to be aspirational.

[0:29:12] Planner Chadwick: And this OCP has really focused on developing policies

[0:29:19] Planner Chadwick: that can be implemented.

[0:29:21] Planner Chadwick: So while there may be some that appear to be aspirational,

[0:29:27] Planner Chadwick: the LTC has been really focusing on policies

[0:29:32] Planner Chadwick: that can be implemented.

[0:29:34] Planner Chadwick: And as I mentioned in the first question,

[0:29:38] Planner Chadwick: the policies sort of provide kind of a broad supported direction and it's it's in the land

[0:29:48] Planner Chadwick: use bylaw where the rubber really hits the road so those are your really like focused rules

[0:29:53] Planner Chadwick: essentially there are some things in there that are required by the province and one of the examples

[0:30:00] Planner Chadwick: of this is the targets for

[0:30:05] Planner Chadwick: greenhouse gas emissions and those, it's very difficult not to be

[0:30:09] Planner Chadwick: aspirational with those because

[0:30:12] Planner Chadwick: we don't have the ability

[0:30:16] Planner Chadwick: to do the type of emissions

[0:30:20] Planner Chadwick: monitoring and such that large municipalities

[0:30:24] Planner Chadwick: are able to do. Thank

[0:30:31] Voice 7: you. Welcome back

[0:30:33] Voice 3: of trustee

[0:30:33] Trustee Patrick: eights and we'll go to the next question what

[0:30:36] Voice 3: is the purpose of the reference

[0:30:37] Voice 3: to 200 meters in the draft ocp um

[0:30:45] Planner Chadwick: so this this is something that was content it was a it was

[0:30:49] Planner Chadwick: something that was um i think misunderstood uh in the early stages of uh or i mean earlier this

[0:30:56] Planner Chadwick: year when we did some outreach um and it's been misinterpreted as a as a setback which is not

[0:31:03] Planner Chadwick: what it is at all. It's a setback, as many know, identifies essentially where you can put your

[0:31:12] Planner Chadwick: house on your lot, and it considers how the setbacks are set. They consider things like

[0:31:22] Planner Chadwick: like not bugging your neighbors and impacts on the sea, for example.

[0:31:32] Planner Chadwick: The setbacks tend to be larger when we're talking about waterfront.

[0:31:39] Planner Chadwick: And generally in the trust area, they range from 15 to 30 meters,

[0:31:44] Planner Chadwick: and 30 is the provincial recommendation.

[0:31:46] Planner Chadwick: There's no intention to go beyond that.

[0:31:49] Planner Chadwick: with the and there's nothing in the OCP that actually suggests that 200 meters

[0:31:57] Planner Chadwick: has been used as a reference with respect to informing First Nations about

[0:32:06] Planner Chadwick: when there's an application to to vary by law so again rezoning temporary use

[0:32:14] Planner Chadwick: use permit, subdivision, development variance.

[0:32:18] Planner Chadwick: Because what we've understood,

[0:32:20] Planner Chadwick: what we've come to understand as staff

[0:32:22] Planner Chadwick: in our conversations with First Nations along the coast,

[0:32:27] Planner Chadwick: so not just the ones within the Gabriola area,

[0:32:33] Planner Chadwick: is that when we do have a record of archaeology,

[0:32:41] Planner Chadwick: Archaeology. Why am I having a tough time with that word today? Arc sites, let's just say.

[0:32:47] Planner Chadwick: We have a record of it. When those sites are recorded, they're recorded when there is work

[0:32:53] Planner Chadwick: being done. So we talked about the chance find protocol. So that's the process that says if you

[0:32:59] Planner Chadwick: find something, you've got to call the province, you've got to call and you've got to have an

[0:33:04] Planner Chadwick: assessment. And that's when these arc sites actually get recorded. But what we understand

[0:33:09] Planner Chadwick: from the work that we've been doing

[0:33:13] Planner Chadwick: with nations along the coast

[0:33:15] Planner Chadwick: is that, you know, that area,

[0:33:18] Planner Chadwick: there's an expanse,

[0:33:19] Planner Chadwick: if you find something in one area,

[0:33:21] Planner Chadwick: the chances are that there's an expanse of area

[0:33:26] Planner Chadwick: that expands beyond that,

[0:33:29] Planner Chadwick: particularly when you're close to the shoreline.

[0:33:32] Planner Chadwick: So we've added this policy as a consideration

[0:33:37] Planner Chadwick: So that nations and different nations have more details on the archaeological sites than we do.

[0:33:50] Planner Chadwick: And so it's an opportunity for them to be aware of the work that might be happening and to express their concerns before a referral goes out.

[0:34:01] Planner Chadwick: because ultimately, for rezonings and such, a referral will go out later. So it's better to

[0:34:08] Planner Chadwick: get that input ahead of time than later, because it will further delay the process potentially.

[0:34:25] Planner Chadwick: I think the other thing to point out is that 200 meters is sort of a best practices out there.

[0:34:31] Planner Chadwick: And it's, again, it's beyond, it's beyond just nations that are related to the Gabriela area.

[0:34:46] Planner Chadwick: And we do, there is a policy that we have, that staff have flagged for some conversation because it has been identified by,

[0:34:56] Planner Chadwick: there's been some concern by community members expressed around amendments not increasing density or intensity of development within 200 meters

[0:35:07] Planner Chadwick: or of known or potential archaeological heritage sites, unless it can be demonstrated that such development would not adversely affect Indigenous heritage value.

[0:35:20] Planner Chadwick: So we do have that as a point for conversation later in the meeting.

[0:35:28] Planner Chadwick: Thank you. Trustee Elliott?

[0:35:33] Voice 5: Thanks. And perhaps in the meantime, when we get to that discussion, could staff perhaps look up some of the ministry's direction in terms of early referral and the process that the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs is expecting with OCP reviews and significant bylaws?

[0:35:53] Voice 5: I think it's really important.

[0:35:55] Voice 5: for the public to understand the ministry's expectations,

[0:35:58] Voice 5: that this isn't necessarily Islands Trust adding something new into the process

[0:36:04] Voice 5: in response to First Nations concerns, which, of course,

[0:36:07] Voice 5: as those conversations have evolved and trust is building,

[0:36:11] Voice 5: relationships are strengthening, we're hearing more of that information.

[0:36:16] Voice 5: But I think it would be good to understand that from the ministry side as well.

[0:36:20] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, I think I can actually speak directly to that right now,

[0:36:24] Planner Chadwick: because we have had some conversation with the ministry in the last couple of months to define,

[0:36:30] Planner Chadwick: they want a much clearer process. They have defined a very clear process for us

[0:36:36] Planner Chadwick: in terms of how we report our engagement with nations, and it's very detailed. And

[0:36:44] Planner Chadwick: And essentially, they want to see us doing that early engagement as best possible.

[0:36:54] Planner Chadwick: And we have had bylaws held up by the ministry because they haven't seen that we've demonstrated

[0:37:10] Planner Chadwick: the type of engagement that they're hoping for.

[0:37:13] Planner Chadwick: so we are um we have been doing you know work that we've done on denman recently and the work

[0:37:22] Planner Chadwick: that we're doing with cinemoc uh through the ocp process we are doing much more than we have in the

[0:37:30] Planner Chadwick: past um with the hopes that we can establish a process that we are establishing a process that

[0:37:37] Planner Chadwick: the the province recognizes as being um um the type of early engagement that they're hoping to

[0:37:42] Planner Chadwick: to see.

[0:37:45] Voice 7: Thank you. Next question.

[0:37:50] Voice 3: We've had a question in the chat regarding the cultural

[0:37:53] Voice 3: heritage protection piece. It says section 2.5.1 bylaw amendment evaluations refers to

[0:38:01] Voice 3: non-tangible cultural heritage. The question asker is wondering if you can please explain

[0:38:07] Voice 3: what non-tangible is. So, and

[0:38:14] Planner Chadwick: this is, you know, it's been a learning process for, I think,

[0:38:17] Planner Chadwick: staff and trustees around understanding that there are values in the land that are not just

[0:38:25] Planner Chadwick: archaeological. And, you know, in the OCP, we have identified the importance of engaging

[0:38:32] Planner Chadwick: engaging First Nations and cultural knowledge holders in our decision-making processes where possible.

[0:38:44] Planner Chadwick: And that's where I think we can come to learn more clearly in those particular instances what those other values that are not, you know, the archaeological evidence values are.

[0:39:01] Planner Chadwick: So it is, I think it, the way that I see it is it's something that would be determined within the context of a change that we may be making.

[0:39:17] Voice 7: Thank you very much. Next question.

[0:39:22] Voice 3: We've got a mix of questions and recommendations here.

[0:39:26] Voice 3: here um the first one is could you put um italics uh use italics throughout the document

[0:39:33] Voice 3: um for all words that have definitions that correspond to the definition section of the

[0:39:39] Voice 3: document uh

[0:39:41] Planner Chadwick: this is very detailed question we can add that to our um to our logistics

[0:39:47] Planner Chadwick: um discussion well i'll

[0:39:50] Voice 3: just i'll just note um from our communication specialist that um

[0:39:53] Voice 3: She shared that italics are typically reserved for the name of an act, so such as the Islands

[0:39:59] Voice 3: Trust Act, scientific names of species or titles.

[0:40:03] Voice 3: So there may be another way in our design process of the OCP to make it clear where the definitions are available, but it may not be through the use of italics.

[0:40:13] Voice 3: But I think the point is we flagged this as an important point to make the document more accessible.

[0:40:19] Voice 3: possible. We have a question regarding the vision statement and a suggestion to remove all the

[0:40:27] Voice 3: wording except the actual statement that the statement would be stronger without the other

[0:40:33] Voice 3: wording and that the suggestion that some of the other wording is a bit repetitive and sort of

[0:40:39] Voice 3: gives a reason for the vision whereas if you just had the actual vision statement that might be a

[0:40:46] Voice 3: a little punchier.

[0:40:47] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, so again, I think let's add that to our, because we do have,

[0:40:52] Planner Chadwick: I think we do refer to the vision in our materials, so, or we can just add that,

[0:40:59] Planner Chadwick: let's add, we can add a conversation about the vision statement. Stephen, can you add that to

[0:41:04] Planner Chadwick: the list? Next question.

[0:41:11] Voice 3: Regarding community values, in the first sentence, someone's wondering

[0:41:16] Voice 3: wondering if you could change the word considerations to convictions. They think

[0:41:22] Voice 3: this is a stronger word and it's important because of the significance of the values that guide this

[0:41:27] Voice 3: document. Yeah, we can add that. Let's add that to our vision statement discussion. Okay. And then

[0:41:34] Voice 3: just a final bit on the values is a suggestion to list them in alphabetical order. We can also

[0:41:42] Voice 3: discuss that. Okay. On the affordable housing section, for clarity, could you substitute

[0:41:50] Voice 3: affordable housing for non-market throughout the document? In section 2.7.2.1, non-market is

[0:41:59] Voice 3: defined as needing a housing agreement, which is the same criterion as the definition for

[0:42:04] Voice 3: affordable housing.

[0:42:07] Planner Chadwick: Yeah. So let's review that when we get to our discussion.

[0:42:11] Voice 3: Okay. And just a

[0:42:12] Voice 3: reminder to those joining us today that please go ahead and type your questions into the Q&A box

[0:42:18] Voice 3: if you have questions that still haven't been answered. We've got just a couple more that

[0:42:23] Voice 3: have come in here. In the draft, there are no land use bylaws or covenants to protect

[0:42:30] Voice 3: groundwater recharge areas and the forests that supply them. Why are subdividable lands being

[0:42:36] Voice 3: looked at for development, but not as areas to restore forest lands to protect the resupply

[0:42:42] Voice 3: of groundwater?

[0:42:45] Planner Chadwick: So I think part of that question has been answered, that there is a recommendation

[0:42:54] Planner Chadwick: that one of the next steps in implementing the OCP would be the development of a groundwater

[0:43:02] Planner Chadwick: water protect or critical aquifer protection uh development permit area um and um um i you know i

[0:43:11] Planner Chadwick: do think that the the ocp does does include a number of policies that encourage um encourage

[0:43:19] Planner Chadwick: the um the preservation of of and protection of um of environment generally uh trustee elliot

[0:43:33] Voice 7: Thank

[0:43:34] Voice 5: you. I think this is a really ripe area for discussion because there's two, I believe, there's two ways that it could be looked at when you're talking protecting forests and critical aquifer areas.

[0:43:47] Voice 5: What you just described, the development permit area, applying to an area that has a resource that maybe spans property lines and lots, that's one approach.

[0:44:01] Voice 5: And I think my understanding is that's a future project.

[0:44:04] Voice 5: But when it comes to the other end of things, the lot-specific or the parcel-specific development application, how are covenants and protection of groundwater, how can they be assured through the process of applying for extra housing on those subdividable lots?

[0:44:27] Voice 5: This is an area of intense interest to me. I've done some research and I'd like to have a conversation about a different term and different criteria in this meeting because I think this is the, what I'm hearing from community is this is the protection of the environment, of the water and of the forest that our community is looking for if there's going to be any extra development.

[0:44:52] Voice 5: So from the, you know, sort of land mass size, I don't know what to call it, but then at the parcel size as well.

[0:45:01] Voice 5: So I have some materials on that we could bring forward during that discussion. Thanks.

[0:45:09] Voice 7: Thank you.

[0:45:11] Voice 3: Next question.

[0:45:14] Voice 3: We've got a follow up question to the questions that were answered earlier around cultural heritage protection.

[0:45:21] Voice 3: So perhaps Planner Chadwick, you could take this one.

[0:45:24] Voice 3: what changes islands trust proposing regarding non-tangible cultural heritage

[0:45:29] Voice 3: um

[0:45:33] Planner Chadwick: i i think i think the only the only the change to the existing ocp is that it's been identified

[0:45:40] Planner Chadwick: as a value as something to be considered all

[0:45:51] Voice 7: right next question um

[0:45:59] Voice 3: we are nearing the end

[0:46:00] Voice 3: of our questions i see oh okay we've got um quite a long one here just give me a second

[0:46:09] Voice 3: into oh

[0:46:10] Planner Chadwick: so right yeah we've

[0:46:11] Planner Chadwick: got this one so i'm just looking here um this is this is talking about

[0:46:17] Planner Chadwick: the maximum uh floor area that we so we have this discussion um uh related to the the flexible

[0:46:25] Planner Chadwick: housing we're going to have a discussion related to all of these points these are points that were

[0:46:29] Planner Chadwick: were identified in materials received by GILS.

[0:46:37] Planner Chadwick: And so this is included in the staff report for discussion.

[0:46:42] Voice 3: Okay.

[0:46:43] Voice 3: So you've got these specific questions from the Gabriel Island Land Stewards Society

[0:46:47] Voice 3: that are going to be part of the discussion.

[0:46:49] Voice 3: Correct.

[0:46:49] Planner Chadwick: I do notice that they have a new one, one that was not previously submitted,

[0:46:54] Planner Chadwick: and that's why I set a maximum number of new units at 25,

[0:46:58] Planner Chadwick: just because main island has seen a slow uptake uh this is just a suggestion for conversation

[0:47:04] Planner Chadwick: um because there's been concern around um i think there's some concern that there's going to be a

[0:47:11] Planner Chadwick: flood of applications um so a staff have just put a number in for conversation uh really because we

[0:47:21] Planner Chadwick: feel like the trustees need to give this a bit of thought

[0:47:25] Voice 3: that's the end of the questions that

[0:47:28] Voice 3: been submitted at this time chair all right

[0:47:32] Voice 3: um i

[0:47:35] Trustee Patrick: really uh oops there's another question that just

[0:47:40] Trustee Patrick: popped in i just

[0:47:41] Trustee Patrick: saw a move but um while staff are looking at that i think it's really important

[0:47:48] Trustee Patrick: go ahead trustee elliott i

[0:47:51] Voice 5: was just noticing in the chat a request to include the policy or the

[0:47:57] Voice 5: draft policy uh reference when we're talking about uh or we're giving an answer so we might need to

[0:48:05] Voice 5: slow down and just make sure that um we can help people refer to the the appropriate section in the

[0:48:11] Voice 5: draft ocp thanks is

[0:48:23] Voice 7: there a particular policy that needs to be looked up at this moment

[0:48:29] Voice 5: i'm just seeing it's a question that came in uh 947 under the open questions when a question is

[0:48:35] Voice 5: being addressed please where possible direct us to what section of the ocp is being addressed so

[0:48:44] Voice 5: but if there's no more questions well

[0:48:51] Voice 7: i think i was just going to

[0:48:52] Voice 7: talk a bit about process sorry of course now it's getting loud do we

[0:49:03] Voice 5: want to pause maybe

[0:49:04] Voice 5: chair patrick and you can move to a better location or i

[0:49:09] Trustee Patrick: can't move anywhere for 10 minutes

[0:49:10] Trustee Patrick: if we're going to pause pause at 10 o'clock what i wanted to say was i think there's

[0:49:16] Trustee Patrick: sometimes, what is first reading? What does that mean? I think there's some belief that a first

[0:49:22] Trustee Patrick: reading means you're there. A first reading is truly an introduction. We have introduced a draft

[0:49:30] Trustee Patrick: prior to first reading to receive your comments and hear them and to consider them in a version

[0:49:37] Trustee Patrick: that could be considered to first reading. But first reading itself, when it occurs,

[0:49:42] Trustee Patrick: is simply an introduction of the draft.

[0:49:45] Trustee Patrick: It puts it out there now.

[0:49:47] Trustee Patrick: There will be a new local trust committee.

[0:49:50] Trustee Patrick: They could do further engagement.

[0:49:52] Trustee Patrick: There could be other steps that will be involved,

[0:49:55] Trustee Patrick: but changes can occur after the first draft

[0:50:00] Trustee Patrick: and changes will occur after the first draft.

[0:50:02] Trustee Patrick: That is the signal that we really do want to get comments.

[0:50:06] Trustee Patrick: We're getting serious about this document

[0:50:08] Trustee Patrick: and the process will move forward at that time.

[0:50:11] Trustee Patrick: So I know people are feeling like they've got to get their comments in for this version.

[0:50:18] Trustee Patrick: Continue to put your comments in.

[0:50:20] Trustee Patrick: The local trust committee, if it considers first reading, that'll be at September 3rd.

[0:50:26] Trustee Patrick: Would that be correct?

[0:50:29] Trustee Patrick: And so they could still make changes to the document at that meeting if they chose to as well.

[0:50:37] Trustee Patrick: And then said first reading is just really the beginning of the process.

[0:50:40] Trustee Patrick: us. Trustee Yates.

[0:50:44] Voice 4: Thank you, Chair Patrick. I know, you know, some people have accused us

[0:50:49] Voice 4: of rushing this process to get to first reading by September 3rd, because that will be the last

[0:50:57] Voice 4: meeting of this local trust committee. I feel quite differently about that. I feel that we have

[0:51:05] Voice 4: immersed ourselves in this process every single comment and question that comes both

[0:51:12] Voice 4: individually to us and to us as a trust committee is considered every single comment

[0:51:18] Voice 4: even if comments come to me after today's meeting before first reading after first reading

[0:51:27] Voice 4: I make note of them. They don't get lost. And I do notice, you know, general patterns of concern

[0:51:35] Voice 4: or people that are happy with certain things. That's really important. So for me, and I really

[0:51:43] Voice 4: am looking at the longer, bigger picture here. For me, it's a big deal to get to first reading

[0:51:48] Voice 4: because then we refer this to the agencies. I want to see those agencies' comments. That's

[0:51:57] Voice 4: really important for me to know what the agencies actually think about this vision that we see for

[0:52:06] Voice 4: Gabriela for the next 30 to 50 years. And there will be lots of opportunity after first reading

[0:52:14] Voice 4: for for the public to comment but but getting it to first reading is just such

[0:52:19] Voice 4: an important step for me personally because then we have a document that it's

[0:52:29] Voice 4: just I don't know just something that that something more to work with and

[0:52:37] Voice 4: there will be lots of people who think you know we're rushing this but we're

[0:52:42] Voice 4: not rushing this um when i think about the time it takes to incorporate everyone's comments and

[0:52:50] Voice 4: opinions and concerns it's not rushed um so i did have a really quick question

[0:52:58] Voice 4: for planner baugh which i should have asked yesterday um when i'm looking at the central

[0:53:04] Voice 4: Vancouver Island Medical Health Officers report regarding our OCP, draft OCP.

[0:53:12] Voice 4: It's a referral letter, and it's a really good one.

[0:53:15] Voice 4: And I'm wondering why they commented on this draft before first reading.

[0:53:24] Voice 2: That's, so, good question.

[0:53:29] Voice 2: I don't know, actually, is the answer, really.

[0:53:32] Voice 2: It wasn't an outreach from us to them.

[0:53:36] Voice 2: it was that we had the draft posted on our website

[0:53:41] Voice 2: and we're accepting comments on it.

[0:53:43] Voice 2: So they just, they had taken hold of that.

[0:53:45] Voice 2: So I had been in touch with their staff

[0:53:47] Voice 2: and when they reached out and to let them know about,

[0:53:52] Voice 2: yeah, about the draft being posted on our site

[0:53:54] Voice 2: and they took that as the invitation to respond early on.

[0:54:00] Voice 2: So that's nice that we have that feedback now

[0:54:02] Voice 2: and um and we'll you know we would anticipate including them in a referral after first reading

[0:54:09] Voice 2: as well um so so

[0:54:11] Voice 4: so that just harkens back to my my desire to see this go out to referral agencies

[0:54:17] Voice 4: because when i read their letters i thought wow they've really taken time to look so carefully

[0:54:23] Voice 4: at all the different parts of this draft ocp and um i have to say many of their comments echo

[0:54:32] Voice 4: echo concerns and feelings and happy points from local residents.

[0:54:37] Voice 4: So I really appreciate that.

[0:54:39] Voice 4: Thank you, Stephen.

[0:54:49] Voice 7: Sorry, trusty alien.

[0:54:50] Voice 5: I was muted.

[0:54:51] Voice 5: Thanks, Chair.

[0:54:53] Voice 5: Yeah, just following up on the public feedback and the early engagement with our community

[0:55:00] Voice 5: members and as we step towards first reading, I really just want to acknowledge and thank

[0:55:07] Voice 5: the many, many people who have written in with detailed and really helpful suggestions,

[0:55:16] Voice 5: corrections, comments, edits. When I saw the second draft, I was really, I feel like it's

[0:55:24] Voice 5: gotten refined a lot more. There were some things that, you know, were legacies of the previous OCP,

[0:55:30] Voice 5: For instance, the genetically modified seeds and 24 units of multi-unit residential that were there that I had to ask questions, well, why are they there? And we're getting to a place now where I feel much more confident in the draft and I understand what's being presented a lot better through this process.

[0:55:55] Voice 5: And I wanted to thank staff for being so responsive to the community's comments.

[0:55:59] Voice 5: We've had a lot of feedback.

[0:56:02] Voice 5: I do want to, the second point of that is, I actually do want to share that my feeling

[0:56:11] Voice 5: is that there's not been a broad enough engagement.

[0:56:17] Voice 5: And I think part of that is due to timing.

[0:56:20] Voice 5: Maybe we can get into that after.

[0:56:21] Voice 5: But there is, there's not a lot of feedback from underhoused, younger folks, working people, business owners, trades, folks under 50, families.

[0:56:38] Voice 5: And I can't say that categorically.

[0:56:40] Voice 5: I don't know every single person that is written in, but largely the feedback has come in my understanding from people who understand bylaw development process and policymaking and have engaged with the trust for a long period of time.

[0:56:56] Voice 5: So I think more work needs to be done to reach out to people who simply don't have the time to engage or understand how to.

[0:57:06] Voice 5: And that's something that I'd like to see us work on for the next couple of months, one month or two.

[0:57:14] Voice 5: And then hopefully the new LTC will deepen that engagement once we have a draft at first reading and provide opportunities for people in the community who aren't used to this kind of process.

[0:57:27] Voice 5: So I just wanted to flag that there needs to be more work. The feedback has been extremely helpful and constructive. And I think we've got a much stronger document. But I think we're missing a fairly substantial segment of the community that doesn't understand this process. I've been reaching out to people and working on how to engage them more deeply. So thanks for everyone's work and thanks for the community's feedback. It's been amazing.

[0:57:58] Trustee Patrick: Thank you. The staff, we have Chloe and we've got Planner Chadwick.

[0:58:10] Voice 3: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to share that a new question has come in through the chat. So it's, when is first reading proposed? I think we had said September 3rd. And will the community be having formal written response from First Nations prior to first reading?

[0:58:26] Trustee Patrick: No, referrals, the first reading kicks off the referral process. So Planner Chadwick?

[0:58:34] Trustee Patrick: Yeah,

[0:58:34] Planner Chadwick: so I'll answer the question first. And then I just had a comment. So yeah, so we've got the date for the first reading, September 3rd. Should LTC wish to continue with what has been identified? And we don't know if we'll have response by September. Yeah, we're not sure at this point.

[0:59:02] Planner Chadwick: I wanted to just add to the comments that Trustee Elliott made related to the input that we've received.

[0:59:12] Planner Chadwick: I have, staff have really appreciated it.

[0:59:16] Planner Chadwick: And I know, and I just wanted to acknowledge those that have really dug into that document and provided punctuation suggestions, grammar.

[0:59:28] Planner Chadwick: I mean, it has been an incredible community effort, I would say, and we've received a lot of additional feedback in this period of time, in days before, after the staff report was put out.

[0:59:54] Planner Chadwick: And I assure you that all of those, all of those.

[1:00:00] Planner Chadwick: changes that aren't substantive so anything that's related to a functionation punctuation grammar the

[1:00:05] Planner Chadwick: use of a better word um those things have been in court that are consistently being incorporated

[1:00:10] Planner Chadwick: into the draft so um it feels um yeah i i just i'm just very very grateful uh to the folks that

[1:00:19] Planner Chadwick: have put in the effort all

[1:00:23] Trustee Patrick: right and uh so are the trustees i think we're every comment is taken

[1:00:28] Trustee Patrick: taken seriously and considered, and that's so important.

[1:00:33] Trustee Patrick: I was in a meeting last night when someone asked,

[1:00:35] Trustee Patrick: how many comments do you need to receive from the public

[1:00:38] Trustee Patrick: before you take it seriously?

[1:00:40] Trustee Patrick: And I think you can see one is all that's needed.

[1:00:42] Trustee Patrick: Each comment is read and taken on its own merit.

[1:00:46] Trustee Patrick: Yes, we receive comments that are duplicative,

[1:00:49] Trustee Patrick: but really appreciate the work that you bring in,

[1:00:52] Trustee Patrick: and it is taken seriously, and we have more meeting here to come.

[1:00:57] Trustee Patrick: So, thank you. You're welcome to continue to listen on. We are going to take, I think, a 10-minute break. I'm going to move locations. If I'm not back functioning in 10 minutes, I'll ask one of the local trustees to kick in and just get the meeting chaired and move on, and I'll be joining momentarily.

[1:01:13] Trustee Patrick: So, thank you, everyone. We're going to take a 10-minute break, and then we're going to carry on with discussing the OCP draft. So, thank you.

[1:01:22] Voice 9: I

[1:12:09] Trustee Patrick: made it. Is everybody back? So

[1:12:27] Trustee Patrick: again, I wanted to thank everyone who provided questions. And I know you still have questions. That's great. Keep your questions coming in. And we are truly interested and want to hear them. All right. Trustee Elliott?

[1:12:49] Voice 5: I just had a question, again, about process here. As we go into our discussion, and, you know, we're going to be making decisions, yes, and giving direction, but if something comes up and people are unclear about something or what policy we're referencing, could the Q&A still be monitored so that maybe we don't answer the questions directly, but we can cast an eye and make decisions?

[1:13:19] Voice 5: make sure that we're slowing down enough to reference policies and what we're talking about

[1:13:24] Voice 5: and maybe there's information being provided. I know it's not usual because we don't typically

[1:13:29] Voice 5: take information from the public as we're having our discussion but I just wondered about the

[1:13:34] Voice 5: possibility of being able to keep sort of a chat or the Q&A open so that we can see if we're just

[1:13:44] Voice 5: not being clear on something just for the public's information because I think this is a really

[1:13:48] Voice 5: valuable for them and

[1:13:50] Trustee Patrick: we can do the best we can um it's always hard to monitor that real time

[1:13:54] Trustee Patrick: always but we'll do our best we can but i think as we have our conversation we should always be

[1:13:58] Trustee Patrick: referencing the policies that we're talking about because one that'll help the minute taker and

[1:14:02] Trustee Patrick: staff as well so that we're very clear what we're talking about so uh with that i'm going to move we

[1:14:10] Trustee Patrick: do have um this is now in the agenda item 5.1 this is a staff report on the ocp land use review

[1:14:19] Trustee Patrick: project beginning on page two of the agenda package and i will let uh planner chadwick

[1:14:26] Trustee Patrick: introduce the staff report and how the session should be organized so go ahead

[1:14:31] Trustee Patrick: uh

[1:14:33] Planner Chadwick: thank you church patrick so um what staff have done is we've taken um any of the sort of

[1:14:43] Planner Chadwick: substantive comments and and the uh suggest suggestions for change and we've put them in

[1:14:53] Planner Chadwick: to a chart which you find on page

[1:14:59] Planner Chadwick: six.

[1:15:03] Planner Chadwick: And so the intention is to have a conversation about

[1:15:07] Planner Chadwick: those. We can also have a conversation

[1:15:11] Planner Chadwick: about changes that have been made. So page

[1:15:15] Planner Chadwick: three and four, three to five of the staff

[1:15:20] Planner Chadwick: report lists changes that were made

[1:15:23] Planner Chadwick: to the document based on input

[1:15:27] Planner Chadwick: that was discussed and LTC

[1:15:32] Planner Chadwick: direction

[1:15:39] Planner Chadwick: following the June 16th

[1:15:43] Planner Chadwick: meeting. So there have been some changes that have been made.

[1:15:48] Planner Chadwick: Many of them are

[1:15:53] Planner Chadwick: There are editorial ones, and there are some that were specifically LTC directives, and that's been identified.

[1:16:04] Planner Chadwick: You'll see that we've identified where it's been a technical change.

[1:16:08] Planner Chadwick: This is in the draft that's in the staff report.

[1:16:10] Planner Chadwick: We've identified where it's come from.

[1:16:13] Planner Chadwick: There's been a suggestion that's come from a community member.

[1:16:18] Planner Chadwick: member and again where those have been sort of not from staff's perspective in need of large

[1:16:25] Planner Chadwick: discussion because either discussion has already had happened or it's it's more of a technical

[1:16:31] Planner Chadwick: change we've made those and that so that's what you see in the draft that you have before you so

[1:16:36] Planner Chadwick: there's opportunity to discuss pull out anything in that list of changes made and I would suggest

[1:16:44] Planner Chadwick: yes, we have that discussion first. And then we'll move into

[1:16:48] Planner Chadwick: the discussion related to the questions that have emerged from

[1:16:52] Planner Chadwick: the public. And, and, oh, sorry, the additional, sorry. So we

[1:17:02] Planner Chadwick: will go through the the changes made and identified. And then,

[1:17:10] Planner Chadwick: and then we can go through questions related to any

[1:17:14] Planner Chadwick: any additional changes.

[1:17:15] Planner Chadwick: And I've also, we received some,

[1:17:19] Planner Chadwick: we did receive some input from the public

[1:17:22] Planner Chadwick: after the staff report was published prior to the 31st.

[1:17:27] Planner Chadwick: So there were two days there

[1:17:28] Planner Chadwick: where we had to get the staff report in,

[1:17:30] Planner Chadwick: but we invited the public to comment

[1:17:34] Planner Chadwick: until the end of the month.

[1:17:36] Planner Chadwick: And so I've captured, staff have captured those,

[1:17:40] Planner Chadwick: the things that have come out of that

[1:17:42] Planner Chadwick: for discussion as well.

[1:17:44] Planner Chadwick: So we can continue to have, we can refer to those. And I would note, as I noted before, there is the material that was provided by GILS, the organization. I think we can sort of go through some of the questions that were posed because they're very focused on potential changes.

[1:18:12] Voice 4: All right. Trustee Yates, do you have a question?

[1:18:15] Voice 4: Oh, just to clarify that we're talking about changes made to the draft OCP since July 16th, not June.

[1:18:26] Planner Chadwick: Oh, yeah. Sorry. That's right. Trustee Yates, you pointed that out to me earlier. And I'm just I'm working with my July 16th. Sorry.

[1:18:34] Planner Chadwick: yeah so i suggest we just move sort of move methodically through the list um and if there

[1:18:40] Planner Chadwick: are things that you want to flag for discussion we can have a discussion if there are things that

[1:18:45] Planner Chadwick: are emerging out of you know there are some areas um where uh we we've already noted we want to have

[1:18:52] Planner Chadwick: some more discussion like the community vision we received some um comments from a member of the

[1:18:57] Planner Chadwick: public there um so we just we'll just move through it uh and and then we can be like like i mentioned

[1:19:04] Planner Chadwick: before there's a few others that aren't on the list that um that had to come in and i also know

[1:19:10] Planner Chadwick: that trustees have also read all of the correspondence that has have come in as well

[1:19:14] Planner Chadwick: so if there if there are things that you're not seeing also this is the opportunity to to put it

[1:19:20] Planner Chadwick: it all out there um yeah so all right

[1:19:26] Trustee Patrick: so that's beginning uh the on page three of the agenda uh

[1:19:32] Trustee Patrick: table one uh so go ahead uh planner chadwick and sort of leave this discussion that will be easier

[1:19:41] Trustee Patrick: yeah

[1:19:42] Planner Chadwick: so let's let's let's we'll just start like i said we'll go sort of methodically through this

[1:19:48] Planner Chadwick: uh this table so the first thing on the list here is um just a table of context tense update and

[1:19:54] Planner Chadwick: And I mean, all of this is also in the interest of keeping everything completely transparent

[1:19:59] Planner Chadwick: in terms of the steps that we're taking and the work that staff is doing.

[1:20:04] Planner Chadwick: So table of contents, we are having some technical challenges with the table of contents.

[1:20:13] Planner Chadwick: So there may be numbers that are a little bit out of order.

[1:20:17] Planner Chadwick: Before first reading, everything will be in order in terms of numbering.

[1:20:23] Planner Chadwick: So I wanted to point that out. Any questions related to that? No.

[1:20:31] Planner Chadwick: Okay. Indigenous contacts and the settlement timeline.

[1:20:36] Planner Chadwick: As I'd mentioned in our previous conversation before the break, we have put in draft language that is still under review by CINEMUC staff.

[1:20:49] Planner Chadwick: staff and uh and so we are working with them to um to get uh some confirmation on on that

[1:20:58] Planner Chadwick: before first reading uh

[1:21:02] Trustee Patrick: trust you know go ahead and just call call you know trustee aids

[1:21:06] Trustee Patrick: okay

[1:21:07] Voice 4: thank you i don't know if this exactly fits into indigenous context and settlement timeline

[1:21:15] Voice 4: line. In fact, it doesn't. But I noted in the Island Health reference referral letter, they

[1:21:22] Voice 4: talked about we do not address Indigenous food sovereignty. So I just wanted to note, we need

[1:21:29] Voice 4: to get that in there somewhere.

[1:21:33] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, thanks for raising that, Trustee Yates. And I guess that's

[1:21:36] Planner Chadwick: also another question to the LTC. What staff recommendation would be that we do integrate

[1:21:48] Planner Chadwick: the comments from Island Health that are practical to integrate? So I guess I'll just ask you that

[1:21:57] Planner Chadwick: question right now. I think you've both had a look at that. I've looked at it. It's a really

[1:22:02] Planner Chadwick: really impressive review, I think, of the of the OCP.

[1:22:07] Planner Chadwick: And there are a few things in there that are, I would say, a little bit urban focused.

[1:22:15] Planner Chadwick: And so what we would intend to do is go through and make the changes that are suggested that

[1:22:20] Planner Chadwick: work within the context of the of Gabriela and flag the ones that we didn't.

[1:22:25] Planner Chadwick: And we would do that for for first reading if that if trustees are supportive of that

[1:22:31] Planner Chadwick: approach.

[1:22:38] Planner Chadwick: Okay, so we'll make a

[1:22:39] Planner Chadwick: note of that.

[1:22:41] Planner Chadwick: Can

[1:22:41] Voice 4: we ask you a couple of questions relating to that letter right now?

[1:22:47] Voice 4: Sure.

[1:22:49] Planner Chadwick: Do you want to stay

[1:22:50] Voice 4: on this letter?

[1:22:51] Planner Chadwick: While we're on the topic, we might as well.

[1:22:53] Planner Chadwick: Okay.

[1:22:55] Voice 4: Because I did note there were things that we're probably not able to put into our OCP.

[1:23:01] Voice 4: But a couple of things that I thought would be easy.

[1:23:04] Voice 4: um and one of them is one of the things that i think about quite often is natural landscape

[1:23:11] Voice 4: preservation and pollinator habitat and they they talk about this under natural environment

[1:23:18] Voice 4: and resource stewardship so that would be um well i haven't got a um a number here but if we could

[1:23:26] Voice 4: could somehow slip that in there. I think that would be easy to do. And they talk about us

[1:23:38] Voice 4: establish responsible water stewardship bylaws. I think we're doing the best we can right now

[1:23:44] Voice 4: on that. And we obviously will be following through on this. They also talk about developing

[1:23:50] Voice 4: a soil management plan. And probably the best we can do with that is to get something under

[1:23:57] Voice 4: under agriculture, and to get a soil removal bylaw in place, perhaps. So that seems important to me.

[1:24:06] Voice 4: I'm really glad that they talked about transportation and active transportation,

[1:24:12] Voice 4: recreation and community spaces. I mean, I'm just so grateful how they've, you know,

[1:24:18] Voice 4: given their responses in these important categories. They also talk a lot about

[1:24:24] Voice 4: accessible and sustainable housing. And they talk about increased residential density and accessory

[1:24:31] Voice 4: dwellings without municipal drinking water and sewer services. So I think that's really one of

[1:24:39] Voice 4: the key areas where people here are very concerned will increased density affect sewage and water

[1:24:49] Voice 4: water provision but that's how we don't deal with it in the same way that a municipality does

[1:24:55] Voice 4: what we deal with it is we put some kind of major restrictions on increasing density where it goes

[1:25:03] Voice 4: how how much space it takes up and setbacks and that kind of thing so i'm glad they mentioned

[1:25:09] Voice 4: that however they talk about secondary suites and flexible housing on lots of two acres or less

[1:25:16] Voice 4: Yes, consider the servicing capacity.

[1:25:21] Voice 4: I hope we do that.

[1:25:22] Voice 4: That's certainly been brought up by the public with regard to this draft OCP.

[1:25:29] Voice 4: And they talk about transportation and road safety, which we don't, we can't do a lot about that in our OCP.

[1:25:37] Voice 4: And I think the statements we have are really good in our OCP.

[1:25:42] Voice 4: um and the um the other thing they talk about is the fairy hill and of course you know we're

[1:25:51] Voice 4: supporting all of the work that the regional district is doing with moti and other agencies

[1:25:57] Voice 4: to get a safe transit area from the ferry to the village um but i really like their final

[1:26:06] Voice 4: statement is this OCP provides a strong foundation for guiding future growth because we know we're

[1:26:13] Voice 4: going to have future growth and building climate resilient communities so I think that is just

[1:26:20] Voice 4: I really appreciate that and I look forward to their next response after first reading

[1:26:27] Voice 4: that's that's really all the things I wanted to point out thank you trustee Elliot yeah I'm

[1:26:39] Voice 5: I'm really heartened by this, this referral, it kind of is a referral response and they really do go through the draft with a few critical lenses.

[1:26:52] Voice 5: I think especially the consideration of climate related hazards, how residents can be supported and preparing for climate related hazards, especially those with certain vulnerabilities.

[1:27:03] Voice 5: and it's they they really employed an equity lens uh community-based initiatives and preparedness

[1:27:11] Voice 5: programs and so some of this ranges into you know what the rdn does through its emergency

[1:27:17] Voice 5: preparedness um program it's more services oriented but i think the point of equity focused

[1:27:25] Voice 5: policies, particularly if we're talking about, you know, adding layers of regulation to protect

[1:27:34] Voice 5: people and to protect development from climate related hazards, but the extra costs and the

[1:27:40] Voice 5: impacts and all of that. So what I'm wondering is, is this, could we get back to island health

[1:27:49] Voice 5: and say that this really is going to be useful as a referral response

[1:27:55] Voice 5: and give staff a little more time to go through the many pieces of feedback

[1:28:03] Voice 5: and the suite of recommendations.

[1:28:06] Voice 5: There's a lot there.

[1:28:07] Voice 5: And to bring back some options during the, like in the early referral period

[1:28:13] Voice 5: that we can consider or the next LTC, or is it possible to do some of this now?

[1:28:18] Voice 5: Like the food sovereignty objective, it's tricky because those are inherent rights.

[1:28:25] Voice 5: These are not, you know, up to us to debate or manage or stipulate how Indigenous food security and access to harvesting areas is done.

[1:28:38] Voice 5: However, we do have some excellent potential policies that were developed with a policy statement in that companion handbook.

[1:28:47] Voice 5: And I'd like to see some of those materials brought forward because we were looking at, you know, what would be actionable through an OCP, what is within our jurisdiction and respecting the rights of Indigenous people, which are, you know, constitutional and treaty rights.

[1:29:06] Voice 5: Right. So, yeah. So just looking for it. This is a lot of feedback on this one point.

[1:29:11] Voice 5: And I don't want to just own in on one section and say, let's do that.

[1:29:15] Voice 5: But maybe it's more appropriate as part of an agency referral piece of feedback. Thanks.

[1:29:23] Voice 5: Thank you. Planner Chadwick?

[1:29:25] Planner Chadwick: Yeah. So what I would suggest is, I mean, there are some sort of quick edits that we can make.

[1:29:34] Planner Chadwick: and those are the ones that we can put into um into the first reading but the ones that are more

[1:29:38] Planner Chadwick: substantive absolutely agree with you uh trustee elliott i think they um they they need more

[1:29:46] Planner Chadwick: discussion and uh we'll have a quite a long period of time um to be able to you know sort

[1:29:55] Planner Chadwick: of dig in and identify how to address some of those more substantive pieces so there is kind

[1:30:00] Planner Chadwick: of a two-part thing um and i think um you know we'll also uh staff will be working on a response

[1:30:06] Planner Chadwick: to uh to island health um i think to just say thank you so much for now and and that uh there

[1:30:13] Planner Chadwick: is interest to integrate most of of what what is here and and we'll be taking time to identify what

[1:30:18] Planner Chadwick: those options are um basically in the fall

[1:30:23] Trustee Patrick: all right thank you i uh an interesting one on food

[1:30:27] Trustee Patrick: sovereignty as that we kind of came to on Salt Spring from looking at clam gardens and

[1:30:32] Trustee Patrick: conversations we were having with Park Canada's program to regenerate, I guess you could say,

[1:30:39] Trustee Patrick: the clam garden in Fulford, is the importance of septic maintenance. Now, it's not in our

[1:30:46] Trustee Patrick: jurisdiction to implement a septic maintenance program, but it is in the regional district in

[1:30:51] Trustee Patrick: Nanaimo. So I know we always have a fine place of where, how do we use our OCP? But I think from an

[1:30:57] Trustee Patrick: advocacy standpoint, when we advocated to the regional district at Salt Spring for the septic

[1:31:02] Trustee Patrick: maintenance, they were like, thank you. The regional district appreciated it. But it also

[1:31:09] Trustee Patrick: helped support your, you know, your electoral area director to take on that challenge and to

[1:31:17] Trustee Patrick: to be supported. So I think the OCP does more than just enable the local trust committee to consider

[1:31:23] Trustee Patrick: what it could create down the road through regulation. I think it also helps enable and

[1:31:30] Trustee Patrick: support your regional district to bring in what services and programs they could that leads to

[1:31:36] Trustee Patrick: these things. Trustee Elliott?

[1:31:40] Voice 5: Yeah, thank you for bringing that up. So is that an example of

[1:31:43] Voice 5: something that we should add or consider adding to the collaboration with regional districts

[1:31:50] Voice 5: section that the local trust committee will endeavor to work with regional districts toward

[1:32:02] Voice 5: development of a septic maintenance program as a service, for instance. I totally agree with you.

[1:32:08] Voice 5: I've heard, I've been in many ocean protection forums, and that's such a critical issue,

[1:32:16] Voice 5: is the septic leachate is far more impactful for traditional harvesting than, say, liveaboards.

[1:32:25] Voice 5: They're finding out.

[1:32:27] Voice 5: So could that be added under the collaboration sort of piece?

[1:32:40] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, I think there's a lot of things in the advocacy section.

[1:32:44] Planner Chadwick: that's why we have a an advocacy section because that's really an opportunity i was thinking about

[1:32:47] Planner Chadwick: it this morning it's it's where where there are these um like pieces that are essentially projects

[1:32:56] Planner Chadwick: that require um multiple um parties engaged all right should we move back into the list

[1:33:09] Planner Chadwick: yes go

[1:33:10] Planner Chadwick: back to your list

[1:33:10] Voice 9: oh

[1:33:12] Trustee Patrick: uh trust trustee i'm going to call you a trustee today uh

[1:33:17] Trustee Patrick: planner bow but apologize that's

[1:33:20] Voice 2: that's okay i'll just i just had to refer about the way you're

[1:33:23] Voice 2: working through this i'm i'm wondering there's or i just wanted to point out we'll see that there's

[1:33:28] Voice 2: two tables in the in the um staff report and that one first table that you started to go through i

[1:33:35] Voice 2: think these are all reflecting are all already reflected in the draft that's attached to the

[1:33:41] Voice 2: staff report with track changes those are changes you had already directed us to make and and so

[1:33:47] Voice 2: you're seeing how they're reflected um the what you might want to just think about and think about

[1:33:52] Voice 2: managing the time is uh that next table which is incorporating the comments you've you you've

[1:33:58] Voice 2: received since that last meeting um and so i just just wanted to point that out that um

[1:34:06] Trustee Patrick: sure i understand so i think i think we could we could cut things short by looking to the local

[1:34:11] Trustee Patrick: trustees and table number one. Were there any questions or further questions you have on staff

[1:34:17] Trustee Patrick: and how table one was addressed? Trustee Yates.

[1:34:22] Voice 4: It's great. I love table number one. There was a

[1:34:25] Voice 4: comment this morning about the vision, the community vision, and that's part of table

[1:34:30] Voice 4: number one here. And we thought we had it all figured out. I'm happy to go with what

[1:34:36] Voice 4: Nancy Hetherington Pierce is suggesting, but I'm not sure exactly what that is.

[1:34:42] Voice 4: I took 12 different submissions on the vision and I made sure there was no redundancies and

[1:34:48] Voice 4: I shortened them and I put them all together and I came up with this one that we have.

[1:34:52] Voice 4: Maybe it's still too long. Maybe it's still too redundant. We do talk about diverse and

[1:34:58] Voice 4: affordable housing a couple of different places. I'm wondering if Nancy Hetherington Pierce

[1:35:03] Voice 4: meant the very first statement that just says uh gabriel island uh is the vision is shaped

[1:35:14] Voice 4: through extensive engagement with residents first nations and other partners expresses

[1:35:18] Voice 4: gabriel island shared long-term aspirations for an active resilient and diverse rural community

[1:35:24] Voice 4: it describes a unifying direction for growth change and stewardship maybe that's what you

[1:35:29] Voice 4: you meant maybe we can just chop it off right there i'm happy to do that but we can you know

[1:35:35] Voice 4: figure that out later well

[1:35:38] Planner Chadwick: we kind of have to make a decision now um because uh this is the

[1:35:43] Planner Chadwick: um well this is the version that's going forward to first reading so it can be the decision can

[1:35:49] Planner Chadwick: be made after first reading as well all

[1:35:54] Trustee Patrick: right trustee elliot yeah

[1:35:59] Voice 5: i'd support um removing the

[1:36:01] Voice 5: the um the context info sort of beginning at the beginning of that and then do we need what's at

[1:36:09] Voice 5: the end because it i think the the question was about the framing it wasn't the vision statement

[1:36:15] Voice 5: itself it's why is this extra material explaining the vision statement um and so secondly is there

[1:36:22] Voice 5: there a place for notes and this could be a note perhaps about the process to get there

[1:36:33] Voice 5: there could also be a note about must shall may should that kind of language where it's not

[1:36:42] Voice 5: glossary specific but it's explaining why something is framed the way it is or the

[1:36:50] Voice 5: the referring to the community process to get there or explaining the must

[1:36:55] Voice 5: should sort of thing.

[1:36:56] Voice 5: So is there examples in other OCPs that isn't a glossary,

[1:37:01] Voice 5: but sort of an appendage or appended notes or note to readers?

[1:37:08] Planner Chadwick: Well, we do have an opportunity in the interpretation section to address the

[1:37:13] Planner Chadwick: must should shell, which is part 1.1.

[1:37:20] Planner Chadwick: There's an interpretation section, so that would be the opportunity to identify, you know, put a little paragraph about the words.

[1:37:31] Planner Chadwick: We do, are you talking about, we do have a section related to just the general process related to the development of the OCP.

[1:37:44] Planner Chadwick: Is that what you were thinking about, or is there something else?

[1:37:54] Trustee Patrick: plan or bod did you have something to add oh

[1:37:57] Voice 2: it's not no i can wait i didn't i didn't want

[1:37:59] Trustee Patrick: to

[1:37:59] Voice 2: interject there yeah okay

[1:38:01] Voice 5: no i think that's a that's appropriate the must should may

[1:38:04] Voice 5: could be added to the interpretation section page 14 um 1.1 and then

[1:38:14] Voice 5: addition like the context about how we got here i think it's you know just some areas we might

[1:38:20] Voice 5: be explaining too much and this might be one of them we don't need everything the preamble for

[1:38:26] Voice 5: the vision statement or it could go in um the community engagement part or the development

[1:38:33] Voice 5: of the plan just

[1:38:40] Voice 4: aids yep i'm good with that all of the preamble for the vision statement and the

[1:38:47] Voice 4: the post gamble um if we delete that i'm fine we don't need a motion to do this right we can just

[1:38:56] Voice 4: direct staff to do that is that

[1:38:59] Planner Chadwick: okay that's essentially what we'll be doing with all of

[1:39:02] Planner Chadwick: the points that we're talking about they're being recorded steven is actually actively

[1:39:06] Planner Chadwick: recording all of the um suggested changes and so um the final resolution will be to

[1:39:12] Planner Chadwick: to make changes as discussed um

[1:39:19] Trustee Patrick: all right any other questions in the table then

[1:39:21] Trustee Patrick: that uh how staff addressed any of the items in the table so there

[1:39:25] Planner Chadwick: are yeah yeah i would just i

[1:39:27] Planner Chadwick: I mean, yeah, leave it to the LTC to identify if there's any that you want to flag in particular.

[1:39:33] Planner Chadwick: There are a couple that I'd like to flag for discussion.

[1:39:37] Planner Chadwick: And those are mostly the ones that

[1:39:39] Planner Chadwick: have been identified as staff.

[1:39:46] Planner Chadwick: Before we go there, though, are there any specific ones that the LTC have flagged for discussion?

[1:39:54] Planner Chadwick: Trustee Yates.

[1:39:54] Voice 4: Just something that we should figure out amongst ourselves, whether we want specifics only in the land use bylaw or whether in certain cases like with multi-unit housing or with flex housing, do we want to set those limits in the OCP?

[1:40:15] Voice 4: I think the community has said to us, they want to see the limits in the OCP.

[1:40:20] Voice 4: And without getting too technical and too regulatory, I think we should do that.

[1:40:27] Planner Chadwick: So this is actually the conversation that I fly.

[1:40:30] Planner Chadwick: So that's perfect.

[1:40:31] Planner Chadwick: So I think it's important to just identify to those that are engaged with the conversation right now.

[1:40:43] Planner Chadwick: And for clarity for everyone here.

[1:40:47] Planner Chadwick: that I think the discussion, so there's been concerns that have emerged related to what we're calling flexible housing.

[1:40:57] Planner Chadwick: And the intention of the policies related to that were to provide the opportunity for there to be rezoning

[1:41:09] Planner Chadwick: that would would would would allow multiple units within a maximum floor

[1:41:18] Planner Chadwick: area with the the maximum floor area and number of units to be defined within the

[1:41:27] Planner Chadwick: land use bylaw and this is a policy that that is being modeled after main island

[1:41:36] Planner Chadwick: The rationale for putting a policy into the OCP that permits this approach is, as Chair Patrick had described at the beginning of this conversation, that the purpose of the OCP is to be enabling.

[1:42:00] Planner Chadwick: So if you don't have policies that permit particular things, you may need to go through a rezoning.

[1:42:13] Planner Chadwick: So essentially, this is providing an opportunity for a type of density, which we've called flexible housing, which is essentially a small increase in what currently exists.

[1:42:27] Planner Chadwick: And again, the rationale there for that being it's an opportunity for families to support other family members on their property.

[1:42:38] Planner Chadwick: There's an opportunity for some land sharing as well.

[1:42:44] Planner Chadwick: So the concerns have emerged, I think, around the fact that these limits have not been identified.

[1:42:53] Planner Chadwick: Like I say, they are intended to be identified in the land use bylaw.

[1:42:56] Planner Chadwick: They hadn't been discussed yet by the LTC, and I think that's part of the challenge with understanding this approach.

[1:43:04] Planner Chadwick: So what we have done is we have identified in the draft some parameters for flex housing, which include the maximum floria and number of units as they relate to the size of lot.

[1:43:23] Planner Chadwick: And the other thing, as we mentioned before, that we've put in there is a maximum total. And again, as I mentioned before, it's really, we put a number in there for discussion. And that's, and here we are. We are here for that discussion. So I open it up to the trustees to share your thoughts.

[1:43:49] Trustee Patrick: Planner Bo?

[1:43:49] Trustee Patrick: Bob?

[1:43:50] Voice 2: I just just one very quick thing. I just thought it would it be helpful if I share my

[1:43:54] Voice 2: screen with the agenda?

[1:43:57] Trustee Patrick: Probably, that would be probably helpful to the people watching it. So

[1:44:00] Trustee Patrick: thank you. And go ahead. Trustee Elliot.

[1:44:05] Voice 5: Yeah, thanks. I was gonna ask the same. So we're looking

[1:44:08] Voice 5: specifically at the section 241 residential density policies. We'd sort of breeze past

[1:44:15] Voice 5: 2411 strata conversion of buildings i'm fine with that and so it's the policy 2412 and

[1:44:24] Voice 5: what i'm hearing from community and in many of the submissions and in the water group was

[1:44:31] Voice 5: the terminology is causing people to i believe misunderstand or be like really concerned about

[1:44:42] Voice 5: the implications and the reality on the ground. And I think the term flexible housing is actually

[1:44:49] Voice 5: misleading. I think it's not the right terminology. It may have worked for Maine,

[1:44:56] Voice 5: but we need to recognize that Maine is a different planning context. They were working on their

[1:45:02] Voice 5: housing options for four years, and things went in a direction that that was the appropriate

[1:45:10] Voice 5: kind of framework to capture the needs of that community, which is very small increases

[1:45:21] Voice 5: in density in limited areas as the landowner desired. So that is not necessarily addressing

[1:45:32] Voice 5: addressing, the two issues that we are trying to, or the two challenges that we're trying to meet

[1:45:41] Voice 5: with one policy. And I would like to take a little bit of time to explain why, because this is what

[1:45:48] Voice 5: I'm hearing from a number of different community members. So we've got, on the one hand, we've got

[1:45:54] Voice 5: subdividable lots. We've still have large acreages throughout the island that are 20, 40,

[1:46:02] Voice 5: 80 acres. And we're talking about removing that subdivision potential.

[1:46:09] Voice 5: Those larger lots, some of them may be forestry or have lots of forest. Some of them may be more

[1:46:14] Voice 5: agricultural in nature because of how development happened. There's going to be very different

[1:46:18] Voice 5: contexts for how those lots could be rezoned and for what purpose. And so for the large

[1:46:26] Voice 5: subdividable lots, my question is, could there be a different zone that is more about community

[1:46:35] Voice 5: stewardship? And stewardship could mean sustainable forestry, forest protection,

[1:46:44] Voice 5: or agriculture and supporting agricultural production or food, or other like community

[1:46:54] Voice 5: supported housing. And so the way that it's been working in my mind is if the purpose of removing

[1:47:04] Voice 5: subdivision potential is to remove the ability of creating what we already have lots of,

[1:47:14] Voice 5: plenty of, I mean, lots that are subdivided into generally five acre parcels with a single family

[1:47:22] Voice 5: dwelling we have this it you know there's 500 lots that are yet unbuilt and so this is a type

[1:47:30] Voice 5: of housing or a type of development that is well supported by the existing fill out what we have

[1:47:41] Voice 5: been trying to do and what we've been hearing from gills the farmers renters people who want

[1:47:48] Voice 5: to live in community in and elders i would say this is i keep referring to many meetings that

[1:47:57] Voice 5: i had prior to becoming elected as trustee folks who are seniors and elders in our community

[1:48:04] Voice 5: and are living alone in their big house they want to live in independent but connected units

[1:48:10] Voice 5: And so where I think we need to distinguish between, like, we don't want, the community does not want to see flexible housing driving more status quo development, as in houses with, you know, an impact on infrastructure that's going to fragment the forests, that's going to add people.

[1:48:31] Voice 5: What we are talking about is shifting densities from subdivision to a different type of rezoning. So I give all that preamble to say, I think we're trying to address a challenge, but we haven't articulated that in the flexible housing proposal. And it's not well understood. And I think the terminology is a problem. So I think we need to take a different approach.

[1:48:58] Voice 5: approach people are reacting to the uncertainty of how many what forms of housing but more

[1:49:05] Voice 5: importantly what will be the impact and I don't think flexible housing captures how to minimize

[1:49:13] Voice 5: the impact so I sent this information to planner Chadwick she's got the background and I would

[1:49:19] Voice 5: like to open it up for discussion can we create a different zone and I know it's late in the day

[1:49:24] Voice 5: but a zone for community land stewardship um because and this is coming from the cortez

[1:49:34] Voice 5: island land use bylaw they just did a an update um and i realize they're outside of islands trust

[1:49:40] Voice 5: so different context slightly but it's still an island and they have a community stewardship land

[1:49:47] Voice 5: stewardship zone and the purpose of the cls1 zone is to accommodate community oriented clustered

[1:49:55] Voice 5: cooperative model of shared residential use with emphasis on protection for sensitive natural

[1:50:02] Voice 5: areas including the foreshore safeguarding significant forested areas and developing

[1:50:07] Voice 5: interior roads i think that was referring to subdivision at a scale and design standard in

[1:50:13] Voice 5: keeping with the rural character of cortez island and then they've got stipulations of up to 16

[1:50:18] Voice 5: dwelling units per lot subject to the density not being greater than one dwelling unit for each four

[1:50:22] Voice 5: hectares of land. And this gets back to the question on subdividable lands and the use

[1:50:34] Voice 5: of covenants to protect groundwater recharge in the forests. They have the stipulation of

[1:50:40] Voice 5: the registration of a Section 219 covenant precluding future subdivision and that all

[1:50:46] Voice 5: significant natural features will be protected. All buildings and structures shall be located

[1:50:51] Voice 5: on the residential footprint, that's the clustering we're talking about, and shall be

[1:50:56] Voice 5: clustered to provide maximum conservation and protection. So this is something that I think

[1:51:03] Voice 5: we have failed to bring the community along in a conversation about what flexible housing,

[1:51:09] Voice 5: the intent of flexible housing, which was to give landowners options. But everyone gets scared

[1:51:15] Voice 5: Because it's like adding more, it sounds like it's adding more people when what we're trying to do is remove the impactful and detrimental effect of creating new lots with everybody with their own driveway and septic field and drilled well, which has been conventional for conventional development for 100 years.

[1:51:39] Voice 5: And there's nothing wrong with that. And I just want to say to property owners that are concerned, none of your development rights are being taken away or considered for rejigging. It's how do we shift to allow clustered cooperative model of living?

[1:51:55] Voice 5: And this gets back to what the Land Stewards Society has been asking.

[1:52:00] Voice 5: And when I referenced the farmers, it was a really excellent document that was prepared.

[1:52:07] Voice 5: And with your indulgence, I'll just read one or two lines from that.

[1:52:14] Voice 5: Housing.

[1:52:15] Voice 5: So this is specifically about housing.

[1:52:16] Voice 5: And these are inputs collected from really established farmers on the island.

[1:52:21] Voice 5: Alexa Bolton, Graham Bradley, Aaron DeWarle, Pauline Heath, and Simon Natras.

[1:52:28] Voice 5: And so with regard to housing and agriculture policies, because this goes back to the land stewardship,

[1:52:34] Voice 5: so allowing year-round farm worker secondary housing because there's farming stuff to do year-round.

[1:52:42] Voice 5: On agricultural land, we can have a house and a secondary house,

[1:52:47] Voice 5: but that means we can't form a farmer's co-op and buy land together and be able to live there.

[1:52:52] Voice 5: And then they made the point that, you know, some of these acreages are very large. If you have an 80 acre property, you can still only have two houses. But if you have 25 acre properties, you can have many more houses, but that's going to create more impact.

[1:53:10] Voice 5: So the goal is to concentrate any additional housing in an area that would have the least amount of impact and put protections on, whether it's for agriculture or forestry protection or whatever, put protections on the land so that we are not spreading, you know, like 50 houses across an 80 acre property or 40.

[1:53:39] Voice 5: because you could do that with, you know, primary and secondary unit on every five acre lot if it

[1:53:45] Voice 5: was subdivided. So if we do the math and we're shifting densities from subdividable lots to

[1:53:50] Voice 5: rezoning for small unit cluster housing or cooperative models, I really think we should

[1:53:55] Voice 5: name this something specific. And this has been coming forward from the land trust for a long time

[1:54:02] Voice 5: of a community land stewardship zone.

[1:54:06] Voice 5: So that's what I would offer

[1:54:09] Voice 5: because I think we're trying to solve two problems

[1:54:13] Voice 5: with the same flexible housing area.

[1:54:17] Voice 5: And I think staff understand it

[1:54:19] Voice 5: and I understand it from the main context,

[1:54:21] Voice 5: but our community doesn't get it

[1:54:23] Voice 5: and is not comfortable with it.

[1:54:24] Voice 5: It's too ambiguous.

[1:54:26] Voice 5: It's too, it sounds like it's opening the door

[1:54:30] Voice 5: to additional development.

[1:54:31] Voice 5: So, and I know your hands up and just about done so that how can we address the, and last point, I don't actually support the having the lot specific size in the OCP.

[1:54:50] Voice 5: I think the intent and the purpose of the zone should be in the OCP and how it's expressed should be in the land use bylaw.

[1:54:57] Voice 5: And we're not going to find the same right equation just based on lot size and area of, or sorry, total floor area. Those are two factors, lot size, number of units, and floor area.

[1:55:15] Voice 5: That's good. That gets us to a certain point. But what about the protection of the ecological functions of the groundwater and everything else? That is the fourth part, the impact and the protection of those areas that I think should be added to that zone. Thank you.

[1:55:33] Trustee Patrick: Thank you. Go ahead, Ponder Chadwick.

[1:55:35] Trustee Patrick: Yeah,

[1:55:36] Planner Chadwick: thank you, Trustee Elliott. And I appreciate the fact that you've identified that maybe there's a lack of clarity or ambiguity with respect to that particular policy in the reference to the flex housing.

[1:55:51] Planner Chadwick: housing. Because there are actually two, and I think to try to provide a little bit of clarity

[1:56:00] Planner Chadwick: here, I would suggest that what you're talking about is not flex housing, and that what you're

[1:56:07] Planner Chadwick: talking about is the ability to create a zone, so rezone, for an opportunity for there to be

[1:56:17] Planner Chadwick: multiple units

[1:56:19] Planner Chadwick: and through that rezoning process, there

[1:56:25] Planner Chadwick: be protections on the land. And I would say that

[1:56:29] Planner Chadwick: the OCP supports that.

[1:56:33] Planner Chadwick: There is the opportunity

[1:56:36] Planner Chadwick: to rezone. So if you look at the multi-housing

[1:56:40] Planner Chadwick: policy 2.7.2.1,

[1:56:44] Planner Chadwick: The consideration of multi-unit housing may only be given to applications intending to provide non-market housing for special needs residents living with physical and cognitive disabilities, seniors 60 years of age or older, or moderate and low-income persons to be secured through a housing agreement.

[1:57:04] Planner Chadwick: So, I have one question to you. The model that you are sort of proposing or speaking about, does it involve housing agreements? So, that would be the one question, because if it doesn't require, that would be the one change that would be needed to support potentially what you're talking about.

[1:57:31] Planner Chadwick: because I think otherwise what's identified in that policy multi on the multi-unit housing policy

[1:57:38] Planner Chadwick: does provide that flexibility to create a zone like that and then when you look at policies

[1:57:45] Planner Chadwick: related to in 2.6 which are the general policies related to amendments to the plan to this plan and

[1:57:55] Planner Chadwick: land use bylaw um there are policies in there that are very specific to um you know when

[1:58:01] Planner Chadwick: considering a bylaw amendment the gabriel ltc should should require the retention or

[1:58:09] Planner Chadwick: establishment of natural vegetation buffers and sensitive ecosystems watercourses um shorelines

[1:58:15] Planner Chadwick: etc um through the use of dpas or covenants so um the way that the so i would say that

[1:58:22] Planner Chadwick: the way that the OCP is set up right now, it absolutely provides the opportunity

[1:58:27] Planner Chadwick: for rezoning to the kind of zone that you've identified that Cortez

[1:58:31] Planner Chadwick: has. There was a discussion

[1:58:35] Planner Chadwick: I think earlier in the process about

[1:58:38] Planner Chadwick: so I think we did entertain the idea

[1:58:43] Planner Chadwick: early in the process of outright

[1:58:48] Planner Chadwick: designating areas

[1:58:49] Planner Chadwick: areas, different to residential, and that would take a fair amount of work. And let me know if

[1:59:06] Planner Chadwick: I'm wrong here, Chair Elliott, in terms of the approach that you're discussing, you've identified.

[1:59:14] Planner Chadwick: So the flex housing is different. The flex housing is about creating that opportunity for the family to create an additional unit for their aging parent or their adult child or for two friends to buy a property and create two small homes on a property together.

[1:59:40] Planner Chadwick: that's the intention and and I mean of course it's it's hard we we can only go

[1:59:47] Planner Chadwick: so far with land-use planning we can't ultimately like there are limits to how

[1:59:54] Planner Chadwick: we can restrict how how those units ultimately are used which is definitely

[1:59:58] Planner Chadwick: like

[2:00:00] Planner Chadwick: a challenge with the flex flex housing and i think the again the intention there was without

[2:00:06] Planner Chadwick: a housing agreement it was the opportunity for um property owners to provide that to to be able to

[2:00:12] Planner Chadwick: um uh provide those options um and yeah so i just wanted to identify that there's just there's i

[2:00:20] Planner Chadwick: think there's two different things that you're talking about here um but uh yeah i'm interested

[2:00:25] Planner Chadwick: Yeah,

[2:00:29] Voice 5: I think there's, there is two different things that we're answering. But in the public's view, what they are reading and seeing is that it's just adding housing, housing, housing, housing, where is the protection for the environment.

[2:00:48] Voice 5: Part of that is interpretation. Folks maybe not understanding that the OCP is an entire document, and there are provisions for the protection of biodiversity, and that may not be, or sorry, you know, forest protection and not fragmenting forests and all that, that's not listed exactly in this multi-unit housing section that you're talking about.

[2:01:15] Voice 5: it does exist in other sections yeah and

[2:01:19] Voice 5: i think i

[2:01:19] Planner Chadwick: think the key that's a problem

[2:01:20] Planner Chadwick: yeah i think well

[2:01:22] Planner Chadwick: i think the key thing for um for the public to understand the community understand is and i think

[2:01:28] Planner Chadwick: this is something that um that i would actually um encourage people to have a look at section 2.6

[2:01:37] Planner Chadwick: And to understand that with every application that comes through, 2.6 identifies, establishes the lens, essentially, that is required to be used when reviewing any application.

[2:01:59] Planner Chadwick: um so this is where all of that information about uh covenants uh the the the integration of

[2:02:09] Planner Chadwick: digits not knowledge um you know consideration of protecting uh various resources and such

[2:02:16] Planner Chadwick: it's all in there it's it's very detailed uh and and this is the piece that um that will limit your

[2:02:24] Planner Chadwick: growth this is the piece that will uh this is the nuts and bolts of this of this ocp is in that

[2:02:32] Planner Chadwick: section because that all of those policies are what need to be considered if any changes are

[2:02:39] Planner Chadwick: going to be made so a lot of what's been identified uh by the community as like oh we don't see this

[2:02:46] Planner Chadwick: or that well it it needs to be it's in this section because it applies to every single

[2:02:53] Planner Chadwick: single application. If we were to include this information in every designation or type, we would

[2:03:04] Planner Chadwick: have a 200-page document. So that's why it's at the front end, and it's very clear. And this will

[2:03:14] Planner Chadwick: make it very easy for future trustees and staff, because the challenge with some of the OCPs that

[2:03:22] Planner Chadwick: exist in the trust area is that information is like peppered throughout and so you kind of have

[2:03:29] Planner Chadwick: to search for it but we've created a structure where it's it's all up front so when you get

[2:03:35] Planner Chadwick: that application you're just moving through all of those policies in 2.6 as you're going through

[2:03:42] Planner Chadwick: your evaluation of the application and that's the opportunity to to pull out those things like

[2:03:48] Planner Chadwick: Like, you know, this proposal isn't going to fly because we've identified that half of it is in a ecologically sensitive area.

[2:04:03] Planner Chadwick: So you're going to have to move it over and we'd like a covenant on that piece.

[2:04:09] Planner Chadwick: So OCP has created the opportunity to create the zones that you talk about.

[2:04:20] Voice 5: That is helpful. I'm going to think about it a little bit.

[2:04:24] Voice 5: And just before we go to Trustee Yates, I guess my thought on this right now is I'd like to see it a little more clearly articulated and referring to, you know, could we in, say, policy that has to do with multi-unit residential state that, like, how do we make the link to it is under these

[2:04:56] Voice 5: conditions that multi-unit residential can be considered. It's there. You understand it from

[2:05:02] Voice 5: a planning perspective. I don't think the link is clear. And the second point I'd like to make is,

[2:05:10] Voice 5: I don't think we've heard a strong desire from the community to add more of those one, two

[2:05:19] Voice 5: units in small amounts like the flexible housing project would do. I'm willing to leave it open in

[2:05:28] Voice 5: the OCP. I think it's going to trip us up because of the terminology and because it's not well

[2:05:36] Voice 5: understood and because it sounds like, and I actually, I think it's kind of allowing us to

[2:05:43] Voice 5: do the same thing as we've always done. There isn't really consideration of impact. It's

[2:05:48] Voice 5: It's creating one or two more units where it makes sense.

[2:05:52] Voice 5: The reality is people who are looking for increased, clustered, cooperative, sustainable model of land sharing are not – they need to work together and put their money together to buy a piece of land or work with a land trust to do a cooperative model of ownership.

[2:06:17] Voice 5: And so I'm not hearing from the community that we have a huge need for the additional one or two units. I would be interested to put it out for first reading. Like, how can we ask that question?

[2:06:31] Voice 5: I think from the lens of water protection people are very concerned about adding additional density

[2:06:38] Voice 5: we've heard that quite a lot what I'm looking at is these large acreages it's the shifting of

[2:06:46] Voice 5: densities from one purpose to the next where people want to develop cooperatively and live

[2:06:52] Voice 5: in the land and ensure that there's protection so I would I don't know if we need to call it

[2:06:56] Voice 5: something different because the multi-unit residential policy it does focus on housing

[2:07:01] Voice 5: it it's and it's trying to address kind of a lot but it it anyway so I'll just leave it there like

[2:07:12] Voice 5: maybe the flexible housing is not necessary at this stage actually the multi-unit or sorry a

[2:07:18] Voice 5: clustered small unit cooperative model that supports farming sustainable agriculture

[2:07:23] Voice 5: culture that's the that's the core of a new like that's enough innovation for this community at

[2:07:32] Voice 5: this stage this is what people want maybe the flexible housing zone is not but i'll leave it

[2:07:38] Voice 5: there but just

[2:07:40] Voice 5: for just for clarification just

[2:07:42] Planner Chadwick: ask a clarification question um um uh so considering

[2:07:49] Planner Chadwick: So the multi-unit housing, again, I think that that gets to where, like, I think that supports what you're speaking about.

[2:08:04] Planner Chadwick: And so my question would be, does it?

[2:08:08] Planner Chadwick: Is that adequate to support that?

[2:08:10] Planner Chadwick: And there could be an option to just remove the flexible housing piece because the flexible housing is there to provide that sort of a, it's almost like a suggested, a supported way to move forward and ultimately would have to go through rezoning anyways.

[2:08:37] Planner Chadwick: So if anybody wanted to move, and I think the one opportunity, another opportunity that it provides is to support a movement to compliance for those that have these temporary units on their properties.

[2:08:56] Planner Chadwick: So that's where I would suggest it has some other value, because if you are to remove that, then there's limited opportunity for those properties that have those units.

[2:09:18] Planner Chadwick: And what I understand is there's many, many that have these temporary units.

[2:09:25] Planner Chadwick: And the LTC has not been enforced, you know, standing resolution not to enforce.

[2:09:32] Planner Chadwick: Once that standing resolution is removed, then there are limited opportunities to move towards compliance.

[2:09:42] Planner Chadwick: So that's just one, I guess, argument to support QBN, but certainly it's ultimately up to trustees to decide what policies you want to keep.

[2:10:12] Trustee Patrick: Apologize, folks. I got kicked out of my Wi-Fi for some reason.

[2:10:20] Voice 5: Carry on. Who was talking?

[2:10:22] Voice 5: If you can see, Trustee Yates has her hands up there.

[2:10:25] Voice 4: yep okay thank you um thank you trustee elliott and chair patrick and thank you for that good

[2:10:33] Voice 4: description uh planner chadwick my internet is a bit unstable i might have to turn off my video

[2:10:39] Voice 4: um i i actually think as planner chadwick has sort of affirmed that the ability to do

[2:10:48] Voice 4: Something like what Cortez Island is doing is in this OCP.

[2:10:54] Voice 4: It's just that most of us haven't thought about the Cortez Island thing.

[2:11:00] Voice 4: I go to Cortez every summer for about five days,

[2:11:03] Voice 4: and the first place I go is their community land stewardship area,

[2:11:09] Voice 4: where the seniors, about 12 years ago,

[2:11:12] Voice 4: built this most amazing seniors multi-housing complex,

[2:11:18] Voice 4: which is so beautiful. The first time I saw it, I just wanted to move there.

[2:11:22] Voice 4: But it's connected to the rest of that whole community stewardship area. And it's close to

[2:11:29] Voice 4: the village, close to the medical clinic. And it is definitely something that if anybody wants to

[2:11:37] Voice 4: do that kind of development, as a land steward, they should be looking at that. And it's really

[2:11:43] Voice 4: quite amazing but i actually think that that sort of thing is is allowed with this draft ocp so i'm

[2:11:52] Voice 4: i'm happy about that um i like trustee elliot i've had comments about the flex zoning just being

[2:12:01] Voice 4: allowing just more density um kind of same old same old i'm not sure about that i am concerned

[2:12:10] Voice 4: concerned that if we get rid of it entirely in this iteration then it does you know it does

[2:12:21] Voice 4: give people a chance who have those sorts of dwellings on their properties already it gives

[2:12:27] Voice 4: them a chance to make those dwellings legal and come up to standard have good water supply have

[2:12:34] Voice 4: have proper septic disposal. And so I kind of think we should keep it in there for now. But I

[2:12:41] Voice 4: also really like the idea of, you know, if land stewards or groups of people want to do something

[2:12:48] Voice 4: like what Cortez Island is doing, I think it's in this OCP. Now, I did say earlier that I thought

[2:12:55] Voice 4: maybe we should have, you know, the more regulatory things just for a couple of things in the OCP.

[2:13:01] Voice 4: generally I really do not like regulatory OCPs like the one that we have now is way too regulatory

[2:13:08] Voice 4: but I think I'm happy with Planner Chadwick you said that you believe that you know the

[2:13:17] Voice 4: restrictions that are sort of outlined in the overall policy here really does lend itself to

[2:13:26] Voice 4: a good land use bylaw that will follow accordingly. So I'm happy to not have them

[2:13:33] Voice 4: in the OCP unless they're absolutely necessary. I think one of the comments I've had over and

[2:13:41] Voice 4: over again is we need to enforce our bylaws. That's really important to people. Otherwise,

[2:13:47] Voice 4: our bylaws don't mean anything. And so when we have a new OCP, we need to get rid of that

[2:13:55] Voice 4: a standing resolution that says no enforcement. It doesn't make a lot of people happy. And the

[2:14:02] Voice 4: way we get rid of that is to find ways to help people who are already here, who are already

[2:14:11] Voice 4: underhoused or inadequately housed, to bring their dwellings up to standard and be legal.

[2:14:20] Voice 4: we're going to have more density no matter what we do it's there's how many empty lots that are

[2:14:26] Voice 4: ready for development right in the current ocp and the the key is to try as toby elliott as

[2:14:35] Voice 4: trustee elliott has said to try to preserve as much of the agricultural and the natural

[2:14:44] Voice 4: forested wetland areas as we possibly can moving forward for the next 50 years and to put people

[2:14:53] Voice 4: where they can live comfortably and um and ecologically in in ways that do not destroy

[2:15:01] Voice 4: the environment with their infrastructure um so that's i'm just going to try to get rid of my

[2:15:08] Voice 4: my telephone noise here and I'll turn myself off. All right, Trustee Elliott.

[2:15:17] Voice 5: Okay, well, thanks for the discussion. I think it does help me understand that we are trying to

[2:15:23] Voice 5: achieve two different objects. I still think flexible housing is not the right term. I don't

[2:15:30] Voice 5: know what the right term is. This community is uncomfortable with it. But the purpose that

[2:15:37] Voice 5: you've articulated is potentially of use, and maybe we should keep it in and then see what

[2:15:44] Voice 5: the feedback is. I definitely think we should not have the specifications in the lots. Maybe

[2:15:52] Voice 5: we should add that the land use bylaw will specify through, you know, on a lot specific basis or

[2:16:06] Voice 5: based on area and leave it at that and i do agree that there should therefore be a limit 25

[2:16:13] Voice 5: units seems pretty arbitrary um you know can we maybe have a debate about that 20

[2:16:21] Voice 5: it's kind of funny the 24 unit multi-unit residential uh limit i got a little history on

[2:16:28] Voice 5: um where that came from and it kind of was a result of a negotiation with um

[2:16:34] Voice 5: A particular developer that couldn't cost the development with anything less than 24 units. And that's why it ended up in our OCP. So 25, 24, what's the acceptable number to test out for this provision? And can we look at a different term for flexible housing?

[2:16:57] Voice 5: housing um like I limited or yeah I don't really know but I I see what you're saying

[2:17:06] Voice 5: Planner Chadwick and thank you for walking me through it I do I just think this community

[2:17:12] Voice 5: wants to have more assurance that this isn't opening the door to uh more of the same kind

[2:17:18] Voice 5: of development so thanks for the consideration thank you Planner Chadwick

[2:17:23] Trustee Patrick: uh

[2:17:25] Planner Chadwick: yeah I just wanted

[2:17:26] Planner Chadwick: I wanted to remind trustees that we are, you know, actively updating the land use bylaw.

[2:17:32] Planner Chadwick: And so the opportunity, and I do think that that is the better place to put these details.

[2:17:38] Planner Chadwick: And we can basically defer to the previous policy, which was in there, which was basically what Trustee Yates indicated, more or less, is basically to identify it's possible within a maximum blah, blah, blah, as identified in the land use bylaw.

[2:17:56] Planner Chadwick: um and the the other in terms of a limit we i mean you could decide you one don't want a limit

[2:18:05] Planner Chadwick: or two that you just want to identify that the land use bylaw identify a limit and then the land

[2:18:11] Planner Chadwick: use bylaw uh we can we can deal with it uh there but that but again yeah i see but that's the other

[2:18:19] Planner Chadwick: thing i if things can always be changed and adapted so if there's a run on on flex housing

[2:18:25] Planner Chadwick: housing applications, then there's a housing project. And that would be a minor project to

[2:18:32] Planner Chadwick: just address that, you know, and maybe remove permission for or something like that. So there

[2:18:38] Planner Chadwick: are those kinds of opportunities that are available.

[2:18:45] Trustee Patrick: All right, then was there another

[2:18:48] Trustee Patrick: section on the table?

[2:18:50] Voice 5: I think we need to give direction here, Chair. All right.

[2:18:54] Voice 5: So I personally

[2:18:57] Voice 5: support going back to the original wording but using sorry let me just go to

[2:19:06] Voice 5: the my document here the plan supports flexible housing options and actually

[2:19:14] Voice 5: that wording is funny by considering allowing through site-specific rezoning

[2:19:18] Voice 5: or just by allowing allowing yeah

[2:19:21] Voice 5: through site-specific rezoning

[2:19:23] Voice 5: applications you could just say up to two small dwellings within a maximum combined floor area

[2:19:34] Voice 5: and then we go down to the as an alternative to one single uh large dwelling and then say

[2:19:44] Voice 5: the land use bylaw will stipulate according to lot size and which it's got in there land

[2:19:53] Voice 5: Land use regulations should establish overall floor area limits,

[2:19:56] Voice 5: the number of additional dwellings based on lot area.

[2:20:00] Voice 5: And where did you have the number?

[2:20:03] Voice 5: Policy 2414, the total number of units created through flexible housing

[2:20:09] Voice 5: through, maybe we could say, I'm still looking for another word,

[2:20:18] Voice 5: limited or landowner, I don't know.

[2:20:23] Voice 5: know flexible housing it's just it's problematic may and there's a spelling mistake my may not

[2:20:29] Voice 5: exceed you know we could do 12 we could do something limited to at least start and that

[2:20:38] Voice 5: gives i think the um i think it's responsive to the feedback that people want to see a cap

[2:20:45] Voice 5: they want to see a limit um this is to achieve and where is it that the the purpose of this

[2:20:53] Voice 5: flexible housing rezoning? Where is the purpose statement for why we're doing this to allow

[2:21:01] Voice 5: landowners to add one or two more units as their situation? That's what I feel it's missing,

[2:21:12] Voice 5: because the flexible housing zone, or maybe we need a note about it, and maybe we need a

[2:21:16] Voice 5: different terminology, but this is separate from rezoning for multi-unit residential, as

[2:21:21] Voice 5: we discussed so um i would support a cap and something smaller than 25

[2:21:29] Voice 5: and then maybe a definition or a purpose statement for flexible housing

[2:21:34] Voice 5: anybody else i don't want to be the only decider here folks well i think i

[2:21:48] Trustee Patrick: think this is one of the

[2:21:50] Trustee Patrick: conversations we're having about who have we not heard from in this conversations here and i think

[2:21:54] Trustee Patrick: this is an interesting one how many people are already living in flexible arrangements right now

[2:22:00] Trustee Patrick: Because if this is intended to be a potential pathway for compliance, it's a difficult thing. You don't have a survey. You don't have those answers. But what is the magnitude of the issue? How many people are living in multi-generational situations right now in a single family home? So I think it'd be nice to have some sort of an indication as to how prolific that is.

[2:22:28] Trustee Patrick: and um i

[2:22:34] Voice 5: agree we actually need to do a deeper dive um and i don't know if that could be

[2:22:41] Voice 5: addressed through an in-camera discussion with bylaw enforcement maybe getting a report

[2:22:47] Voice 5: and contacting those property owners to find out well how many have multiple units on their

[2:22:54] Voice 5: their property and would welcome an opportunity to rezone to get into compliance. We don't have

[2:23:04] Voice 5: that information. And like I said, I'm not hearing from people either because they're

[2:23:09] Voice 5: under the radar or just not aware that this option could exist. So how many people are living

[2:23:16] Voice 5: with the multi-generational or multiple, I'm just sort of writing a question, units out of

[2:23:25] Voice 5: compliance. And maybe we do, maybe the next LTC does a survey. I don't know if we have that data

[2:23:34] Voice 5: from our housing options and impacts review project. I don't think we do.

[2:23:43] Voice 7: Trustee

[2:23:43] Voice 4: Yates? Yeah, I think the most common complaint or concern I've had with regard to

[2:23:50] Voice 4: this particular section is just allowing more than two or three dwellings. So despite the fact

[2:23:59] Voice 4: that you may have four hectares or greater, allowing four dwellings, even with a limited

[2:24:09] Voice 4: footprint, it's just, it's a lot more people. It's just a lot more density. We don't even know how

[2:24:16] Voice 4: How many? Four more dwellings could be 12 more people, could be 15 more people.

[2:24:20] Voice 4: And, you know, as much as we want to build a safe and healthy community, every human being that lives on an island has a real impact on the infrastructure, on the roads, on the ferries, on the, you know, the medical system, on the sewage, everything.

[2:24:42] Voice 4: So even though we're being so careful here about setting these limits, I'm concerned about allowing as many as four.

[2:24:54] Voice 4: It doesn't matter how many, what the footprint is.

[2:24:57] Voice 4: I kind of like Trustee Elliott's suggestion that this plan supports flexible housing options by considering, through site-specific zoning applications, two small dwellings.

[2:25:14] Voice 4: I'm not quite sure here, but I know that the biggest complaint that I've had is the number of people that would be added to any size lot.

[2:25:25] Voice 4: lot because part of the part of the benefit of having a large lot and not clear cutting it

[2:25:32] Voice 4: which people certainly do is that you have that much more natural environment supporting the human

[2:25:40] Voice 4: environment and that's pretty much at the behest um and grace of large lot owners who keep their

[2:25:49] Voice 4: forests and who keep their wetlands and who are not building extra homes on those lots so

[2:25:56] Voice 4: we have to find a way to i just don't know quite how to do this i'm thinking that we need to keep

[2:26:05] Voice 4: this policy for sure we need it in here because it allows that really important leeway for people to

[2:26:13] Voice 4: come into compliance with more than one dwelling on their property and it also allows and i have

[2:26:19] Voice 4: have definitely heard this. Families who have dependent children or dependent adults,

[2:26:27] Voice 4: it allows them to have separate dwelling areas on the same lot. But I'm worried about the number.

[2:26:38] Voice 4: And I don't know whether we should just leave it in here to go for first reading or not.

[2:26:46] Voice 4: I'm kind of I'm I lean in both directions when I think about you know all of the input that we

[2:26:52] Voice 4: have had from people it's it's almost like it's like a seesaw we have to have this oh no no we

[2:26:59] Voice 4: can't have that we have to have this oh no no we can't have that and we have to find some sort of

[2:27:06] Voice 4: compromise that does not take us way past the ecological threshold we're already we're already

[2:27:15] Voice 4: almost there we know that from the 2018 state of the island reports that were done for most of the

[2:27:21] Voice 4: islands gabriela was already at very near the threshold of where human density um causes the

[2:27:31] Voice 4: the natural environment to very, very slowly, or in some cases quickly, collapse. And so that

[2:27:39] Voice 4: it doesn't support the human population anymore. And so outside help has to be brought in,

[2:27:48] Voice 4: outside water, outside electricity, outside whatever. And we need to always think about that.

[2:27:55] Voice 4: what will this environment support as far as human habitation so i i'm in a quandary about this

[2:28:07] Voice 4: i almost think we should leave it for first reading what is the um

[2:28:14] Trustee Patrick: if it was left in the

[2:28:15] Trustee Patrick: document and in a in a more enabling fashion uh the land use bylaw is coming down and will be

[2:28:24] Trustee Patrick: coming before before second reading is that correct for the ocp so is it intended to have

[2:28:31] Trustee Patrick: regulations for flexible housing within the land use bylaw so that at least then the two could be

[2:28:36] Trustee Patrick: looked at together what do the regulations look like with the enabling yeah

[2:28:41] Planner Chadwick: that is the intention

[2:28:42] Planner Chadwick: is that uh if we if you agree on the policy for flexible housing then uh then it would be

[2:28:49] Planner Chadwick: identified uh the the essentially what's written the details would be uh would be put into the land

[2:28:57] Planner Chadwick: use bylaw um and i think i just wanted to point out um that the uh the way that the ocp is

[2:29:07] Planner Chadwick: currently written the the rural the rural residential area and um there there is already

[2:29:14] Planner Chadwick: permission to have on lots larger than two hectares a secondary suite and one

[2:29:21] Planner Chadwick: detached secondary suite so that that's already enabling the permission of

[2:29:31] Planner Chadwick: more units than currently so we've done the math on that a little bit so yeah I

[2:29:40] Planner Chadwick: I guess the big question, I think I've heard of, what I'm hearing right now, correct me

[2:29:47] Planner Chadwick: if I'm wrong, is let's keep in the general policy and open it up.

[2:30:00] Planner Chadwick: further discussion is that is that kind of where you're arriving at yeah

[2:30:06] Voice 5: i think um i think

[2:30:10] Voice 5: maybe one or two small dwellings not saying two or more and going back to the general language

[2:30:19] Voice 5: and um up to like 12 or 15 total and then the ltc or the the uh policy should be re-evaluated

[2:30:29] Voice 5: personally that's kind of where i'm sitting and a unexplainer note about flexible housing

[2:30:36] Voice 5: that it is separate from multi-unit residential it is more landowner flexibility and i will just

[2:30:43] Voice 5: raise at this i know we've had lots of discussion we need to move on but i i'm hearing concerns too

[2:30:49] Voice 5: that um about property values um i know it's a tricky dance that we that we have to do with um

[2:30:57] Voice 5: We don't, you know, drive market values and allowing extra dwellings, but does allowing extra dwellings add to the, you know, the improvements on land and therefore is seen as giving more equity to some landowners?

[2:31:14] Voice 5: So that's kind of, that's going to be a discussion.

[2:31:17] Voice 5: It's going to be, it's a question from people.

[2:31:19] Voice 5: people and i think if we have a bit of a purpose statement for flexible housing that it is to

[2:31:27] Voice 5: support um you know multi-generational living in site-specific areas to address the lack of

[2:31:34] Voice 5: or whatever whatever it is that it's not you know the intent is not to build equity but i think that

[2:31:41] Voice 5: concern still exists and i'm not sure what what we can do about that um anyway so that's kind of

[2:31:49] Voice 5: where i'm sitting i don't know where you are trustee yates so

[2:31:53] Planner Chadwick: i just wanted to um uh just

[2:31:56] Planner Chadwick: provide a comment and that is so if you move towards indicating that uh it would just be one

[2:32:03] Planner Chadwick: or like one additional dwelling i think essentially what you're taught essentially what you're

[2:32:08] Planner Chadwick: targeting are the smaller lots because currently um the way that as i have identified uh two

[2:32:15] Planner Chadwick: hectares or more would already be allowed to have that additional detached unit. So this would be

[2:32:22] Planner Chadwick: about the smaller two hectare or smaller and I think we would have a limit there would be a limit

[2:32:30] Planner Chadwick: of I mean I guess that would be to be determined through the rezoning

[2:32:36] Voice 5: process. I'm not seeing that

[2:32:38] Voice 5: I think sorry to interrupt Honor Chadwick but the size doesn't matter that what matters is the

[2:32:45] Voice 5: application what does the landowner want what are they trying to achieve and if they have um

[2:32:50] Voice 5: and i can think of some examples uh an open cleared area that before they got there they

[2:32:58] Voice 5: bought their land and there's just and it needs to be farmed and they need you know four units of

[2:33:03] Voice 5: housing um they can have that primary secondary plus an additional unit um so the i think the

[2:33:13] Voice 5: the door should be open for whatever size lot to do that,

[2:33:17] Voice 5: but it should maybe be limited to just one additional unit.

[2:33:21] Planner Chadwick: Yeah. Okay. So one additional

[2:33:22] Planner Chadwick: to what's currently permitted.

[2:33:24] Voice 5: Yeah. One additional.

[2:33:25] Voice 5: And then because of lots that are five acres can, can have one additional,

[2:33:29] Voice 5: then that allows four. So that's already quite a lot. Right.

[2:33:34] Voice 5: And I think that addresses the concern that I'm hearing that this opens the

[2:33:39] Voice 5: door to unlimited additional units because this policy is not trying to address the small unit

[2:33:46] Voice 5: cluster housing the cooperative model of you know sustainable agriculture or forestry or whatever

[2:33:52] Voice 5: have you that multi-unit residential is trying to achieve so i feel comfortable with one additional

[2:33:59] Voice 5: unit see what the public thinks putting the stipulations in the land use bylaw and limiting

[2:34:05] Voice 5: limiting it to 12, and then the policy should be reviewed.

[2:34:14] Voice 4: Trustee Yates?

[2:34:16] Voice 4: Yeah, I'm comfortable with limiting it to one additional unit as well.

[2:34:22] Voice 4: And interestingly, the multi-unit, the magic number of 24,

[2:34:28] Voice 4: that's so tricky because developers will tell you

[2:34:32] Voice 4: if they're building, say, just a condominium, for example,

[2:34:35] Voice 4: where I live on Gabriola in one building,

[2:34:39] Voice 4: that the cost to build 24 compared to 12 or 36.

[2:34:48] Voice 4: Originally, where I'm living right now,

[2:34:50] Voice 4: the developer wanted to build 36,

[2:34:53] Voice 4: but the neighbors were not happy about that

[2:34:56] Voice 4: for various reasons.

[2:34:58] Voice 4: And as it turns out, 24 is about right

[2:35:02] Voice 4: because of our water usage.

[2:35:06] Voice 4: Our water is not monitored,

[2:35:08] Voice 4: monitored but it is certain I shouldn't say that it is monitored it's not regulated in any way

[2:35:15] Voice 4: but in the summer we have to be really careful with water in this part of the village area

[2:35:22] Voice 4: and so if we had more than 24 units we could run into trouble with water provision

[2:35:29] Voice 4: but the cost of building something like where I live developers will tell you oh I can't do that

[2:35:37] Voice 4: for less than 36 units so that's why we're thinking you know cooperative housing collaborative

[2:35:45] Voice 4: housing farmers getting together young people getting together and trying to share building

[2:35:52] Voice 4: costs in a different way that's not controlled by a developer is huge and they can do it with

[2:36:00] Voice 4: less than 24 units. So yeah, so I'm okay with, with, yeah, the multi-unit. I honestly,

[2:36:13] Voice 4: we could say 15, we could say 12. It really depends on the application.

[2:36:23] Trustee Patrick: Is that enough direction, Planner Chadwick, or do you need more clarity?

[2:36:28] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, I'm just gonna, Planner Bao, I know you've been recording this. Have you, can you just

[2:36:35] Planner Chadwick: uh identify to us what you've recorded as the direction uh

[2:36:41] Voice 2: yeah that's a good idea so what i

[2:36:43] Voice 2: have right now from my understanding is to um it's an it's an and this is specifically for now

[2:36:52] Voice 2: just about 2.4.1.2 is to have not to include any of this um specific uh regulation type language

[2:37:02] Voice 2: but to limit the ability for flexible housing to one flex housing unit per per lot through the

[2:37:11] Voice 2: rezoning process and to have some kind of introduction about flexible housing or a

[2:37:17] Voice 2: definition explaining what it is um i think that's i think that's what i that's what i have

[2:37:25] Voice 2: then and then you talked as well about policy 2.4.1.4 and it sounds like you're between two

[2:37:32] Voice 2: numbers 12 and 15 at this point um and and that you do um like the idea of having a um a max number

[2:37:39] Voice 2: before the the policies are re-evaluated is that accurate did i miss anything well

[2:37:49] Trustee Patrick: you have between

[2:37:50] Trustee Patrick: 12 and 15 trustees do you want to uh be specific 12 or 15 why

[2:37:55] Voice 4: don't we say 12 why don't

[2:37:57] Trustee Patrick: we say 12

[2:37:57] Voice 4: and see how and then evaluated okay

[2:38:06] Trustee Patrick: what was the other one on that table uh planner chadwick was

[2:38:12] Trustee Patrick: Was there another one that you had a question?

[2:38:14] Planner Chadwick: That was the main one, actually.

[2:38:17] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, that was it.

[2:38:18] Planner Chadwick: That was the key one.

[2:38:22] Trustee Patrick: So, trustees, were there any, going back to that table,

[2:38:26] Trustee Patrick: any other remaining questions on how those were used?

[2:38:31] Trustee Patrick: Go ahead, Trustee Elliott.

[2:38:36] Voice 5: I don't know where this fits.

[2:38:38] Voice 5: I don't know if you want to move on.

[2:38:39] Voice 5: We need to do fresh water.

[2:38:41] Voice 5: There's a number of other

[2:38:42] Voice 9: residential density.

[2:38:44] Voice 5: But in, so in regards to the vet clinic issue, I sent you something to consider and just wanting to raise that for when, when can we fit that in?

[2:38:59] Voice 5: Yeah,

[2:38:59] Planner Chadwick: let's, well, so once we're, if I know that you are good with the changes that are currently identified in the draft, which are the ones that are in this table, then we can move on to start to address things that are not.

[2:39:17] Planner Chadwick: And so I would suggest that the way that we move forward with that discussion is there are items identified in Table 2 for discussion that are questions that emerged both from the staff as well as the community.

[2:39:34] Planner Chadwick: There's a list of other things that have come in, including the submission from GILS, and there was a few questions in there.

[2:39:42] Planner Chadwick: and then we can also add um add to the list uh of things that you'd like to discuss

[2:39:53] Voice 7: trusty elliott yeah

[2:39:56] Voice 5: i'm sort of going back to the list um policy 25156 the large-scale

[2:40:02] Voice 5: water supply infrastructure um that was part of the uh there was a bit of feedback from somebody

[2:40:12] Voice 5: and it's in your list I don't think we discussed it

[2:40:17] Voice 5: so you're saying we would remove this policy

[2:40:20] Voice 5: sorry

[2:40:21] Planner Chadwick: is in the list

[2:40:24] Planner Chadwick: 2,

[2:40:25] Voice 5: 5, 15, 6

[2:40:27] Voice 5: yeah it's in your table on page 3

[2:40:33] Voice 5: oh

[2:40:34] Planner Chadwick: right sorry page 4

[2:40:36] Planner Chadwick: yeah sorry

[2:40:39] Voice 5: fresh water sustainability um and actually the options related to water capture and storage i

[2:40:46] Voice 5: just wanted to go back to that uh so so 2491 fresh water sustainability love the uh community

[2:40:56] Voice 5: water supply community water supply definition that was i think it's brilliant and really

[2:41:03] Voice 5: responds to people are asking they have been asking for that so super happy to see that

[2:41:09] Voice 5: language in there right yeah yeah

[2:41:12] Planner Chadwick: marine policy yeah you

[2:41:13] Planner Chadwick: wanted to address that one the large

[2:41:16] Planner Chadwick: scale water supply infrastructure including pipeline connection yeah

[2:41:19] Voice 9: uh

[2:41:21] Planner Chadwick: so yes so that is

[2:41:25] Planner Chadwick: one that's in

[2:41:29] Voice 5: the marine designation in

[2:41:30] Planner Chadwick: the marine yeah yeah so what

[2:41:31] Voice 5: um two five fifteen six large

[2:41:34] Voice 5: large-scale water supply infrastructure should not be considered.

[2:41:38] Voice 5: So is this a legacy piece?

[2:41:42] Voice 5: Yes,

[2:41:43] Planner Chadwick: this was a legacy piece.

[2:41:47] Voice 5: Okay.

[2:41:50] Voice 5: Someone had said that it just should not be considered at all.

[2:41:55] Voice 5: So what are the factors?

[2:41:58] Planner Chadwick: So I think originally it was should not be considered.

[2:42:04] Planner Chadwick: And then I think we've added the addition.

[2:42:07] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, no, I think it's come, we've added the additional.

[2:42:12] Planner Chadwick: So, I mean, in this case, the question is, do you want to keep this policy or not?

[2:42:22] Voice 5: Well, I think the feedback that we heard was that the policy should be, as it stands in the OCP now,

[2:42:29] Voice 5: large-scale water supply infrastructure, including pipeline connections, Vancouver Island, should not be considered, period.

[2:42:39] Voice 5: Large-scale water supply infrastructure.

[2:42:41] Voice 5: I mean, this would limit, let's just say, a desalination plant. This would prohibit a desalination plant in a marina. So that's a conversation.

[2:42:58] Voice 5: I think the intent of the feedback, and I know Trustee Yates' hand up there, but it's that large-scale water supply infrastructure should not be considered unless it can be demonstrated that local water conservation stewardship and da-da-da-da-da use that part.

[2:43:14] Voice 5: And then a separate policy, pipeline connections to Vancouver Island should not be considered as part of this plan.

[2:43:23] Voice 5: So separating those two, because large-scale water supply infrastructure, we don't know what technology is coming.

[2:43:28] Voice 5: Maybe there's an appropriate water supply infrastructure, but a pipeline connection to Vancouver Island, I think, is the problem in this policy.

[2:43:48] Planner Chadwick: Noted. Have you got that recorded on our bell? Do you want to just repeat what you captured?

[2:43:56] Planner Chadwick: Yeah,

[2:43:56] Voice 2: I have a new policy. Pipeline connections to Vancouver Island should not be permitted. Maybe one question. Permitted to what about the mainland?

[2:44:10] Voice 2: Is it meant to be just all-inclusive, kind of not other land masses?

[2:44:18] Voice 7: Sure.

[2:44:19] Voice 2: Or is that specifically a concern about Vancouver Island?

[2:44:22] Voice 2: Okay.

[2:44:22] Voice 2: I

[2:44:24] Voice 5: can't imagine a pipeline connection coming from the mainland.

[2:44:28] Voice 5: Who knows?

[2:44:29] Voice 4: Maybe it's 2030.

[2:44:31] Voice 4: It would be part of the bridge, Toby.

[2:44:39] Voice 4: Trustee Yates?

[2:44:40] Voice 4: Yeah, I was looking at that one, too.

[2:44:42] Voice 4: So I definitely want them to be two separate policies, as Trustee Elliott has mentioned there.

[2:44:52] Voice 4: And large-scale water supply infrastructure on a shoreline on Gabriola would be highly contentious

[2:45:03] Voice 4: because most of our shoreline is already in what we think of as a hazard zone,

[2:45:09] Voice 4: A zone where we have to be really careful to protect the foreshore, the upland areas, and the littoral area of the ocean.

[2:45:22] Voice 4: And so I'd be very happy to see nothing as far as large-scale infrastructure.

[2:45:28] Voice 4: But why don't we leave it in there?

[2:45:32] Voice 4: Certainly, the kind of desalination that they have in Dubai, for example.

[2:45:37] Voice 4: example dubai is a desert and um they don't have to worry about protecting four shores and that

[2:45:43] Voice 4: kind of thing and we do but we never know what people can come up with and so i guess leave it

[2:45:52] Voice 4: in there but have it separate from the pipeline trustee

[2:46:01] Voice 7: elliott agree

[2:46:05] Voice 5: uh so i just want to go

[2:46:08] Voice 5: back to policy 2492 which is about fresh water sustainability and the land use regulations about

[2:46:17] Voice 5: requiring all new residential commercial institutional development to incorporate

[2:46:22] Voice 5: fresh water capture and storage infrastructure such as cisterns and holding ponds period

[2:46:28] Voice 5: other systems designed to retain fresh water from natural on island sources that would be available

[2:46:35] Voice 5: I love, um, it's a little bit of wording there.

[2:46:38] Voice 5: Natural on island, on island needs a dash.

[2:46:41] Voice 5: Sources to offset, um, to offset the use of groundwater and serve as a backup.

[2:46:53] Voice 5: It's a little bit, it's quite specific, but I really like it.

[2:46:58] Voice 5: We had lots of discussion about what other ways of storing, capturing, slowing, you know,

[2:47:05] Voice 5: seeping water into the ground ponds um not just cisterns not just plastic things so i really want

[2:47:13] Voice 5: to thank staff for coming up with this language and say that generally i i think this will um

[2:47:20] Voice 5: this meets the what i've been hearing from community so i really like this one thanks

[2:47:27] Voice 5: Okay.

[2:47:37] Trustee Patrick: What's next?

[2:47:41] Planner Chadwick: Well, if there are, I guess, if there are no further discussions required on, desired on table one, then we can move, I would suggest we move to table two and the additional changes.

[2:48:02] Planner Chadwick: is. But prior to that, I think I know that trustees have indicated that there are some

[2:48:09] Planner Chadwick: other themes they'd like to discuss. So it might be a good idea to identify what those

[2:48:13] Planner Chadwick: are. And I would suggest that we discuss those after we've moved through the other topics.

[2:48:20] Trustee Patrick: All right. I just want to do a time check here. Are we all supposed to be ending this

[2:48:24] Trustee Patrick: meeting in 12 minutes?

[2:48:28] Planner Chadwick: That was the intention, but it looks like it looks like we need more time.

[2:48:34] Planner Chadwick: Okay.

[2:48:34] Trustee Patrick: Well, I just want to double check with people. I'll have to look outside of this door

[2:48:38] Trustee Patrick: and make sure someone didn't book this room for the next few minutes. Okay. So is that okay,

[2:48:46] Trustee Patrick: then, Trustee Yates, if we move to that table? Or do you have another question?

[2:48:50] Voice 4: Yeah, I'm already on that table. Thank you.

[2:48:53] Trustee Patrick: Okay. All right. So your hand is raised on that table?

[2:48:57] Voice 4: Yep. Table two, question number one, park designations permitting a caretaker's dwelling.

[2:49:03] Voice 4: Um, it's currently not permitted. I think that should stay. Yes, one does exist at Descanso Bay

[2:49:09] Voice 4: Regional Park, um, that is well taken care of by the regional district, and they do need someone

[2:49:16] Voice 4: there. Um, there is also someone at Pages Marina and Resort where there is a campground. Um, but

[2:49:23] Voice 4: But those are parks.

[2:49:26] Voice 4: Those are campgrounds.

[2:49:28] Voice 4: Those are not park designations per se.

[2:49:32] Voice 4: Well, they are a park, but they're also a campground.

[2:49:35] Voice 4: And so unless it's a campground that's been approved with whatever it needs,

[2:49:41] Voice 4: we should not be having caretakers' dwellings in a park.

[2:49:44] Voice 4: That seems kind of obvious.

[2:49:47] Voice 4: And I'd like to move down to,

[2:49:49] Voice 4: does the LTC support the options of cisterns for new builds?

[2:49:54] Voice 4: We've had so much discussion on this.

[2:49:57] Voice 4: And so it's really important, I think, to say cisterns or other storage capacity.

[2:50:04] Voice 4: And at some point, we need to say something in there about fire suppression.

[2:50:10] Voice 4: Even if someone thinks that they have plenty of water from their well to support several houses on one lot,

[2:50:17] Voice 4: But having some sort of water storage could be really, really helpful if it came to fire suppression.

[2:50:28] Voice 4: So I'll just I'll stop there for now and see what Trustee Elliott has to say about Table 2.

[2:50:35] Voice 5: Yeah, I'd prefer if

[2:50:36] Planner Chadwick: we could go through them one at a time.

[2:50:38] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, that's what I would

[2:50:39] Planner Chadwick: suggest. Yeah.

[2:50:40] Planner Chadwick: Yeah. So I so let's just so park designations permitting caretaker dwelling.

[2:50:46] Planner Chadwick: I think we're looking for a consensus there.

[2:50:49] Voice 5: Yeah, I agree with Trustee Yates.

[2:50:51] Planner Chadwick: Okay.

[2:50:53] Planner Chadwick: So moving to the next one.

[2:50:54] Planner Chadwick: So this is 2.6.1.2.

[2:50:58] Planner Chadwick: And this is where it's sort of been raised in the community,

[2:51:03] Planner Chadwick: some concern around this policy and staff.

[2:51:05] Planner Chadwick: Also, I would say we also feel that maybe this may be a difficult one to implement

[2:51:13] Planner Chadwick: because the identification of adverse impact

[2:51:17] Planner Chadwick: to indigenous cultural heritage validity

[2:51:20] Planner Chadwick: may be difficult to define.

[2:51:22] Planner Chadwick: And that may actually be defined

[2:51:24] Planner Chadwick: through the process of contacting First Nations

[2:51:29] Planner Chadwick: related to applications that are within 200 meters boundary

[2:51:37] Planner Chadwick: of the natural boundary and archaeological areas

[2:51:41] Planner Chadwick: Areas of higher archaeological potential so staff suggestions would be by removing that that we're removing any sort of ambiguity or challenge that may may occur, but we're not removing the intent, if we retain 2.6 point 1.3 because that's an opportunity for the nations themselves to identify

[2:52:06] Planner Chadwick: how the application may be able to address adverse impact.

[2:52:14] Voice 5: Rosalia?

[2:52:15] Voice 5: I totally agree that it's really not up to us to categorize

[2:52:21] Voice 5: what would demonstrate adverse impact for Indigenous heritage.

[2:52:27] Voice 5: I would suggest that policy could stand as, you know,

[2:52:35] Voice 5: should not increase density and this is a should it's you know it might be increased um but here's

[2:52:41] Voice 5: the consideration and then after cultural heritage sites comma unless supported through early

[2:52:48] Voice 5: engagement discussion with um first nations with you know rights and title like unless it's

[2:52:56] Voice 5: supported like unless the application or unless the bylaw amendment is like you know and and we

[2:53:02] Voice 5: We already have a process for early engagement for it's sort of directing that, you know, here's the check.

[2:53:12] Voice 5: We don't hold that sort of criteria setting because it's not our heritage.

[2:53:22] Voice 5: It's not ours to decide.

[2:53:25] Voice 5: side and so i think it's putting it into in less supported through or by first nations you know

[2:53:34] Voice 5: with rates and title in the area through an early engagement process might be a way of phrasing it

[2:53:41] Voice 5: i don't know what you think about that or it could just cut it off and said should not increase

[2:53:48] Voice 5: density or intensity of development and then but i think it's going to be a strong reaction

[2:53:53] Voice 5: yeah

[2:53:54] Planner Chadwick: uh so that would be extremely limited because i think it's been pointed out that

[2:53:57] Planner Chadwick: would be most of the island so um 600

[2:54:02] Voice 5: feet is not most of the island uh

[2:54:05] Planner Chadwick: 200 meters from any

[2:54:07] Planner Chadwick: known or potential uh oh

[2:54:09] Voice 5: of course yes yes yes so yeah oh gosh i see oh this is not shoreline okay

[2:54:18] Voice 5: Okay. Known or potential. Yeah, that's really ambiguous. So what is your suggestion again? Sorry.

[2:54:25] Voice 5: My

[2:54:25] Planner Chadwick: suggestion was that we actually remove it because I feel like the intent is captured within policy 2.6.1.3, because that's where if First Nations are informed that there are applications or amendments being made, they have the opportunity to provide information related to their concern and how the concern might be mitigated.

[2:54:51] Voice 5: Okay, I agree. That's, I think that's a good, that's a good compromise. I think this policy goes too far, and it would prohibit pretty much any additional development, as you said.

[2:55:07] Voice 4: Trustee Yates?

[2:55:09] Voice 4: Yep, get rid of 2.6.1.2 and keep 2.6.1.3.

[2:55:14] Voice 4: Perfect. All

[2:55:16] Planner Chadwick: right, moving right along.

[2:55:20] Planner Chadwick: So we have added, so there was some interest in conservation as it relates to subdivision.

[2:55:37] Planner Chadwick: So in 2.3.4, staff have added this.

[2:55:49] Planner Chadwick: So 2.4, you can read there, 2.4.3.4, 2.6, whatever the number is.

[2:55:57] Planner Chadwick: 2.6.3.4, bylaw amendments for land in the agricultural designation should not result in increased subdivision potential or risk for agriculture to be fragmented.

[2:56:09] Planner Chadwick: and this additional line has been added and this is um yeah i think something that's that's been

[2:56:14] Planner Chadwick: um brought to the attention by some community managers except may be considered when land is

[2:56:20] Planner Chadwick: being subdivided for for environmental uh conservation purposes so um the question there

[2:56:27] Planner Chadwick: is um stay or stay or go and i think was that chair patrick was just stepping a lot away so

[2:56:40] Planner Chadwick: So I think the default chair would be,

[2:56:45] Planner Chadwick: who'd like to take on the

[2:56:46] Voice 4: role of default chair?

[2:56:47] Voice 4: Trustee Yates.

[2:56:48] Voice 4: Trustee Yates.

[2:56:51] Voice 4: Thank you, Chair Elliott, temporarily.

[2:56:57] Voice 4: I think this is okay.

[2:57:00] Voice 4: It isn't very likely.

[2:57:02] Voice 4: And if someone wanted to do this,

[2:57:04] Voice 4: it would mean that there's some portion

[2:57:06] Voice 4: of that agricultural land

[2:57:09] Voice 4: that is more valuable to the community

[2:57:12] Voice 4: community for environmental purposes than it would be for farming purposes so i think i would

[2:57:20] Voice 4: like to to have that in there and then and take it to first reading um and i know the farming

[2:57:28] Voice 4: community has has commented on this but i think it should be in there until we go to first reading

[2:57:34] Voice 4: tristina

[2:57:43] Voice 5: thank you thank you i agree um and i'm actually referring back to the conversation we

[2:57:49] Voice 5: We had it on the Trust Conservancy Board on July 28th as we received the referral from the Denham and Nyland Local Trust Committee by-law.

[2:57:58] Voice 5: And the recommendation there is sort of similar about adding stronger language.

[2:58:11] Voice 5: Sorry, I'm just scrolling here.

[2:58:13] Voice 5: Supporting removal of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve for conservation purposes.

[2:58:17] Voice 5: purposes and then there was adding the list of criteria which is ecological um was it ecological

[2:58:30] Voice 5: it's not just ecological it's not just conservation purposes but it was like ecological

[2:58:37] Voice 5: something and i have to scroll through the document sorry but i i think that's it's fair

[2:58:43] Voice 5: I mean, and if the wording's good, then maybe we don't need to.

[2:58:52] Voice 4: Trustee Yates?

[2:58:53] Voice 4: Yeah, I too was thinking of the referral that the Conservancy got

[2:58:57] Voice 4: from the Denman Island, for the Denman Island OCP.

[2:59:00] Voice 4: And one of the things that we noted was that when you have conservation,

[2:59:07] Voice 4: a conservation area adjacent to a piece of farmland,

[2:59:12] Voice 4: sometimes it's a wetland or a water you know area or something like that or just a forest

[2:59:18] Voice 4: that has birds and pollinators that can actually enhance the agricultural value of the adjacent

[2:59:25] Voice 4: land so i think that was maybe what you might have been thinking of trustee elliot but yeah for sure

[2:59:31] Voice 4: i

[2:59:34] Trustee Patrick: know it's a common occurrence here on salt spring because our alr is like valley bottoms

[2:59:41] Trustee Patrick: So it's, you know, they're squiggly lines instead of nice rectangular parcels. So we usually end up with split zones on a parcel. And I find

[2:59:50] Trustee Patrick: it's common, someone will buy a farm, or they have cultural property, and then they want to split or subdivide that split zone out.

[3:00:00] Trustee Patrick: to build houses and that's the the to me it's all part of the farm the forest or the you know

[3:00:06] Trustee Patrick: the wetland that other lands that are around it that uh you know so it's retaining so that's kind

[3:00:11] Trustee Patrick: of the opposite of allowing fragmentation it's retaining that larger parcel and it's associated

[3:00:18] Trustee Patrick: other land zones just because it's not alr okay are we

[3:00:31] Voice 7: ready to move along sure there's a consensus

[3:00:33] Planner Chadwick: this here yeah okay so moving to the next one so this was also uh brought up in the yield submission

[3:00:40] Planner Chadwick: um so related to um and we had some conversation about this in july uh where in the uh the current

[3:00:51] Planner Chadwick: policies we are allowing on the rural residential um property and on um the farm

[3:01:01] Planner Chadwick: Farm agricultural properties that are outside the freshwater hazard zone are allowed to have, that are over two hectares, are allowed to have a secondary suite and a detached unit.

[3:01:23] Planner Chadwick: So, there is, this is, and I think we've pointed out before, this is the one instance where a permission is being, that was previously there, is being removed, and that is the ability to have a secondary unit within the, on agricultural property within the freshwater hazard area.

[3:01:50] Voice 5: Trustee Elliott?

[3:01:51] Voice 5: Yeah, so I think the concern that was raised specifically with that question is, why remove detached secondary dwelling units in the agriculture zone within freshwater hazard zones when it's proposed to be allowed in the other zones?

[3:02:08] Voice 5: I'm assuming not like residential zones, except parks and protected spaces. Is that what you're talking about?

[3:02:17] Voice 5: boat like why are we removing an accessory dwelling unit or the possibility of flexible

[3:02:24] Voice 5: housing a little bit like

[3:02:26] Planner Chadwick: essentially uh and i guess part of the rationale there was

[3:02:30] Planner Chadwick: concerning water use because agriculture is fairly intensive water use um yeah intensive

[3:02:40] Planner Chadwick: water use so that's why the consideration was made um to not allow the additional unit

[3:02:48] Planner Chadwick: So

[3:02:49] Voice 5: would not the freshwater sustainability policy support that, that an application for rezoning, for flexible housing, for agricultural land should demonstrate, you know, there's freshwater capture.

[3:03:07] Voice 5: capture there's a way of um either rainwater harvesting system or the cisterns we talked

[3:03:14] Voice 5: about or the ponds you know farmers are pretty freaking smart when it comes to figuring out what

[3:03:21] Voice 5: to do with the land and making sure they have enough water for um the proposed you know so i

[3:03:29] Voice 5: yeah

[3:03:29] Planner Chadwick: i think you're pointing to actually um a resolution here to this question uh and that is

[3:03:36] Planner Chadwick: that we could add there's I think there's two ways of going about that one

[3:03:42] Planner Chadwick: would be to add to the the policy that exists related to that density in in the

[3:03:56] Planner Chadwick: forest area to add that additional unit could be could be permitted if

[3:04:02] Planner Chadwick: alternative water is is identified the other way to do it would be if we retain we end up retaining

[3:04:10] Planner Chadwick: the flexible housing uh policy then we could also that that could be a considerate consideration

[3:04:17] Planner Chadwick: under under flexible housing for the agricultural um properties that are within the the freshwater

[3:04:24] Planner Chadwick: hazard zone so there's two ways we could do it i think um planner bow i'm going to defer to you

[3:04:30] Planner Chadwick: as well because you're very smart on this stuff too um what are your thoughts well

[3:04:37] Voice 2: sorry i was

[3:04:38] Voice 2: kind of reading to the side there so i didn't hear all of your comments so but i do think the

[3:04:43] Voice 2: terms of the i agree that it was about the water use and the concern about water use um and and

[3:04:53] Voice 2: there i think trustee elliott was pointing out too that there is the requirement in the freshwater

[3:04:57] Voice 2: hazard area to have the rainwater collection or freshwater collection system um and that that does

[3:05:04] Voice 2: effectively address that um that concern potentially so yeah so

[3:05:11] Voice 2: i was just reading

[3:05:12] Voice 2: it in policy 2.4.9.3 which is that that one that replies it applies across the island and any of

[3:05:20] Voice 2: the freshwater hazard areas for secondary dwelling units yeah

[3:05:26] Planner Chadwick: so i think that the the resolution here

[3:05:28] Planner Chadwick: is that we we could work in we could work in an opportunity for uh um for properties within the

[3:05:37] Planner Chadwick: fresh water within the agriculture within the freshwater hazard area to be able to have that

[3:05:42] Planner Chadwick: additional uh separate unit if it's supported by an alternative water system or water option yes

[3:05:50] Planner Chadwick: and we'll figure out the best way we can give you some options maybe uh trustee yates

[3:05:54] Voice 4: yes okay that

[3:05:56] Voice 4: that makes me feel better because I had a big a big red maybe on my table too here

[3:06:02] Voice 4: mainly because I really want people to take the incredible amount of work that went into that

[3:06:09] Voice 4: freshwater footprint and the mapping that accompanies it I want I want people to take

[3:06:15] Voice 4: that seriously and I want us to take it seriously and so if something is in what we pretty much know

[3:06:22] Voice 4: to be a freshwater hazard area, we really need to consider how they're going to get their water

[3:06:30] Voice 4: for whatever purpose. So I think that's a good compromise, and I support that.

[3:06:37] Planner Chadwick: Okay. All right.

[3:06:41] Planner Chadwick: Great. Moving right along here. So, okay, so this was a question that came up

[3:06:47] Planner Chadwick: uh related to uh bnbs so currently there's no um limit on on on number of bedrooms that can be

[3:06:57] Planner Chadwick: we

[3:06:59] Voice 4: skipped one planner chadwick we missed

[3:07:01] Planner Chadwick: oh sorry oh which one did we miss oh yeah oh yeah

[3:07:05] Planner Chadwick: the one does the ltc support options to the alternative options for cisterns and i think we

[3:07:12] Planner Chadwick: discussed that a bit already and i think there was consensus from the the both of you that that

[3:07:17] Planner Chadwick: you were um happy with that policy yep more pawns more pawns more pawns okay excellent this that'll

[3:07:27] Planner Chadwick: be the first one of its type in the in the in the trust area and potentially a model um okay so

[3:07:34] Planner Chadwick: moving on to bed and breakfasts um there's no limit uh identified in the the ocp and i i don't

[3:07:43] Planner Chadwick: believe there is one in the land use bylaw uh founder about could you confirm that there there

[3:07:48] Voice 2: There is a limit in the land use by-law.

[3:07:50] Planner Chadwick: In the land use by-law there is.

[3:07:51] Planner Chadwick: And what is the number?

[3:07:52] Voice 2: I have to look that up.

[3:07:54] Voice 2: It's dependent on the lot size a little bit.

[3:07:57] Voice 2: I can find out for you.

[3:07:58] Planner Chadwick: Yeah.

[3:07:58] Planner Chadwick: So there were questions about, and so this is, again,

[3:08:01] Planner Chadwick: this is where, you know, do you need to have that regulate,

[3:08:07] Planner Chadwick: like that kind of, it's essentially would be a regulatory policy.

[3:08:12] Planner Chadwick: Or are you happy with leaving it to the land use by-law to define that?

[3:08:18] Planner Chadwick: 58?

[3:08:20] Voice 4: um i'm really glad that it is in the current land use bylaw and it needs to be there so that's where

[3:08:26] Voice 4: it should be okay trustee

[3:08:31] Planner Chadwick: is there an agreement or or

[3:08:33] Trustee Patrick: trustee elliott oh

[3:08:35] Voice 5: yeah i thought we were

[3:08:37] Voice 5: talking about the question of whether accessory dwelling units could be oh we're limiting no

[3:08:42] Trustee Patrick: but in breakfasts

[3:08:44] Voice 5: yes no i it's been b and b's in accessory dwelling units but i think that's

[3:08:50] Voice 5: in the

[3:08:50] Planner Chadwick: yeah that's another one yeah i've

[3:08:52] Voice 5: got that on my

[3:08:52] Planner Chadwick: list of additionals yeah thanks okay

[3:08:55] Planner Chadwick: this one's fairly straightforward um okay so uh the next one is just flexible housing i feel like

[3:09:03] Planner Chadwick: we've addressed that um the next one um okay then we've addressed that too uh we're going to put a

[3:09:14] Planner Chadwick: section in the interpretation interpretation related to the words the use of the words may

[3:09:19] Planner Chadwick: a must, et cetera. Yep.

[3:09:23] Planner Chadwick: So now we can move to some of the submissions that have,

[3:09:31] Planner Chadwick: so, so I will say, so, and I'll just put it out what I've received.

[3:09:35] Planner Chadwick: And, and, and, and I, I think we should be discussing what I've done,

[3:09:41] Planner Chadwick: what I've done is I've looked at all the submissions and there were a number

[3:09:46] Planner Chadwick: of things that sort of overlapped.

[3:09:47] Planner Chadwick: and I think we've addressed a lot of a lot of those and there were uh three that were outstanding

[3:09:54] Planner Chadwick: uh one was the question related to detached secondary units as being part of uh B&Bs

[3:10:02] Planner Chadwick: um the other one uh was related to oh yeah there was a question around uh the residential

[3:10:12] Planner Chadwick: designation and how we only have one and should there not be two still two should we retain small

[3:10:19] Planner Chadwick: rural and and large rural and i can answer that question very directly and um like essentially

[3:10:27] Planner Chadwick: we collapse we've we've created one designation which is rural residential um because we've we've

[3:10:35] Planner Chadwick: it makes it much more mostly because it makes it it just provides clarity in the policy it doesn't

[3:10:41] Planner Chadwick: change anything with respect to uh what can or cannot have uh the distinction between what can

[3:10:48] Planner Chadwick: happen in smaller on smaller lots and what can happen on larger locks uh the land use bylaw is

[3:10:54] Planner Chadwick: where the the distinction between those two is much more will be clearly identified so we're

[3:11:01] Planner Chadwick: We're still retaining the zone, the small rural zone, and that'll identify number of units, etc., and the large rural residential.

[3:11:14] Planner Chadwick: But the overreaching policy doesn't really change anything, so I just wanted to point that out.

[3:11:21] Planner Chadwick: So unless there's interest in that type of specificity being in the land use designation from the trustee's staff suggestion is we keep it the way it is because it's much easier and much, it's a much easier, it's a much clearer policy.

[3:11:42] Planner Chadwick: Trustee Yates?

[3:11:43] Voice 4: Keep it the way it is. Thank you.

[3:11:45] Planner Chadwick: All right.

[3:11:47] Planner Chadwick: Cool. I see head nod from Trustee Elliott.

[3:11:49] Planner Chadwick: Okay, moving right along.

[3:11:50] Planner Chadwick: um so the other so the other there there were a number of things that came in from um

[3:11:57] Planner Chadwick: did you

[3:11:58] Trustee Patrick: deal with the rooms in the accessory dwelling we haven't

[3:12:03] Planner Chadwick: yet no i just wanted to

[3:12:05] Planner Chadwick: point out the things that i in addition that we should uh be addressing and and and identify what

[3:12:11] Planner Chadwick: else we should add to the list so that we know what we're working with uh right now so there

[3:12:16] Planner Chadwick: There were a few things that had come in from GILS, some of the things we have addressed, and there's a few things on the list here that we can address.

[3:12:26] Planner Chadwick: And so those were the things that I've got on my list.

[3:12:29] Planner Chadwick: I wanted to see what trustees had on their list.

[3:12:31] Planner Chadwick: We can add them, and then we can just, again, methodically move through.

[3:12:36] Trustee Patrick: All right.

[3:12:36] Trustee Patrick: Trustees, did you have more on your lists?

[3:12:41] Trustee Patrick: Go ahead, Trustee Elliott.

[3:12:43] Voice 5: Vet clinic.

[3:12:45] Voice 5: Vet clinic.

[3:12:45] Voice 5: there is a it's it's there's a limiting factor of home occupation or where vent clinics can be

[3:12:53] Voice 5: on that they're limited to five acre properties and that needs to be changed so okay

[3:13:00] Planner Chadwick: anything

[3:13:02] Planner Chadwick: else you wanted on your list i

[3:13:05] Trustee Patrick: think we should at least have a discussion about the name of

[3:13:08] Trustee Patrick: freshwater hazard zone because we did have that conversation at regional planning committee

[3:13:15] Trustee Patrick: no no resolution that

[3:13:17] Planner Chadwick: would be freshwater hazard area just

[3:13:20] Trustee Patrick: the name okay

[3:13:22] Planner Chadwick: anything else

[3:13:23] Planner Chadwick: go

[3:13:25] Trustee Patrick: ahead planner bow bow has something he wants to add to the list okay yes of course

[3:13:31] Voice 2: i just i

[3:13:32] Voice 2: just wanted to i just have a few notes from the earlier q a um where things that had come up um

[3:13:39] Voice 2: So identifying words that have definitions, convictions instead of considerations.

[3:13:45] Voice 2: Oh,

[3:13:45] Planner Chadwick: that's right. We have those.

[3:13:47] Voice 2: And then ordering the values alphabetically.

[3:13:50] Voice 2: And the last one I had written was the use of affordable housing as a term instead of non-market housing.

[3:13:59] Voice 2: That's my brief summary of those points that I noted.

[3:14:02] Voice 2: There might have been a little more detail in the actual comments.

[3:14:04] Voice 2: Yeah,

[3:14:06] Planner Chadwick: so those are ones that we can address as a group.

[3:14:13] Planner Chadwick: And then maybe we should address those first because they're sort of very kind of focused.

[3:14:22] Planner Chadwick: Is there anything else?

[3:14:25] Voice 4: Trustee Yates?

[3:14:26] Voice 4: um the trustee patrick this goes back to our thinking about a um a wildfire hazard

[3:14:37] Voice 4: wildfire hazard zone dpa whatever it might take um but there's not there's not much in this ocp

[3:14:47] Voice 4: to talk about wildfire so we need some something needs to go in there okay all

[3:14:56] Planner Chadwick: right anything else

[3:15:00] Planner Chadwick: Trustee Elliott?

[3:15:02] Voice 5: I was just looking through Gil's submission as well. Did we deal with the

[3:15:08] Voice 5: distinguishing between agriculture and horticulture?

[3:15:12] Planner Chadwick: We have not.

[3:15:13] Voice 5: Yeah. And then

[3:15:14] Voice 5: it's

[3:15:14] Planner Chadwick: on my list.

[3:15:15] Voice 5: Okay, thanks. Yeah. And then the STRs, the request was to subsidize short-term

[3:15:25] Voice 5: rent. Okay,

[3:15:25] Planner Chadwick: thanks. Yeah, we haven't dealt with those. So I think we'll just go, we can go through

[3:15:29] Planner Chadwick: their comments uh and i identify the ones that come up i do so i'm looking at a list that i

[3:15:35] Planner Chadwick: pulled out previously uh and uh we can work through that um okay so i think how about we

[3:15:45] Planner Chadwick: deal with the um the technical piece um on about do you want to sort of just work move us through

[3:15:53] Planner Chadwick: that conversation a bit

[3:15:55] Voice 2: sure so the first one maybe is just identifying words that have definitions

[3:16:01] Voice 2: and this is something that we commonly do in the land use bylaws I don't know that it's something

[3:16:07] Voice 2: that we've always done in official community plans but it's likely it's possible to do that

[3:16:15] Voice 2: just need to sort out a way of of it being practical and helpful to a reader isn't the

[3:16:26] Trustee Patrick: intent that once the land use bylaw is up and drafted that the definitions are only going to

[3:16:34] Trustee Patrick: to be in the land use bylaws was that your intent oh

[3:16:40] Planner Chadwick: so that is a really good question um

[3:16:44] Planner Chadwick: we put them in there so right now they're in the appendix uh and this is we put them in there

[3:16:53] Planner Chadwick: so that this could be the process they can support the process and we can remove the and this is

[3:16:59] Planner Chadwick: this will be a question we can we can remove them or we can so they're not essentially part of the

[3:17:04] Planner Chadwick: bylaw they are there for to support the understanding of the bylaw um and so this is a

[3:17:12] Planner Chadwick: conversation that we've been having is i mean ideally like the definitions belong or i guess

[3:17:19] Planner Chadwick: our best practices in the islands trust has been to put them in the land use bylaw so it's a

[3:17:25] Planner Chadwick: question whether we we retain them in the the the ocp in the appendix um like for information

[3:17:34] Planner Chadwick: moving forward.

[3:17:37] Voice 4: Trustee Yates? Well, seeing as we're doing the land use bylaw almost in accordance

[3:17:43] Voice 4: with this OCP review, the definitions definitely belong in the land use bylaw. I don't think they

[3:17:52] Voice 4: really belong in the OCP, but maybe you could have them in there temporarily until we get the land

[3:17:59] Voice 4: use bylaw. I think that would be a good compromise.

[3:18:04] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, and that's sort of how we've

[3:18:08] Planner Chadwick: been moving forward i

[3:18:12] Trustee Patrick: think that sounds supported absolutely two sets of definitions no they never

[3:18:18] Trustee Patrick: match so

[3:18:20] Planner Chadwick: in which case responding to that comment i think we just leave we just leave it leave things

[3:18:25] Planner Chadwick: as is and you'll

[3:18:27] Planner Chadwick: have to sort it out the land use

[3:18:28] Trustee Patrick: bylaw how you correct demark definitions yeah

[3:18:34] Planner Chadwick: so what have we what else have we got on that technical piece uh steven well

[3:18:39] Voice 2: the next one and

[3:18:40] Voice 2: and I have a few screens up so I don't recall the particular section this was about

[3:18:44] Voice 2: but there was a comment about using the word convictions instead of

[3:18:48] Voice 2: considerations and I believe it was

[3:18:51] Planner Chadwick: related to the

[3:18:52] Voice 2: values section

[3:18:52] Voice 2: possibly I

[3:18:54] Planner Chadwick: think I think was it was it in the values

[3:18:57] Planner Chadwick: statement I'm

[3:19:18] Trustee Patrick: not finding it

[3:19:19] Voice 5: wasn't in the it wasn't

[3:19:21] Voice 5: in the statement I believe it was up top in the context

[3:19:25] Voice 5: before the vision you can scroll up just a little bit

[3:19:29] Voice 4: you know where it is

[3:19:31] Voice 4: i don't support the word convictions and

[3:19:35] Planner Chadwick: i think the decision was to

[3:19:37] Planner Chadwick: remove all of the the content around the vision too right so i just have the vision in that section

[3:19:46] Planner Chadwick: i

[3:19:54] Voice 5: i think it's a moot point it's not okay we're

[3:19:56] Planner Chadwick: done yeah okay okay next sorry

[3:20:02] Voice 2: uh yeah uh next one

[3:20:04] Voice 2: is to order the values alphabetically.

[3:20:12] Voice 2: I believe that's referring to this section here.

[3:20:21] Planner Chadwick: Is there interest in changing the order of the values?

[3:20:27] Voice 4: No.

[3:20:28] Planner Chadwick: No. Okay. Done.

[3:20:29] Planner Chadwick: Okay.

[3:20:31] Voice 2: And then the final one I have noted here

[3:20:35] Voice 2: is regarding the use of the term affordable housing

[3:20:39] Voice 2: and non-market housing.

[3:20:42] Voice 2: And there's a comment about the definition of

[3:20:44] Voice 2: of uh maybe i should i think i have it up actually the full comment now that i have

[3:20:49] Voice 2: so it says for clarity could you substitute affordable housing for non-market throughout

[3:20:54] Voice 2: the document in 2.7.2.1 non-market is defined as needing a housing agreement which is the same

[3:21:01] Voice 2: criterion as the definition for affordable housing i

[3:21:10] Planner Chadwick: would say there's a distinction between

[3:21:11] Planner Chadwick: affordable we've made the distinction between affordable and we've got low

[3:21:18] Planner Chadwick: income and moderate income and non-market would capture the two of them

[3:21:23] Planner Chadwick: so I staff can definitely have a look and see if there are any contradictions

[3:21:32] Planner Chadwick: there and we can do that unless you have any strong feelings I think it's sort of

[3:21:39] Planner Chadwick: technical thing that we can have a look at

[3:21:43] Trustee Patrick: nope i think you got agreement there okay great okay

[3:21:50] Planner Chadwick: let's move on to um so these are primarily the comments that have come in from uh gills um

[3:21:59] Planner Chadwick: and so there's uh there are questions related to uh maximum floor maximum floria but we haven't

[3:22:14] Planner Chadwick: had any discussion at all uh related to that in in this so i would suggest that that's

[3:22:20] Planner Chadwick: kind of off the table for now um they had they had identified some

[3:22:27] Planner Chadwick: uh potential uh options for sizes of units related to flex housing and i think that now

[3:22:35] Planner Chadwick: that we've gone taken a different approach that is also kind of mute at this point um

[3:22:41] Planner Chadwick: And they question the establishment of a maximum number, and we've already had a significant discussion around that.

[3:22:53] Planner Chadwick: There's interest in a more relaxed approach to short-term vacation rentals for properties with farm status, and that's definitely a conversation that you need to have.

[3:23:09] Planner Chadwick: have, if there's interest in a more relaxed approach to short-term vacations,

[3:23:18] Planner Chadwick: occasional rentals on farm property properties.

[3:23:22] Trustee Patrick: Yeah, both hands up there.

[3:23:24] Trustee Patrick: So go ahead, Trustee Yates.

[3:23:27] Trustee Patrick: Well,

[3:23:27] Voice 4: I'm really happy with our short-term vacation rental.

[3:23:41] Voice 4: You may have a temporary kind of thing.

[3:23:45] Voice 4: Trustee

[3:23:46] Voice 5: Yates, we're cutting out a lot.

[3:23:48] Voice 5: Can you

[3:23:49] Voice 5: take your video off, I think.

[3:23:52] Voice 4: I will turn off my video.

[3:23:58] Trustee Patrick: It's not improving.

[3:23:59] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:24:10] Voice 9: Trustee Yates,

[3:24:11] Voice 5: we can't hear you.

[3:24:13] Voice 5: Trustee Yates, you may need to pause.

[3:24:17] Trustee Patrick: can you hear

[3:24:18] Voice 5: me now not really you're

[3:24:20] Trustee Patrick: better now i think than you've been try to try it again right

[3:24:25] Trustee Patrick: now how

[3:24:29] Voice 4: is it now that's

[3:24:30] Planner Chadwick: better better go

[3:24:34] Voice 4: ahead probably just my internet connection

[3:24:37] Voice 4: yeah um i would be very cautious with this one i can see where it could really get out of hand

[3:24:43] Voice 4: And yeah, I like the idea of farm vacations and I really like the idea of, but I don't

[3:24:54] Voice 4: know, I got to really think about this one because I'm very happy with our temporary

[3:24:58] Voice 4: use permits for short-term vacation rental, but they are only temporary use permits.

[3:25:02] Voice 4: They're not permanent.

[3:25:04] Voice 4: So we have to think about that.

[3:25:07] Voice 4: That's all I'll say right now.

[3:25:09] Voice 4: I just, I can't really.

[3:25:12] Voice 4: Okay.

[3:25:13] Voice 4: Trustee Elliott?

[3:25:14] Trustee Patrick: I

[3:25:16] Voice 5: guess my question is, and looking back at the farmer's feedback, specifically, and we've seen an application coming in with a request from a farmer, I think it was early in the term, that the application fee was onerous and a challenge.

[3:25:36] Voice 5: So I'm wondering if there's a different method for rental accommodation for active farmers.

[3:25:48] Voice 5: And I don't know what that looks like, but how can we, is there a different category for, like you can already have seasonal farm workers.

[3:26:03] Voice 5: I think the request was year-round seasonal instead of the six months, but I'm not sure if that's related to ALR restrictions, year-round farm worker secondary housing.

[3:26:15] Voice 5: But to the temporary use permits, is this a recommendation that the LTC requests through executive committee, you know, bursary or sponsorship specifically for farm, you know, farm sponsorship, farm temporary use permits for short-term rentals for farmers?

[3:26:44] Voice 5: Because I don't know if we can just waive the fee. We can't waive those fees through the OCP. Is there a different path, or is this an advocacy policy?

[3:26:55] Voice 5: I

[3:26:56] Trustee Patrick: have a, before you go, I'm wondering if they're, Salt Spring and Gabriel are the only two that have opted into the principal residences requirements and your temporary use permit process existed prior to that opting in.

[3:27:14] Trustee Patrick: Is farms through, there is an exemption for farms.

[3:27:24] Trustee Patrick: Is there an opportunity to make sure your temporary use permit is harmonized with the STR principal residence? Is that another way of looking at this, potentially? At least asking staff to look at that?

[3:27:40] Voice 5: What do you mean there's an exemption for farms?

[3:27:43] Trustee Patrick: They're exempt from the principal residence requirement, which specifies things.

[3:27:48] Trustee Patrick: Well,

[3:27:50] Planner Chadwick: so I think the principal residence requirement, the requirement is that in order to rent a short-term vacation, in order to be offering short-term vacation rental, you need to be the principal resident of the property which you are operating in such a way.

[3:28:13] Planner Chadwick: that's just to define just to be clear on that um we can look into the the exemption of farms

[3:28:20] Planner Chadwick: but ultimately that there needs to be a decision from the ltc as to how you'd like to address this

[3:28:26] Planner Chadwick: i think in my mind right now uh and maybe planner bow has some other suggestions um certainly

[3:28:32] Planner Chadwick: looking at a reduced um fee for temporary use permits would be something that would have to

[3:28:39] Planner Chadwick: to could be considered but would have to go through I think I think would be would need to

[3:28:47] Planner Chadwick: be considered by the executive committee because that is an operational consideration the other

[3:28:55] Planner Chadwick: option that that I'm thinking in my mind is we have had that this we've had that limited discussion

[3:29:01] Planner Chadwick: around extending bed and breakfast to detached secondary units there could be the consideration

[3:29:08] Planner Chadwick: of allowing that to one secondary unit on if if the farm has farm status could be an option

[3:29:16] Planner Chadwick: um planner bow do you have any other ideas of options that we could suggest at this time

[3:29:24] Planner Chadwick: i

[3:29:26] Voice 2: don't have anything on off the top of my head i think i agree with your assessment about

[3:29:32] Voice 2: reducing the fees and i think you know the possibility there is if there's a substantially

[3:29:38] Voice 2: less review of those applications and that you know where there's where maybe that could justify

[3:29:45] Voice 2: a lower fee but I think we'd have to look at that and and into policies and I don't know if that

[3:29:52] Voice 2: would be something that's recommended so yeah so maybe there's an ability then to to adjust the

[3:29:59] Voice 2: uses or

[3:30:01] Voice 2: permissions or guidelines, TP guidelines for properties with farm status.

[3:30:08] Voice 4: Trustee Yates? Thank you. I would not be in favor of reducing the guidelines. I think we

[3:30:17] Voice 4: have really good guidelines for temporary use permits, keeping in mind this is short-term

[3:30:21] Voice 4: vacation rental. The people who rent their places for vacation rentals, they recoup those expenses

[3:30:31] Voice 4: expenses almost immediately because you can make a lot of money renting out a place as a short-term

[3:30:37] Voice 4: vacation rental. So, you know, I'm worried about this all of a sudden becoming, oh, well, we'll

[3:30:44] Voice 4: just, you know, we'll grow some, we'll have a horse and we'll have this and that, and then we'll

[3:30:50] Voice 4: have a, we'll have a vacation rental and it will hardly cost us anything and we'll make lots of

[3:30:55] Voice 4: of money. And I don't know, I'm sorry, but I'm really, I really like our temporary use guideline

[3:31:02] Voice 4: guidelines. And this is a, it's a money-making proposition when you are doing a vacation rental.

[3:31:08] Voice 4: So you should be able to recoup those expenses with the vacation rental. Thanks.

[3:31:16] Voice 4: Thank you. Trustee Elliott?

[3:31:21] Voice 5: I guess my question is what is included in agritourism defined by the province of British

[3:31:28] Voice 5: Columbia because that's a specific activity that is encouraged to make working farms sustainable

[3:31:34] Voice 5: and we're looking at policy 2542 under the agriculture section so uh 254

[3:31:47] Voice 5: it says small scale low impact uses related to agriculture such as selling of farm goods

[3:31:52] Voice 5: and agri-tourism should be permitted when it's demonstrated so does agri-tourism allow them to

[3:31:59] Voice 5: host um and rent out you know that additional dwelling for seasonal workers like if they've

[3:32:09] Voice 5: got an additional dwelling for seasonal workers presumably they'll be using

[3:32:13] Voice 5: it so

[3:32:14] Planner Chadwick: i think i think

[3:32:15] Planner Chadwick: we're talking about that's a different thing we're talking about um yeah i think there's two

[3:32:19] Planner Chadwick: things i think seasonal workers um are covered it's the uh short-term vacation rental um piece

[3:32:28] Planner Chadwick: that we're talking about right

[3:32:29] Voice 5: now is is short-term rental of accommodations included

[3:32:34] Voice 5: in agritourism like do we need to have a temporary use permit for that because it's sort of

[3:32:39] Voice 5: part of the

[3:32:40] Voice 5: yeah

[3:32:41] Planner Chadwick: so the way that this is written um like you you still need to permit it in the

[3:32:46] Planner Chadwick: way that you want to permit it like what this policy is saying is that these uses are um should

[3:32:53] Planner Chadwick: be permitted how you permit them needs to be identified and so currently they are permitted

[3:32:58] Planner Chadwick: through temporary use permit well

[3:33:00] Voice 5: and that's what i'm asking is is if a farm can demonstrate that

[3:33:04] Voice 5: it is you know its activities for agritourism um is you know short-term rental of up to whatever

[3:33:14] Voice 5: days and they have farm status that they don't have to apply for a temporary use permit because

[3:33:21] Voice 5: Because renting a unit supports tourism, agritourism for their farm.

[3:33:28] Voice 5: I know it's a bit of a chicken and egg, but it's.

[3:33:31] Planner Chadwick: Yeah, I think maybe there could be a way of just defining some very clear criteria related to essentially an exemption from the existing approach to short-term vacation rentals for agriculture.

[3:33:52] Trustee Patrick: Planner Brown?

[3:33:53] Voice 2: provide a little more information to just to note that this policy um you know related to the small

[3:34:01] Voice 2: scale low impact uses uh this is for the agriculture designation and i at least my

[3:34:08] Voice 2: understanding of those comments from gillis is that they're related to any any land that

[3:34:12] Voice 2: has farm status which might not be an agricultural designation because gabriel

[3:34:18] Voice 2: it is permissive to agriculture you know throughout that's that's common that that

[3:34:24] Voice 2: people might be carrying on those activities outside of the agricultural designation in a

[3:34:28] Voice 2: rural community the agritourism and agriculture is often an accessory use then to a residential

[3:34:36] Voice 2: use on those lots outside the agriculture designation and agritourism might not be

[3:34:42] Voice 2: permitted on those lots the other consideration is that in the land use bylaw currently there

[3:34:50] Voice 2: is a distinction between agritourism and agritourism accommodation so there's agritourism

[3:34:57] Voice 2: activities that might support a farm that are not short-term rentals of like short-term

[3:35:06] Voice 2: overnight accommodations um so that just kind of help with so

[3:35:15] Voice 5: i think we need to do a little

[3:35:17] Voice 5: more research on this i was just briefly reviewing and i'm by no means an expert but

[3:35:22] Voice 5: i think you're right that they the the policy by the alc for agri-tourism does not address

[3:35:33] Voice 5: agritourism accommodation, but in some circumstances, it's permitted use under Section 33.

[3:35:40] Voice 5: And it might be that we just cannot prohibit it. So it might be not that this, we don't need to

[3:35:48] Voice 5: specify the pathway through temporary use permit, but if they can demonstrate through land, you know,

[3:35:55] Voice 5: having farmland status through a cement or whatever process exists that agritourism

[3:36:01] Voice 5: accessory dwelling provision or whatever that our OSCP doesn't prohibit that or make them go

[3:36:10] Voice 5: through the temporary use permit for that so I think is this an area that staff can research

[3:36:15] Planner Chadwick: so I would suggest

[3:36:16] Planner Chadwick: that we don't have time before first reading so this would be one of those things

[3:36:20] Planner Chadwick: that um just like the flex housing that we have for discussion before second reading

[3:36:26] Planner Chadwick: our trustees do you feel okay with that yeah

[3:36:35] Voice 5: i don't think there's a clear direction right now

[3:36:38] Voice 5: but i think it's you need we need to figure it out somehow thanks

[3:36:41] Planner Chadwick: yeah i'm

[3:36:42] Voice 5: okay with that

[3:36:43] Voice 5: thank you okay

[3:36:44] Planner Chadwick: um so there's a question so we have um we have identified um in in general policies

[3:36:53] Planner Chadwick: um we have made a distinction between uh permitted we've permitted horticulture

[3:36:59] Planner Chadwick: uh on on all properties and um agriculture on the larger properties and so this has been sort

[3:37:09] Planner Chadwick: of flagged uh the question of why do we distinguish between agriculture and horticulture actually

[3:37:15] Planner Chadwick: So, Landerbaugh, do you want to answer that question?

[3:37:23] Voice 2: Yeah, sure.

[3:37:23] Voice 2: So there's, yeah, the land use or the OCP distinguishes between agriculture and horticulture.

[3:37:30] Voice 2: And the difference really is that agriculture includes animals and not just, you know, planting something and harvesting.

[3:37:41] Voice 2: thing and and the impacts of of having animals um are are potentially greater and in particular

[3:37:49] Voice 2: on smaller properties and so that's that's where the distinction is made in the land use

[3:37:54] Voice 2: designations um because we're just mentioning that agriculture is permitted kind of throughout

[3:38:00] Voice 2: um or at least in many designations um on gabriola um and so there's that distinction

[3:38:08] Voice 2: between agriculture on two lots two hectares or larger um and um permitting horticulture

[3:38:15] Voice 2: regardless of lot size and

[3:38:19] Planner Chadwick: i think also there um that does not prohibit um the raising of

[3:38:24] Planner Chadwick: of of animals for your own use chickens uh goats for your own use it's more it's about commercial

[3:38:33] Planner Chadwick: use when we're referring to agriculture on the larger properties because um the land use bylaw

[3:38:39] Planner Chadwick: actually does identify that uh that you can you can like have animals if you're using them for

[3:38:47] Planner Chadwick: your own purposes yeah so is there any interest from the trustees to to change to to any questions

[3:39:03] Planner Chadwick: or any interest in changing what's currently there which permits horticulture which is the

[3:39:08] Planner Chadwick: growing of plants uh of all kinds on uh everywhere basically um and then the differences permitting

[3:39:17] Planner Chadwick: agriculture which would be the raising of animals for commercial use on uh lots that are two hectares

[3:39:23] Planner Chadwick: or larger trustee elliot

[3:39:28] Voice 5: i support horticulture in all areas just have a question about whether

[3:39:32] Voice 5: includes um native plants i guess it would just growing plants as horticulture

[3:39:39] Voice 5: yeah if you can scroll to where we're talking about would be great what

[3:39:56] Voice 7: we have there is

[3:39:57] Voice 7: just out of order oh trusty keep going

[3:40:17] Voice 5: so is the question about raising animals on properties

[3:40:20] Voice 5: smaller than five acres essentially

[3:40:26] Planner Chadwick: for commercial use or like for as

[3:40:32] Voice 2: part of a farm operation or a

[3:40:33] Voice 2: business yeah yeah oh

[3:40:35] Trustee Patrick: this is tricky you know what's commercial use chickens that you sell

[3:40:39] Trustee Patrick: eggs in a farm stand at the end of your well it's

[3:40:45] Voice 5: establishing the right to farm um was sort of the

[3:40:48] Voice 5: perspective it's difficult on 0.5 acres if you're only allowed to have six chickens i don't know

[3:40:55] Voice 5: know where that comes from is that in our current land use bylaw what is the minimum parcel size in

[3:41:01] Voice 5: terms of you can have livestock even one acre cut off is unreasonable do we have ones i don't believe

[3:41:12] Voice 2: the current land use bylaw limits the number of animals per per lot uh for personal use and i do

[3:41:19] Voice 2: and for agriculture i don't think either um i'd have to confirm that but

[3:41:27] Voice 4: trustee aids i do think

[3:41:30] Voice 4: we need to discern between agriculture and horticulture. Horticulture can use lots of water,

[3:41:35] Voice 4: but it's highly unlikely unless you're using chemical fertilizers to affect downstream,

[3:41:43] Voice 4: shall we say, whereas agriculture is almost always likely to affect downstream somewhere.

[3:41:51] Voice 4: And we also have to be really, really careful about agricultural operations

[3:41:55] Voice 4: in the freshwater hazard zone um it it i mean we have to think about that we have to think about

[3:42:02] Voice 4: how it affects um the groundwater and other people's uh you know adjacent land and um

[3:42:11] Voice 4: so i think we definitely need to keep horticulture and agricultural separate as much as i really want

[3:42:19] Voice 4: to support agriculture on gabriola so

[3:42:25] Voice 5: that's a really good point actually because i'd forgotten

[3:42:27] Voice 5: gotten about the impacts of um you know manure and off um yeah seepage so that answers the question

[3:42:38] Voice 5: of why distinguish between agriculture no that's the question about livestock is agriculture dealing

[3:42:43] Voice 5: with livestock right so the why we would distinguish between agriculture and horticulture

[3:42:48] Voice 5: is because of so could we add a provision that there's containment or is there what's the

[3:42:57] Voice 5: a demonstration that this use is not going to impact the groundwater supply or um areas and

[3:43:07] Voice 5: because that's where if it's a smaller property and it's in a small neighborhood

[3:43:11] Voice 5: um but it happens to be zone agricultural and they're keeping animals but not um dealing with

[3:43:19] Voice 5: the manure in a way that yeah like how to how to deal with the responsible i'm losing my words

[3:43:27] Voice 5: does anybody understand what i'm

[3:43:30] Voice 4: saying seepage um yeah i don't think we should get into any

[3:43:35] Voice 4: details um here at the ocp but we do need to have that separation between horticulture and

[3:43:41] Voice 4: agriculture so

[3:43:44] Planner Chadwick: what i'm hearing is we maintain that separation as as is currently and maybe

[3:43:49] Planner Chadwick: and and there's an opportunity with an opportunity in the land use bylaw

[3:43:53] Planner Chadwick: potentially to add more specifics does that uh feel like a good direction

[3:43:59] Voice 4: Yeah, it does to me, Planner Chadwick, and we have to be, and I want us to pay extra care when it comes to the freshwater hazard areas.

[3:44:10] Voice 4: Yeah.

[3:44:13] Planner Chadwick: Okay. Do we feel like we've got a resolution there? I mean, essentially, we're moving forward with what is, as is, with a notation that we will focus in on it with the land use bylaw.

[3:44:32] Planner Chadwick: There you go.

[3:44:32] Planner Chadwick: Does that feel right?

[3:44:34] Planner Chadwick: I think so.

[3:44:35] Trustee Patrick: yeah

[3:44:35] Planner Chadwick: okay okay um okay there's a question about the fragmentation of agricultural land through

[3:44:46] Planner Chadwick: subdomain we've already talked about that the value of um of the conservation piece and that

[3:44:51] Planner Chadwick: you're okay with maintaining that piece around um around uh conservation so that that really is

[3:44:57] Planner Chadwick: the bulk of the the the questions that that came from gills um now we can go to the ones that you've

[3:45:06] Planner Chadwick: added to the list oh sorry trustee yates well

[3:45:09] Voice 4: one that i sort of added to the list at the last

[3:45:11] Voice 4: minute um is the wildfire hazard thoughts about that in our ocp and what we really need is a dpa

[3:45:19] Voice 4: right but we can't do that as part of this project but i think we should at some point add

[3:45:27] Voice 4: a wildfire dpa to that list of dpas that we will eventually get to thank you yeah

[3:45:33] Planner Chadwick: we can certainly

[3:45:34] Planner Chadwick: add that and I yeah we can we can definitely add that to the list and I

[3:45:43] Planner Chadwick: mean there we have tried in in some areas there is there is there is some

[3:45:50] Planner Chadwick: consideration of of wildfire hazard in there are a few places in the in the OCP

[3:45:58] Planner Chadwick: that does it does acknowledge the importance of considering that we have

[3:46:05] Planner Chadwick: So we do already have wildfire, we do have wildfire resilience DPA on the list of priority

[3:46:15] Planner Chadwick: development permit areas.

[3:46:23] Planner Chadwick: Any more on that?

[3:46:25] Planner Chadwick: No, that's great.

[3:46:26] Planner Chadwick: Thank you.

[3:46:27] Planner Chadwick: Okay, great.

[3:46:28] Planner Chadwick: We had vet clinic.

[3:46:31] Planner Chadwick: Now, is vet clinic actually, is there something within the OCP that it's prohibiting?

[3:46:41] Voice 5: Go

[3:46:42] Planner Chadwick: ahead, Trustee Elliott.

[3:46:44] Voice 5: Yeah, so this came up in a very recent, well, in our search for the new island vet.

[3:46:50] Voice 5: One of the restrictions is that vet clinics or veterinary operations can only be on properties that are five acres or two hectares or larger.

[3:46:59] Voice 5: And I think this is, I mean...

[3:47:02] Planner Chadwick: So that's in the land use bylaw?

[3:47:05] Voice 5: Right. But do we need to address it in a home occupation, like a list of allowable activities as a home

[3:47:15] Voice 5: occupation or residential?

[3:47:17] Planner Chadwick: No. If we list it, we have

[3:47:18] Planner Chadwick: to list all of them.

[3:47:20] Planner Chadwick: So what we need to do, what staff can have a look at the home occupation and see if there's anything that would restrict a vet clinic.

[3:47:30] Voice 5: Yeah, this is small animal vet clinic.

[3:47:33] Voice 5: yeah but yeah the understanding was that somebody would have to be on a five acre lot in order to

[3:47:38] Voice 5: operate anything but the small animal versus large animal vets i think that's

[3:47:44] Voice 5: we

[3:47:45] Planner Chadwick: can make a note to flag that when we're looking at the land use bylaw

[3:47:53] Voice 5: okay um

[3:47:54] Planner Chadwick: but yeah that would be the thing is to look at the policies and see if there's anything

[3:47:58] Planner Chadwick: anything restricted in what's restrictive that would not permit it um and then i don't i don't

[3:48:05] Planner Chadwick: see anything um here um but we'll make a note so that we we can address that in the land use bylaw

[3:48:11] Planner Chadwick: thank

[3:48:12] Voice 5: you that'd be great and

[3:48:14] Planner Chadwick: then the final thing we have here on the list is fresh water hazard area

[3:48:20] Trustee Patrick: the name i'll bring that up i i raised that at the regional planning committee and there was

[3:48:26] Trustee Patrick: It was quite an expressive conversation that more work needed to be done.

[3:48:31] Trustee Patrick: William Shula had explained that the name was really about identifying the hazard

[3:48:37] Trustee Patrick: to the local trust committee members that are making decisions.

[3:48:41] Trustee Patrick: So it was just, I don't know, maybe this hasn't come up at all,

[3:48:45] Trustee Patrick: but he was like, why didn't you raise this at the Gabriel?

[3:48:47] Trustee Patrick: It was like, there's a lot going on with the OCP and there's 100 moving parts here.

[3:48:51] Trustee Patrick: This is only one of many.

[3:48:53] Trustee Patrick: So I don't know that the local trustees are satisfied. Has anyone asked any questions on it? Is another name like, you know, water vulnerability area or something, you know, or freshwater vulnerability might be a better word or something. But go ahead, Trustee Yates.

[3:49:10] Trustee Patrick: Yes,

[3:49:11] Voice 4: it definitely has come up on Gabriola, because it sounds like it just sounds kind of negative and somewhat contentious. But then I asked that question, I think of William Shoba. And he pointed out, I think it was him that pointed out to me that the accompanying maps that go with the Gabriola freshwater hazard zone, the maps, they show hazards.

[3:49:35] Voice 4: They show hazards of saltwater intrusion. They show hazards of shoreline erosion. And so those are hazards. And the other thing is that the regional district uses that term and the province uses that term.

[3:49:54] Voice 4: So, you know, if we change the word hazard to something less, maybe onerous, that's fine with me.

[3:50:05] Voice 4: But keeping in mind that other agencies use the word hazard when they're talking about endangerment to fresh water.

[3:50:16] Trustee Patrick: So I

[3:50:17] Voice 4: find it contingent.

[3:50:19] Trustee Patrick: I hadn't found that. But Trustee Elliott?

[3:50:23] Trustee Patrick: I

[3:50:26] Voice 5: would ask, actually, maybe we should refer this to Director Marler, because is it an interpretation of what the Local Government Act defines as a hazard, and that's our duty as a local government charged with Part 14 and 15 of, that we don't direct development in the path of hazardous conditions.

[3:50:52] Voice 5: That was my understanding. And I think fire, health, and so it's division part nine, division two, maybe, I don't know, should we ask that question of whether defining a hazard area means you do have a responsibility to not put development there?

[3:51:12] Voice 5: there. My understanding from William Shilbaugh was this was a term that the groundwater

[3:51:18] Voice 5: specialists, or sorry, the consultants,

[3:51:21] Voice 5: the consultants were using. And he sort of questioned

[3:51:25] Voice 5: that as well. So I'm, I'm wondering if this is sort of a following best practices, maybe

[3:51:31] Voice 5: in other areas, and they bring that forward and saying, well, no, we've done the work on Cortez.

[3:51:36] Voice 5: And when you define a hazard, you have to act in certain ways. But we have heard about it,

[3:51:42] Voice 5: we have heard from property owners that are concerned that just attaching the name hazard to

[3:51:48] Voice 5: their property will lead to you know a perception that it's um it's unsafe to develop it's unsafe

[3:51:57] Voice 5: to do certain things and so i think we're in still a conversation about that i don't have any clear

[3:52:04] Voice 5: understanding oh sorry well here

[3:52:08] Planner Chadwick: there he was somehow

[3:52:10] Trustee Patrick: staff nurse and chadwick turned into

[3:52:11] Planner Chadwick: to William for a moment there that was um yeah yeah I did send William the panelist link and so

[3:52:21] Planner Chadwick: I so I think that staff nurse to Chadwick is William he's listening in um did you want to add

[3:52:28] Voice 1: yeah sorry I was hunting for um I was I've been tuning in on on um just the web browser

[3:52:35] Voice 1: uh so yeah I'm here to um answer any questions about a freshwater hazard I think um through

[3:52:41] Voice 1: the chair like the the this this outcome directly relates to the trust policy statement 4.4.2

[3:52:59] Voice 1: encourages ldcs not to increase density intensity in areas of known water quality

[3:53:03] Voice 1: that has been

[3:53:04] Voice 1: debated and and it will and it will continue to be so through the island's

[3:53:08] Voice 1: policy statement like renewal right whatever that lines up but for right now we're just look like

[3:53:14] Voice 1: the the the motherhood statement of 4.4.2 is to protect areas that we know that has water quality

[3:53:20] Voice 1: problems and quantity problems and indeed that's what the freshwater footprint resulted in

[3:53:27] Voice 1: one of the outcomes of it is the freshwater hazard maps and um and staff took that deliverable from

[3:53:36] Voice 1: the consultants and applied it in in a way that we can use it for planning and the name carried

[3:53:42] Voice 1: through and i uh chair patrick said it best and well said it my words best i guess that

[3:53:51] Voice 1: that that it is a hazard to the to to 4.4.2 right it's directly addressing that if we increase

[3:54:00] Voice 1: intensity and density in those areas then that increases the hazard and and for the term like

[3:54:09] Voice 1: intrinsic vulnerability like we already use that right and drastic and looking at contamination

[3:54:14] Voice 1: risks like and line use practice risks directly water quality and quantity and then the intersection

[3:54:20] Voice 1: with the parcels makes it to identify the hazard not not like the effect or or the effect right

[3:54:29] Voice 1: Right. It's the area that is defined. And that's that's kind of novel.

[3:54:34] Voice 1: And it's the same approach we took on Galliano with the protecting groundwater recharge areas.

[3:54:40] Voice 1: It's the it denotes the the land parcel area, which is like, you know, the ownership over that area, not just the thing.

[3:54:50] Voice 1: So that's why having it as like a hazard area doesn't really comment directly on anyone's given lot.

[3:54:58] Voice 1: it's an area denoted for the local trust committee

[3:55:02] Voice 1: to consider in their work.

[3:55:07] Voice 1: So hopefully that helps.

[3:55:08] Voice 1: Thanks.

[3:55:10] Trustee Patrick: Yeah, I think, I'll go to you in a moment, Trustee Elliot,

[3:55:13] Trustee Patrick: I think that's the concern,

[3:55:15] Trustee Patrick: is when we have development permit areas

[3:55:17] Trustee Patrick: that steep slope hazards.

[3:55:21] Trustee Patrick: When the regional district does their flood hazard mapping,

[3:55:25] Trustee Patrick: These are things that can be, you know, that are understood, you know, and we know what that means, generally, the public and so forth. So this one is a little bit different. And I think, you know, seeking that clarity, perhaps from Director Marler on the use of hazard is that, you know, is it being used in that tense because we have these other areas. Trustee Elliott?

[3:55:48] Trustee Patrick: Thank

[3:55:51] Voice 5: you, Chair. So a light bulb went off just with your last statement there, William, that can we refer to the map which identifies freshwater hazard areas? That is the, you know, we're not changing anything about the report.

[3:56:07] Voice 5: But when it comes to the wording in policy that we can call it freshwater conservation zone, and it is defined as it refers to the freshwater hazard area.

[3:56:25] Voice 5: like we are calling it something to say is a policy that is limiting or

[3:56:32] Voice 5: restricting development in freshwater conservation zones and it refers to the

[3:56:39] Voice 5: hazard area defined in the map in the report yeah

[3:56:45] Voice 1: yeah okay future I guess so

[3:56:47] Voice 1: but you know words matter it's not a freshwater conservation zone right and

[3:56:54] Voice 1: it's a freshwater protection zone like we have water management areas in the galliano ocp it's

[3:56:59] Voice 1: not that either it's specific it's identifying a cohesive analysis of freshwater hazards and the

[3:57:08] Voice 1: risks associated with it freshwater protection would include the critical groundwater recharge

[3:57:13] Voice 1: areas so we're just submitting that as a separate map for considerations right so i did do like a

[3:57:21] Voice 1: like an intersect of all these maps and yeah we should be protecting almost every square inch of

[3:57:26] Voice 1: the island right so this this is showing a a result of a technical analysis from

[3:57:39] Voice 1: engineering geoscience company with proficiency in water resources and so staff received that

[3:57:46] Voice 1: map and we take it very seriously and that's why we just forwarded on with with the name that the

[3:57:52] Voice 1: that our consultants gave it to right that and and you know none of this out of a black box if

[3:57:59] Voice 1: we really want to go down to back to the planning of this project we can look at the rfp that staff

[3:58:03] Voice 1: made like we harmonized on this approach long time ago but it was the consultants that that guided us

[3:58:10] Voice 1: to this name and the map of freshwater hazard and you know we we accept that and and we worked with

[3:58:20] Voice 1: them. And now staff have come together to create the map that is fitting for the OCP. So in that

[3:58:29] Voice 1: case, like a name change would deviate from, you know, a year process. So that would need some

[3:58:36] Voice 1: analysis on what that would mean.

[3:58:39] Trustee Patrick: Well, I think that's what, I mean, we're dealing with the

[3:58:43] Trustee Patrick: reality, you know, that the people who now live in areas that have this map in their homes are

[3:58:49] Trustee Patrick: within that area? How do they react? What does it mean? And I think at the regional planning

[3:58:55] Trustee Patrick: committee, you did say that, I mean, the purpose was to inform the local trust committee in the

[3:59:00] Trustee Patrick: decision. So it's a factor they make into their decisions. So that makes me think more like risk

[3:59:07] Trustee Patrick: is probably a better word than hazard. And I think it's just being aware of how people feel

[3:59:13] Trustee Patrick: feel when you know these contexts are you know now attached to your property i know you said

[3:59:20] Trustee Patrick: it's not a piece of property it's a map but i can look at the map and go that that consumes my entire

[3:59:25] Trustee Patrick: parcel um yeah so that

[3:59:29] Trustee Patrick: that's the perspective that we're bringing to the table is can we can

[3:59:32] Trustee Patrick: we find something that that really is a better description that of

[3:59:39] Voice 1: what it is i yeah like through

[3:59:41] Voice 1: To the chair, I understand where you're coming from, but let's not try to deviate the ship of a massive project because we're not communicating it well at the end.

[3:59:54] Voice 1: The hazard is to the LTC's decisions on those existing properties' water sources.

[4:00:00] Voice 1: saying that their water sources are hazards it's the decisions that are made for increasing density

[4:00:05] Voice 1: intensity can be a hazard to those areas like that's the communication on it and if we're

[4:00:13] Voice 1: failing at that it seems like we're you know there's roughness in communicating what any of

[4:00:18] Voice 1: this means is a big ocp review and you're right this was tucked in and you know we talked about

[4:00:24] Voice 1: this the whole time not at the 11th hour before first reading but i understand there's it's like

[4:00:29] Voice 1: It's complicated, and the process of the freshwater footprint brought it at the end.

[4:00:33] Voice 1: So this is the inherent challenge, right?

[4:00:37] Voice 1: So, of course, we can discuss ways of changing it,

[4:00:41] Voice 1: but I've already heard trustee Yates use freshwater hazard

[4:00:47] Voice 1: in other discussion areas of this long-winded discussion we've had in OCP,

[4:00:51] Voice 1: and it fits well because we're talking about making decisions in those areas.

[4:00:57] Voice 1: We're not talking about the individual user.

[4:01:00] Voice 1: It's a hazard to those water sources.

[4:01:03] Voice 1: They are not the hazard.

[4:01:06] Voice 1: That's how it's designed.

[4:01:10] Voice 1: So thanks.

[4:01:11] Voice 4: Trustee Yates?

[4:01:14] Voice 4: Yeah, thank you for that, William.

[4:01:17] Voice 4: My concern is that we're trying to sugarcoat something

[4:01:20] Voice 4: when we're talking about areas that we know have hazards

[4:01:27] Voice 4: or possible hazards like saltwater intrusion

[4:01:30] Voice 4: and erosion and the province calls them hazards the regional district calls them hazards

[4:01:37] Voice 4: um i mean i don't care if we call them something else in the ocp but that map has the hazard zones

[4:01:47] Voice 4: and that's i know if i if i lived on the on the waterfront i would be very grateful that the

[4:01:55] Voice 4: that mapping had been done and that it had been labeled accordingly so but that's just my view

[4:02:01] Voice 4: no

[4:02:13] Trustee Patrick: well i'll look to the local i mean the concern that that's why i brought it up at regional

[4:02:16] Trustee Patrick: planning committee is do you can do this work here at gabriola now you go to the next island

[4:02:20] Trustee Patrick: there could be a pushback on the name so that's why i thought it was of value to have that

[4:02:25] Trustee Patrick: conversation are we setting a precedence and moving forward with a name you could end up now

[4:02:29] Trustee Patrick: calling it this here and another island's gonna say no absolutely not i will not have this called

[4:02:33] Trustee Patrick: a hazard map so finding a name that will be more embraced across the trust area was what i thought

[4:02:40] Trustee Patrick: was very important but

[4:02:42] Voice 1: go ahead chair chair i you know i agree with that and and maybe hazard is the

[4:02:47] Voice 1: fit for gabriola like maybe that it's just that it's the it's the fitting map like say to do

[4:02:56] Voice 1: groundwater recharge protection leskeety you can't go there and say we want to do dpa

[4:03:00] Voice 1: so but should we do the work there anyway it's like yes and can we is there is there efforts

[4:03:06] Voice 1: that that there can be work on other islands that undertake freshwater footprint like on

[4:03:12] Voice 1: salt spring like maybe freshwater hazard mapping is not an appropriate fit there and that's possible

[4:03:19] Voice 1: yeah i mean that's like that's at the end but all the structural work to get there

[4:03:23] Voice 1: like to get to that handoff from science to planning is is is robust and similar methodology

[4:03:32] Voice 1: right so at least where the the baseline and background fundamental information to making

[4:03:39] Voice 1: these decisions is is similar and that's reassuring for the process and then and then how it goes into

[4:03:46] Voice 1: the into like the ltc and how they implement it either ocp or lub or dai or whatever it is

[4:03:56] Voice 1: um can likely take on many forms and and freshwater hazard mapping on on the gabriel's ocp

[4:04:02] Voice 1: is one of them i guess yeah i think it's fitting for for for what has been defined and and the

[4:04:10] Voice 1: areas and like the robustness of the map we're not truly identifying any individual parcel we're just

[4:04:16] Voice 1: We're just identifying areas of hazard through a structured decision-making, technically informed process.

[4:04:26] Voice 4: Trustee Yates?

[4:04:28] Voice 4: So the one thing I didn't bring up, which is extremely important, is cultural heritage along the foreshore of most of the islands.

[4:04:36] Voice 4: And so we consider that as part of the hazard mapping zone.

[4:04:44] Voice 4: So let's say saltwater intrusion is a hazard.

[4:04:47] Voice 4: um erosion of the foreshore is a hazard cultural heritage is not a hazard however

[4:04:54] Voice 4: development in a culturally rich heritage area is a hazard so the hazard kind of works both ways

[4:05:05] Voice 4: i don't know if that's helpful or not helpful um and if we can find a better word than hazard

[4:05:12] Voice 4: hazard to denote the areas along the foreshore of Gabriola. And I'm happy to use that word, but

[4:05:23] Voice 4: I like the word hazard because it immediately alerts me to the fact that I need to be careful

[4:05:29] Voice 4: here.

[4:05:31] Planner Chadwick: I think the question here is, Trustee Elliott, how do you feel about the word hazard?

[4:05:37] Planner Chadwick: can we keep it in for first reading?

[4:05:40] Voice 5: Yeah, I think it's a little bit, we're a bit late to

[4:05:46] Voice 5: have a discussion about terminology or nomenclature. I mean, we've heard from

[4:05:51] Voice 5: community members are uncomfortable with it. I think on the flip side, for new, you know,

[4:05:57] Voice 5: people coming to Gabriel and looking to buy, they are much more sensitive to water conditions and

[4:06:04] Voice 5: And having an articulation that there are certain areas that we've, through science and mapping, we've identified are hazardous, that it kind of, it's an education piece in itself.

[4:06:16] Voice 5: And so while I recognize some residents are uncomfortable with the terminology, I think we're pretty well down the line of it is what it is.

[4:06:27] Voice 5: and the community comes back with strong feedback and maybe a suggestion for

[4:06:31] Voice 5: something different that could be in policy

[4:06:35] Voice 5: and then referring to the freshwater hazard map, not changing their

[4:06:39] Voice 5: characterization, then that's the feedback we get.

[4:06:44] Voice 5: So I'm comfortable going ahead.

[4:06:46] Planner Chadwick: So I think the direction

[4:06:48] Planner Chadwick: to staff is clear, just to keep it for now,

[4:06:52] Planner Chadwick: for first reading. And that takes us to the end of our list,

[4:06:58] Planner Chadwick: unless there are other things i will i'll

[4:07:00] Voice 1: hand things over

[4:07:01] Planner Chadwick: to thanks thanks william for popping

[4:07:03] Planner Chadwick: in yeah

[4:07:04] Voice 1: and thank you chair for having me i'm actually looking forward to um i'm i'm happy

[4:07:08] Voice 1: it's the will of the ltc to keep hazard in there i'm interested to see what our what our partners

[4:07:13] Voice 1: are going to think of that name in the referral right because i'm sure there's going to be some

[4:07:18] Voice 1: comments on it and you know speaking to sensitive cultural areas like those are special areas and

[4:07:24] Voice 1: call them special areas i think right and then with special areas is risk and hazard and all

[4:07:29] Voice 1: the things associated with special areas i wouldn't really call these freshwater spaces

[4:07:34] Voice 1: special areas right because we're not including the the groundwater recharge like we're not

[4:07:39] Voice 1: including the the land form that we want to protect which is the groundwater recharge areas

[4:07:44] Voice 1: and our riparian areas right this is this is like math or map math right it's not it's it that's it

[4:07:53] Voice 1: it gets presented in a map, we want to contribute that to a space. But what this is doing,

[4:07:58] Voice 1: it's like a graph, it's demonstrating a calculated risk. And we call that hazard.

[4:08:04] Voice 1: And so I'm interested to see what are the receiving agencies comment on it. And I hope

[4:08:10] Voice 1: we highlight them to perhaps comment on it. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Trustee Elliott.

[4:08:16] Voice 5: I just had one final question about, is it in our definitions section what freshwater hazard relates to? I just haven't looked at it recently. Freshwater management plan. We don't have freshwater hazard defined. And so something William had just said might, you know.

[4:08:38] Voice 5: I

[4:08:39] Voice 1: did define it. It's definitely one of my briefings, but maybe we just have to promote it to the definitions list. I know that

[4:08:45] Voice 1: for the maps and some other elements.

[4:08:50] Voice 4: It's in your briefing, William, because I followed up on that.

[4:08:53] Voice 1: Right. Okay. So we just have to make sure we promote that. Yeah, thanks for that.

[4:09:01] Trustee Patrick: All right. So if we're at the end of our list, Planner Chadwick, any other questions?

[4:09:10] Planner Chadwick: there's no there's no other questions for me planner bauer are there any other questions

[4:09:14] Planner Chadwick: for you with respect to any any clarification on the for the notation that you've taken

[4:09:19] Planner Chadwick: uh

[4:09:20] Voice 2: no no i think i've i think i've got everything down here um yeah

[4:09:26] Trustee Patrick: you need that resolution then

[4:09:28] Trustee Patrick: on page two

[4:09:28] Voice 9: correct

[4:09:30] Voice 2: i'd

[4:09:32] Voice 4: be happy to make that go ahead i move that the gabriela island local

[4:09:38] Voice 4: Local Trust Committee requests staff prepare the draft official community plan for first

[4:09:42] Voice 4: reading incorporating changes discussed at the August 6, 2026 Gabriela Island Local Trust

[4:09:50] Voice 4: Committee special meeting.

[4:09:52] Trustee Patrick: Is there a second?

[4:09:54] Trustee Patrick: Seconded by Trustee Elliott. Any discussion?

[4:10:00] Trustee Patrick: Call the vote. All those in favor? That carries. So I think that concludes our business and we'll

[4:10:08] Trustee Patrick: We'll see you again on September 3rd is our regular meeting where this will

[4:10:14] Trustee Patrick: have a report from staff where we'll be considering giving first reading

[4:10:19] Trustee Patrick: trustee Elliot. Did you have a question? Oh, all right.

[4:10:22] Trustee Patrick: So with that, I think I need a motion to adjourn.

[4:10:26] Trustee Patrick: Ah, I'm getting so moved by trustee Elliot and seconded by trustee Yates.

[4:10:30] Trustee Patrick: So we are adjourned. Thank you everyone. And have a one.