South Pender house-size workshop — February 10, 2024

[0:00:00] Okay, I'm recording now. I'm definitely recording. I'm terrible at that recording. I always hit stop, but I believe I'm recording now. Okay

[0:00:09] Alright, yes

[0:00:11] I'd just like to go back to John's suggestion because I like what he's saying here

[0:00:15] Which John?

[0:00:17] Oh sorry, David's, John's phone

[0:00:19] Because what is, what's, or David's phone, sorry

[0:00:21] No, I'm John

[0:00:23] Yeah, you're John

[0:00:25] Just keep throwing throw things out, it's all good

[0:00:27] The problem is that most of the lots that we've got have been subdivided for the last

[0:00:35] 50 years so we're not going to change that. And as an aside, when I first got elected

[0:00:41] in 82, Trust Council, I made a presentation to Council that if this area is so special

[0:00:48] and unique, etc, etc, why are we developing it in exactly the same manner as every

[0:00:53] as every other place in Canada. Why are setbacks being established with single digit numbers,

[0:00:59] 10 feet, 20 feet, whatever it is, and yet the topography is the, is, should be the determining

[0:01:06] factor for a setback. So if you have a waterfront property that shows that you can build within 10

[0:01:12] feet, build within 10 feet, if it shows that you can't build within 25 feet or 100 feet, then don't

[0:01:17] built within that setback. But the planners in the office came back and

[0:01:22] said that is way too difficult to administer. So we can have all kinds of

[0:01:27] ideas but as David knows being a planner we have to still have to go

[0:01:33] through and get this put through the planning staff. So some of the

[0:01:37] suggestions are good but they're not practical for trust planning staff.

[0:01:42] Maybe not trust planning staff but I have certainly planning staff that can handle this kind of

[0:01:47] And that's the other part, it's like yes the world as we know it is definitely getting

[0:01:54] a lot more complex so again if we find a solution that works for our community I will

[0:02:03] fight with staff to make sure that we have something that works for us.

[0:02:07] It would certainly work on your subdivisions and that's where I think that suggestion

[0:02:13] is really valuable.

[0:02:15] and then you. So you know Christina back to you know so just to what Steve was

[0:02:24] saying back to you know how we can do things and how we can't do things and

[0:02:30] whether we should compare ourselves to others and we don't necessarily have

[0:02:34] to specifically compare ourselves to others and done but I think your point

[0:02:39] about if somebody's figured out how to you know do some of this stuff

[0:02:44] then it obviously can be done and obviously we should look for some of

[0:02:52] those solutions to you know as examples to forward to the community while

[0:02:58] you're asking us how we want to deal with this so the other thing that I'm

[0:03:04] going to say and Paul will get upset with me is that, oh yeah. I think she's challenging you.

[0:03:12] There is a criteria for our, we talk about our OCP all the time. We hang our hats on it and say we're not doing it

[0:03:22] right, we're doing it wrong, whatever. There's a criteria for when an OCP should be reviewed and

[0:03:28] and we are so far behind it isn't even funny.

[0:03:31] So our OCP, as good as it might be,

[0:03:36] possibly is not as good as it could be.

[0:03:40] And I believe that for all of these things

[0:03:42] that we're talking about,

[0:03:44] this should be on the support,

[0:03:46] the reasons, suggestions, solutions.

[0:03:49] We need to review the OCP

[0:03:50] and make sure that it's saying what we want it to say.

[0:03:53] We can't do minor changes to the OCP

[0:03:57] Every time we want to change the by-law.

[0:04:02] And now Paul's going to get up so soon.

[0:04:04] LAUGHTER

[0:04:08] What's the word that I'm looking for?

[0:04:10] It's not out of date.

[0:04:11] Out of date.

[0:04:12] It is out of date.

[0:04:13] OK.

[0:04:14] I was trying to be a little bit more diplomatic than that.

[0:04:16] And one of the reasons...

[0:04:18] Just a minute, Paul, just a minute.

[0:04:19] One of the reasons that I am making this point is,

[0:04:22] in your opening comments,

[0:04:24] you talked about,

[0:04:25] we have to plan for the next 20 to 25 years.

[0:04:28] And we have a housing crisis and affordability.

[0:04:32] And as I pointed out at the last meeting that I was at,

[0:04:35] Pender Island is affordable housing.

[0:04:38] People are moving here because they can't live in Victoria,

[0:04:41] they can't live in Vancouver, Chilliwack, Abbotsford, name one.

[0:04:45] You can buy a lot here with a house on it for less than $700,000.

[0:04:50] So we are affordable.

[0:04:53] And that's something that we have to consider when we're planning for the future and how we're going to manage it. And that OCP is out of date.

[0:05:03] So to, just to sort of to everyone, the OCP we're not able to get that on for the regional planning to deal with. They can only do so many per year.

[0:05:17] So I am aware that we need to get ours done and I'm going to be trying to slide ours in

[0:05:22] but there's a bunch of other islands that are even worse and some don't even have an

[0:05:28] OCP.

[0:05:29] So, okay, you were next.

[0:05:31] He was straight after Donna and then you threw up your hand.

[0:05:35] So this came up at our session on setbacks as well and the suggestions about development

[0:05:44] permit areas, DPAs, or development permit process, has been discussed a lot over the

[0:05:50] last few years. And what it allows you is more criteria to look, so it's not just one

[0:05:57] size fits all, that allows you to respond to different criteria in different situations.

[0:06:04] However, you started this discussion talking about variances being too expensive, you

[0:06:10] quotations and so forth, preparing for a development permit is equally or more complicated and

[0:06:17] costly than a variance. So you can't have something that's got more criteria to make

[0:06:28] a presentation for someone to actually make an objective decision without doing

[0:06:32] a lot more preparation. That's just the reality. So it is more costly. More survey,

[0:06:39] more architect, more whatever.

[0:06:41] That's why I wasn't suggesting it.

[0:06:43] But it is a mechanism that helps

[0:06:46] to address a lot of these concerns that

[0:06:48] are being expressed.

[0:06:49] It is.

[0:06:50] Did you want to put a DPA on here?

[0:06:52] I'm coming back just to give the broader.

[0:06:56] Yeah, OK.

[0:06:58] Just checking.

[0:06:59] OK, then Paul, and then Bob.

[0:07:02] So I would just like to agree with Donna.

[0:07:05] The OCP has withstood the test of time for years but the time to review it according

[0:07:22] to the Islands Trust Act is now.

[0:07:27] Well that's the act we've got and I guess what I would say is that the Islands Trust

[0:07:34] act says that the OCP that you've got is the guiding principles for how you develop the

[0:07:42] land use by-law. This is the OCP that we've got, it's got some clear goals in it and

[0:07:49] I guess what I'd like to put up here as a suggestion is retaining house size as

[0:07:55] they currently exist in the land use by-law because they are supported by the goals in

[0:08:02] goals in the OCP and I can elaborate on that but I think just putting that down

[0:08:09] to start.

[0:08:25] Support.

[0:08:27] Okay, Carl?

[0:08:29] I just want to talk a little bit about where we want to be in 30 years.

[0:08:35] Exactly.

[0:08:37] I'm quite challenged, sorry.

[0:08:39] I'm not likely to be alive.

[0:08:45] My property will probably be up for sale.

[0:08:50] Based on the old bylaws, someone could come along and on the average of all the houses

[0:08:58] on South Pender, put up a house three times the size of what exists.

[0:09:02] You mean the bylaws now or the old bylaws?

[0:09:06] The old bylaws.

[0:09:07] Even with the new bylaws now, you can do 40% on average over what the existing houses

[0:09:14] are, which is pretty substantial.

[0:09:16] And I guess from my perspective, if we're going to try to keep any semblance of rural

[0:09:23] community, if the houses become that much bigger, it changes the nature of who can afford

[0:09:33] to live here, who buys in, who develops.

[0:09:37] And my sense is that the smaller you

[0:09:41] can keep the house sizes, the more you'll

[0:09:45] create a rural character similar to what we have now.

[0:09:49] I mean, it's even changed a lot since I moved here

[0:09:52] 50 years ago.

[0:09:53] The houses weren't anywhere near as big.

[0:09:56] People had more family living in them and survived.

[0:10:00] And now there's two people living

[0:10:01] and houses that are twice as big as were built in the 50s,

[0:10:05] and in another 30 years, they're going to be, again, bigger,

[0:10:09] and we probably won't have more than two people living in them.

[0:10:12] So that concerns me in terms of what

[0:10:16] happens as a rural environment.

[0:10:18] We could become like Peers Island, where houses are just

[0:10:23] all next to each other, and you have very little rural

[0:10:27] centers left.

[0:10:29] So did you have a suggestion to put down?

[0:10:31] Well, so I suggest that we try to keep house sizes small

[0:10:38] in whichever way we can, which supports the OCP.

[0:10:42] And at least go no bigger than what we already have.

[0:10:45] And maybe even look over the years,

[0:10:48] is there creative ways that we

[0:10:49] can keep house sizes at a reasonable limit

[0:10:55] to keep an environment and kind of a social structure

[0:11:01] similar to what we have rather than having people build large houses that come from

[0:11:07] Seattle and come up here for two months and don't contribute to the community in any

[0:11:12] way.

[0:11:13] So question, is that different to what the suggestion that Paul just put up which

[0:11:17] is keep the house sizes the same?

[0:11:18] It is different?

[0:11:19] Pressure on it to be as small as possible.

[0:11:23] You want them smaller?

[0:11:24] Pressure to keep house sizes as small as possible.

[0:11:49] And your supporting reason for this was?

[0:11:52] Because I think it will have an environmental effect.

[0:11:58] It will also have a social effect

[0:12:00] in terms of the type of people.

[0:12:05] The bigger the houses are in the future,

[0:12:09] the less people are going to be

[0:12:11] able to afford to come here.

[0:12:14] And so you're going to end up,

[0:12:16] for young families, the kind of people that actually can contribute to the community

[0:12:22] over the years, they're not going to be possible to live here anymore.

[0:12:25] So it's going to be a more gentrified.

[0:12:28] nature of community.

[0:12:30] Okay, thank you.

[0:12:32] Okay, so four hands

[0:12:35] right up at the same time. I'm going to

[0:12:37] work clockwise. So, Heather.

[0:12:39] I'm just going to say that I know

[0:12:41] a 4,000 square foot house or more house

[0:12:43] that is going up around

[0:12:45] here and I think they have

[0:12:47] two or three families that are going

[0:12:49] to live in that house and I think

[0:12:51] that's a big

[0:12:53] I think that's more

[0:12:55] the way of the future than that,

[0:12:57] Right? I think it's, you know, more people will come with it in a larger home.

[0:13:04] And it all depends on your perspective. What you think is a large home,

[0:13:08] um, my daughter was living in a few out of the garage, my daughter's house was just a little over 3500 square feet.

[0:13:13] She's not in there for not that reason anymore, but my sister, exactly the same thing.

[0:13:18] One of those houses was two bedrooms, the other one was four.

[0:13:22] I think there were three bathrooms, four bathrooms respectively.

[0:13:26] They were big rooms, but they did all kinds of things in them.

[0:13:29] And when the family came, there was always a place for the family to stay.

[0:13:33] I can't do that.

[0:13:35] I have to think, okay, well maybe you're going to have to go stay at Poets Cove

[0:13:38] or this or that or the other because I can't have all my family here at one time, right?

[0:13:42] And that's what happens in these places.

[0:13:44] So we, people become more isolated.

[0:13:47] And, you know, the house is built.

[0:13:49] It's built once and, um, I can imagine liking having a 3500 or 4000 square foot house

[0:13:56] if I could afford it. I'd turn the heat off in all the rooms that don't need it and that would be it.

[0:14:02] I don't know how many people here have been in a 3500 square foot house but it's really not what you think it is.

[0:14:14] So did you have anything to pop up here?

[0:14:18] I think the house size could be a little bit bigger. I love the house sizes that Gordy, I think, came up with that were up on the board here when I'd say in about early 2021.

[0:14:33] I think they, I can't remember what they started at Gordy, which started at 3000 I think for the smaller ones.

[0:14:39] and everybody seemed to be happy with all of that and then it just went down because of the

[0:14:47] Bylaw 123 that was going to be used

[0:14:50] No, Bylaw 123 was going to be used for anybody that wanted the variance, right? So that seemed to be

[0:15:01] Anyways, it doesn't matter what was the citing the citing guidelines

[0:15:09] That was at the time.

[0:15:11] OK, yeah, that was it.

[0:15:13] And that's when everything went.

[0:15:15] So you want to see bigger houses?

[0:15:19] Well, I just want, no, not bigger houses,

[0:15:22] but I want to be able to see people agree

[0:15:26] on the large size, whatever the size is going to be.

[0:15:31] And I don't know whether we all do.

[0:15:33] If we all do, that's fine.

[0:15:35] I think what Heather's saying is

[0:15:37] that there are considerations that are not,

[0:15:41] can't understand just because you think

[0:15:45] that somebody should live in a 25 or 100 square foot

[0:15:48] or a 1000 square foot house.

[0:15:50] They might need 35 hundred square foot.

[0:15:52] I would love to have another 120 square feet

[0:15:55] that I can put my sewing machine in and do my quilting.

[0:15:58] I don't have it.

[0:15:59] So, you know, I don't think that we can,

[0:16:05] we can't say that just because

[0:16:07] There's a bunch of little cottages

[0:16:09] and a bunch of big houses.

[0:16:10] We're going to add them all together.

[0:16:12] And this is the average of what we all need

[0:16:16] is not the right way to do it.

[0:16:19] Most of the, a lot of the houses here were just built

[0:16:21] because they were going to be little cottages for people

[0:16:24] to come over.

[0:16:25] They weren't really, people weren't living here

[0:16:28] full time all the time.

[0:16:30] There's lots of houses that are 1,500, 2,000 square feet

[0:16:33] that one person's living in.

[0:16:34] And that person's probably very happy with the space

[0:16:37] that they have, right?

[0:16:38] Can you flip the page back?

[0:16:40] Because the second point, Heather, I'm just,

[0:16:57] you made a suggestion about combining house sizes.

[0:17:01] He's been waiting a long time.

[0:17:02] And I'm still trying to clarify

[0:17:03] what she wants me to put down.

[0:17:07] I'm not saying go back to the original,

[0:17:11] the house sizes we had by any means.

[0:17:13] But we're not thinking about

[0:17:16] maybe adding a couple hundred square feet

[0:17:18] or 250 square feet onto all of them, which would have made a lot of people happy back

[0:17:23] then just for the extra space that you can have when you have family or possibly more

[0:17:30] than one. I know we're supposed to be single family residential here but that's just

[0:17:36] not happening anymore. So people do come and want to live with their grandparents

[0:17:40] parents who want to live, you know, a larger home to accommodate more of your family or to accommodate.

[0:17:49] Okay, so if I put down square footage between the current by-law and the old by-law to accommodate

[0:17:58] 250 square feet, or 250 to 500 square feet to every category and allow the, what I said before, was combining. That might be an idea.

[0:18:09] Old and new. I think it would allow more people to not feel that they're legally non-conforming.

[0:18:30] I'd have to see what they would have done.

[0:18:33] I know, I know, I know.

[0:18:35] Okay, so that they are...

[0:18:37] It's a reality.

[0:18:39] It's a reality.

[0:18:41] We'll have a discussion about that.

[0:18:43] Okay, so the pen is like really not good.

[0:18:47] Does that capture it, Heather?

[0:18:50] Square footage, somewhere between current and previous to accommodate various family needs.

[0:18:57] And the reason for this is family needs.

[0:19:03] I think a lot of people think that when you've got that big of a house you're using every bathroom every day,

[0:19:15] there's ten people using all of the bathrooms and we're heating all of the rooms and all of that.

[0:19:21] I keep my basement down low.

[0:19:24] There's all kinds of things that you

[0:19:25] can do to mitigate your effects on the environment

[0:19:30] and on power and water usage.

[0:19:36] Gordy.

[0:19:37] Well, just for the record, the previous houses

[0:19:42] in the older bylaw also met the OTP quite fine.

[0:19:47] There was no issues there.

[0:19:51] And that happened after a lot of community discussion

[0:19:55] on the term before that.

[0:19:57] So to suggest that these new sizes satisfy the OCP

[0:20:08] and that the previous ones didn't is disingenuous.

[0:20:11] That's not the case.

[0:20:13] The other thing I'd like to mention is that

[0:20:15] 80% of the lots are developed already on South Pender.

[0:20:20] So there is some kind of structure on there and we're getting a lot of speculative predictions on what's going to happen.

[0:20:31] It's assumed that every small house is going to be torn down and there's going to be a large house built to replace it.

[0:20:40] And I don't, again, I don't think there's anything

[0:20:47] that really supports that.

[0:20:50] The average square footage on South Pender

[0:20:54] of all the homes is 1900 square feet.

[0:20:57] So I don't think that's indicative of monster homes,

[0:21:02] which is a term that was used often

[0:21:05] in the past, is happening.

[0:21:08] So from my perspective, I think things that I would like to see in this last bylaw, we had enclosed barrages, attached barrages, added on to the dwelling square footage.

[0:21:29] which I would like to see removed. It makes no sense. A person could build a

[0:21:38] three-car garage two feet away from that house and that would not be

[0:21:42] charged against their out dwelling square footage so it doesn't seem to be

[0:21:49] any logic for that. It should be removed I believe.

[0:21:55] and possibly attached to the accessory building?

[0:22:01] How would you account for it?

[0:22:03] It just doesn't, you know, the

[0:22:07] separate garage is an accessory building and isn't charged against your

[0:22:13] dwelling square footage.

[0:22:17] Yeah, it still has to be accounted for somewhere.

[0:22:19] I think another thing, I'll just finish with one more, I don't want to take up too much time, but I think we need to have a look at what happened on North Pender.

[0:22:36] The former trustees both North and South started off with a joint venture on drawing sizes of reduction, you know they worked together on that.

[0:22:50] And while it had coerced their separate ways, North Pender has recently adopted their new

[0:23:01] by-law, new housing sizes, and they are larger than what ours currently are.

[0:23:07] I think that when you think about Magic Lake with its 1200 lots, you know, it's

[0:23:16] significant that they chose not to reduce house sizes even smaller.

[0:23:23] So I have a quick question for you on your suggestion to remove the garages from the floor count.

[0:23:31] Do you have a reason to support this suggestion?

[0:23:35] Well, it's not living space, so why should it be charged against?

[0:23:45] It's also not part of the amount that you're taxed on, you know, in a normal city, you can have a garage and it's not shown as your square footage when you look up your assessment.

[0:24:02] But it is based on density.

[0:24:04] There were four of us here.

[0:24:06] I'm just saying, I can't remember if it was you or you that had your hand up next.

[0:24:10] I did.

[0:24:11] I want to bring it back to environmental concerns and I think it's also a

[0:24:19] pressure to keep house sizes as small as possible. I think the climate change

[0:24:27] goals are really significant. The embodied carbon of building new

[0:24:31] buildings is a very significant contributor to climate change and the

[0:24:38] relationship is such that some of the top researchers are very clear in their

[0:24:42] direction is that communities should strive to build as small houses as

[0:24:47] possible and to reduce houses sizes and to build as small as

[0:24:55] possible in order to help

[0:24:56] us achieve carbon footprint goals. The estimates around the world of what we need to do in

[0:25:07] order for the world to achieve its climate goals are increasingly clear. The Swiss and

[0:25:13] German estimates say that we need to have a carbon footprint of about 1000 kilograms

[0:25:20] of carbon equivalent gas emissions per person per year.

[0:25:26] The embodied footprint alone of just building the house, we're not talking about heating

[0:25:30] it, we're not talking about living in it, is approximately a third of that per 1000

[0:25:36] square feet.

[0:25:38] So if you have three people living in a house, 3000 square feet, that is your entire

[0:25:48] carbon budget for living just to build the house.

[0:25:52] You can't heat it, you can't have lights on, you can't have all of that.

[0:25:56] These are really, really onerous targets to achieve with huge houses.

[0:26:04] With smaller houses they are achievable.

[0:26:05] Can we have carbon footprints?

[0:26:11] So we've got this pressure to keep houses as small as possible, so we've got the environmental

[0:26:15] impact, social effect.

[0:26:17] The reason I want carbon in there is because the Islands Trust strategic plan says we should be striving to meet the reduction of greenhouse gases to 2007 levels.

[0:26:36] and the local trust committees are directed to make changes in land use bylaws to help with this goal.

[0:26:48] Yes, so did you want me to add that here?

[0:26:51] Yes please.

[0:26:52] And you said it was carbon...

[0:26:55] Carbon footprint.

[0:26:56] Carbon footprint.

[0:26:57] And achieving climate change goals.

[0:26:59] How does the provincial government address this by mandating new, as many as four or five homes on an individual lot now?

[0:27:25] It would seem to me you're going to be having all these foundations for these various smaller homes, I'll agree, but over time I think, you know, I...

[0:27:37] I think that we have to, I don't think that's a question that I can answer first of all,

[0:27:43] but we all have to strive to have smaller homes just for the embodied carbon footprint.

[0:27:49] The concrete, steel and aluminum are the drivers of that and we should be reducing

[0:27:53] that.

[0:27:54] And they are directly related to house floor area size.

[0:27:58] Thank you.

[0:28:01] I have three things I want to say.

[0:28:05] First is, I think if the houses are smaller, which I agree they should be, then you're

[0:28:12] using less material, which then is less impact on the environment, and that is really

[0:28:20] straightforward and a no-brainer.

[0:28:24] I know that it gets very complicated because we are all used to getting our way, having

[0:28:30] our own comforts and disregarding the environment for our own comforts.

[0:28:40] And I do too.

[0:28:43] I just think that we generally have to stop.

[0:28:47] I quit eating fish about 15 years ago because our oceans are dying and we have

[0:28:53] to stop.

[0:28:54] There are various things that we can just, that we really do have to stop.

[0:28:59] Secondly, I've been a natural builder for the last 30 years, taught, gone many different

[0:29:09] places to build and teach it.

[0:29:13] I think it would be really great in the bylaws if there was a bonus for using more

[0:29:19] natural materials.

[0:29:20] Even if it's just plaster, which is more aesthetic, but it also does help air quality,

[0:29:29] et cetera, et cetera.

[0:29:31] I think that would be really great.

[0:29:35] And the third thing was a concern I have about the process.

[0:29:41] And I wrote a letter to DAG about it.

[0:29:44] I don't know if it'll go as far as that,

[0:29:46] like, become part of Iowa's trust or a DAGO.

[0:29:50] Could I just address it to him?

[0:29:53] Was that, and you had said that your decisions would be

[0:29:57] made on a kind of like a percentage.

[0:29:59] Like if there's more than 50% thinking one way,

[0:30:03] then we'll go that way.

[0:30:04] And for instance, this board has all these suggestions

[0:30:08] and reasons, but yet the environment,

[0:30:17] pro-environment, let's just call it,

[0:30:21] doesn't have another place.

[0:30:23] It gets added on to one that's already there.

[0:30:26] I'm just afraid that the environment will get

[0:30:31] get a second, like there'll be more suggestions about how to change it as

[0:30:39] opposed to the fact that the pro-environmental reasons gets on once

[0:30:48] and then it's like, I don't know if I'm explaining myself. I think I understand, you don't want the

[0:30:55] environment to take a back seat as a voice in all of this. Because it's all,

[0:30:59] We could label every single plant, animal, insect, everything that is being impacted, but that would just bore a salt to death.

[0:31:10] That's why we're here and we're having these conversations because like I said, that is another voice in this whole discussion.

[0:31:17] But we have to balance out everything's needs. It can't just be just the environment. It can't be just the community.

[0:31:28] and I just want to make sure it gets there.

[0:31:31] So we're having these conversations

[0:31:33] to get everything out in the open, writing it down,

[0:31:38] going to work our way through it.

[0:31:39] I think we're all doing a super good job

[0:31:41] at being respectful and listening

[0:31:43] and you're doing a good job writing it down.

[0:31:46] Thanks.

[0:31:48] So bonus cheese, natural materials.

[0:31:52] I think you were hitting on the environmental

[0:31:55] as a good reason for going that route.

[0:31:59] Well, it could be financial too, actually.

[0:32:02] It could be, but yes.

[0:32:09] So that's for your finances as the builder?

[0:32:11] No, I, believe me, you know what?

[0:32:15] These hands don't like doing it anymore.

[0:32:17] Stop waving that finger over there.

[0:32:20] Okay, so I have Dave in the back,

[0:32:23] then I have Heather, then I have you.

[0:32:26] Did you show your hand at the deficit?

[0:32:28] You can put me at the very end.

[0:32:29] Okay.

[0:32:30] I'm changing topics a bit.

[0:32:34] Some of the homes have been built in history,

[0:32:40] and now in the new bylaw don't conform to the sizes.

[0:32:45] I'm wondering, the province has just demonstrated with SDVRs

[0:32:49] what they think about offline conforming uses,

[0:32:53] of how valid that is.

[0:32:56] I'd like to suggest that there

[0:33:00] be some accommodation in the bylaws for those homes that are larger than the

[0:33:06] whatever the bylaw says at the end of the day for house size and that they

[0:33:11] are they are not and that if possible if necessary that they're spot zoned

[0:33:18] and in a separate zone that says this is this house is the house size for

[0:33:26] this zone is whatever it is I say I don't I don't know what the house

[0:33:30] sizes are but let's just for example this house was 10,000 square feet so the

[0:33:35] zone says that that's permissible use in that site.

[0:33:40] So that we don't create the situation where they are considered by some and it does a lot of non-conforming.

[0:33:49] It does.

[0:33:51] There's been legal opinions based on that and that's what the ban is putting in the by-laws.

[0:33:57] There's a non-conforming clause.

[0:33:59] It was suggested on that point though, it was suggested by Cameron that if people wanted to put their name and their property

[0:34:07] Specific to that in a in a sheet that was attached to the bylaw

[0:34:12] That the planners could do that

[0:34:15] If that is a concern, then raise it with Robert or Cameron

[0:34:19] It's a concern at least one level which is just purely understanding

[0:34:25] Yeah, yeah

[0:34:26] And unfortunately, there are so many legal opinions

[0:34:31] as there is lawyers.

[0:34:32] Because there are opinions.

[0:34:35] So how did you want me to capture that suggestion?

[0:34:40] In as few words as possible, please, it's really dead.

[0:34:44] Well, just I.

[0:34:46] You said spot zoning?

[0:34:48] My proposal is that there should be spot zoning

[0:34:53] to reduce the amount of non-conformance by house size.

[0:35:03] Okay, so spot zoning.

[0:35:05] To eliminate.

[0:35:06] Regarding.

[0:35:07] To reduce.

[0:35:09] Larger homes that don't conform.

[0:35:14] Larger homes,

[0:35:21] outside of current

[0:35:28] bylaw sizes.

[0:35:32] Okay, this pen is getting really bad.

[0:35:37] It sure will.

[0:35:38] And the reason for this you said was to reduce confusion around?

[0:35:51] Yeah.

[0:35:52] You came up with the short term vacation rentals that the government said.

[0:36:00] Gordy, didn't you say something about the short term vacation rentals and then the government said that they no longer comply even though they are part of the bylaws?

[0:36:11] So what was that?

[0:36:12] They removed a non- legal non-conforming provision for SBBRs.

[0:36:18] Yes.

[0:36:19] So no grandmother anymore?

[0:36:21] Correct.

[0:36:22] Correct.

[0:36:23] So that's a completely different topic.

[0:36:26] But would that, the fact that you guys put in the legal non-conforming now conforms,

[0:36:36] would that be impacted by such a kind of rule that became

[0:36:40] downloaded?

[0:36:41] You know what I mean?

[0:36:42] Did you know what I mean?

[0:36:45] Yeah.

[0:36:45] No.

[0:36:46] No.

[0:36:46] Oh.

[0:36:47] Yeah.

[0:36:47] Yeah.

[0:36:49] So OK, let's get back to the speakers.

[0:36:52] So I had, OK, who else had their hand up?

[0:36:54] There was that there.

[0:36:56] You and then you.

[0:36:57] Yes.

[0:36:59] So having done the research on this last week,

[0:37:02] Local Government Act section 529.1

[0:37:06] says, if the use and density of buildings and other structures conform to the land use

[0:37:10] regulation but

[0:37:11] the siting size or dimensions of the building

[0:37:14] or other structure constructed before the bylaw was adopted

[0:37:17] adopted so before September

[0:37:21] so other structure constructed before the bylaw

[0:37:25] was adopted does not conform with the bylaw or the siting size dimensions or

[0:37:30] number of off-street parking or loading spaces constructed or provided before

[0:37:34] the bylaw was adopted does not conform the building or other structure

[0:37:39] or spaces may be maintained extended or altered to the extent

[0:37:42] authorized by subsection 2. Subsection 2 says a building or other structure or

[0:37:47] spaces to which subsection 1 applies may be maintained extended or altered

[0:37:52] only to the extent that the repair, extension, or alteration would, when completed, involve

[0:37:57] no further contravention of the bylaw that then is existing at the time of the repair.

[0:38:03] So your house is not, they're acknowledging that the bylaw can change, you can repair

[0:38:12] it and so forth, as long as you're not contravening the new bylaw, but that your

[0:38:18] or citing and citing size or dimensions of building remain the same.

[0:38:29] So that's what it currently says.

[0:38:31] I think the question was...

[0:38:32] That's the local government act.

[0:38:33] Yes.

[0:38:34] And then that's what it says in the bylaw.

[0:38:36] And then the bylaw goes one step further which says, specifically because it doesn't

[0:38:39] talk about square footage.

[0:38:42] Square footage comes up in the new bylaw.

[0:38:44] There was one clause that says if whatever you can't

[0:38:50] You can't change it. You can't enlarge the square footage to match the current which is a way of

[0:38:57] Closing a loophole so that someone couldn't go and buy a thousand square foot house

[0:39:01] That's 25 feet back and whatever else and then go build

[0:39:05] To the current bylaw. So that's what that's designed to close a loophole.

[0:39:09] Yeah.

[0:39:10] the local government act already says we're providing for conformity even though the bylaws

[0:39:16] change.

[0:39:17] But I don't think that was a question because the legislation has now changed and it's

[0:39:22] removing anything that was previously that was, this is on a different topic.

[0:39:27] No, but we're talking about STVRs, I'm talking about citing and nonconforming

[0:39:31] them.

[0:39:32] Yes, no, I get that point but this, I wasn't sure if that was in response to

[0:39:37] question which was if the government made a change could it take that away?

[0:39:43] And I think the answer is yes.

[0:39:44] He was in response to the prior comment about conformity.

[0:39:47] Yes, okay so we're just a few comments behind.

[0:39:50] But it was, and that's why I was a bit confused because it kind of was relevant to what she just said.

[0:39:54] So okay thank you for that clarification.

[0:39:57] Okay Donna and then I see you.

[0:40:03] Did you have your hand up first as well?

[0:40:05] No, okay Donna?

[0:40:07] So, a couple comments. First of all, there were a whole bunch of houses that were built long before bylaws were even on this island.

[0:40:17] And if you wanted to replace one of those, and where it is, and the size that it is, you have to have all kinds of information available when the thing burns down so that you can do that.

[0:40:30] So I know there are several that don't have that.

[0:40:36] We don't have that.

[0:40:38] John's grandparents house doesn't have that.

[0:40:40] Yet they're all conforming at some point with what goes on here.

[0:40:47] So it's not just as easy as it sounds.

[0:40:51] Second to that point is, I have an email to this effect from somebody who owns a house

[0:40:57] that does not conform, their insurance requires a bonus payment because it does not conform

[0:41:04] to the by-law for their house insurance.

[0:41:08] So that's another thing to consider.

[0:41:11] When we make these moves that regardless of what the law says or the legislation

[0:41:19] says we do create problems for people.

[0:41:21] Not suggesting that they're not the right ones, but they may not be exactly the right

[0:41:26] direction to go.

[0:41:29] To the point about we should all live in a smaller house.

[0:41:32] If we take this as far as we want to go, we could all be living in deep east.

[0:41:37] Well, probably not because then we'd have to do a bunch of other stuff that we wouldn't

[0:41:42] agree with.

[0:41:44] It just doesn't—one size does not fit all.

[0:41:47] You cannot—we cannot sit here and be judging juries for people and what they

[0:41:53] want to build, what they can afford to build, and how they want to live.

[0:42:01] not appropriate. So we've come up with house sizes. We weren't very happy with it because

[0:42:07] we spent a whole bunch of time getting to the ones we had before and then for some

[0:42:12] reason we decided we needed to change it with no bonuses, if you will, to how people

[0:42:19] might do that, how they might live in that home, with the house sizes that we had,

[0:42:26] what conditions they might put on themselves to go forward, and now we're trying to do

[0:42:35] it again.

[0:42:36] So I just, I get what we don't want, and I think we probably all agree on that, but

[0:42:47] we cannot be a group of people who just say what we want is what everybody has

[0:42:54] to want because that's what we think is right.

[0:42:57] So we do have to find an even ground and we do have to be respectful of people.

[0:43:02] And we can talk about carbon footprint until cows come home and everybody in this room

[0:43:08] and everybody outside of this room who live here have to have some self respect for what

[0:43:15] that means to them.

[0:43:17] And you have to be able to, you know, just say I might be better than somebody else.

[0:43:28] I might be better than 10 people.

[0:43:30] They might be better than me on some points, too.

[0:43:34] Welcome to the Morrison.

[0:43:39] OK, so last June, the Federal Environmental Protection Act

[0:43:48] was amended to include everybody's right

[0:43:53] to a clean and healthy environment, so clean air,

[0:43:57] water, soil, clean oceans.

[0:44:05] In terms of rhyme or reason, every level of government is

[0:44:15] tasking us all with the responsibility for reducing

[0:44:22] carbon footprint.

[0:44:25] And not just for ourselves, but for our grandchildren's

[0:44:31] generation, who might well be living here

[0:44:34] in 20 years or sooner.

[0:44:38] The rhyme or reason about the changes to the bylaws stems from the fact that in March

[0:44:52] of 2019, the Islands Trust Council declared a climate emergency committing to take urgent

[0:44:59] and fair climate action.

[0:45:02] And to me, the fair part of that suggests that we share the responsibility to mitigate

[0:45:08] the current effects of climate change on our community equitably and be forward

[0:45:15] looking to create preventive actions wherever we possibly can. Last summer

[0:45:21] was the most difficult year for us in terms of our garden, water

[0:45:30] availability, we're dealing with the effects of climate change on our

[0:45:36] shorelines at the dip which seems to be a never-ending one lane situation.

[0:45:48] I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering how people want to live on

[0:45:56] their property. I am saying that there are larger issues that we all need to

[0:46:02] to step up to. And so what I would like you to put on the board here please is

[0:46:08] the right to a healthy environment.

[0:46:30] I think it's probably she was talking about the EPA.

[0:46:32] Sorry I'm not finished.

[0:46:35] No I was just going to say in terms of writing it down, just switch it.

[0:46:39] EPA and then the right to a healthy environment. You know what I mean? For a reason that's what you want and your suggestion was to adhere to what the federal government.

[0:46:49] Well, the fact that all levels of government are asking us,

[0:46:54] tasking us with that responsibility.

[0:47:06] But this is specifically about house size.

[0:47:08] So we're saying small house size.

[0:47:10] Well, it is.

[0:47:10] And the third point I wanted to make is that house size

[0:47:21] is the one controllable piece that will actually

[0:47:26] reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[0:47:29] And I think one of the words that you used in there was equitable and fair.

[0:47:36] And I think that's why we're all in this room because some people are feeling it's

[0:47:39] not being equitable and fair for their family needs.

[0:47:44] So we're trying to, we all agree on this and this is what we're trying to work towards.

[0:47:52] So we are actively working on this, trying to get to a place where our community can

[0:47:59] agree on an equitable, fair result.

[0:48:04] What is that going to look like?

[0:48:05] So right now we're just getting our ideas on the board so we can have further discussion.

[0:48:12] I understand that, Christina, but the onus is on all of us to do what we can to mitigate

[0:48:19] the current climate change issues that we're dealing with and to be forward looking for

[0:48:28] the future.

[0:48:29] 100%. And that is, I don't think there's anybody in here that isn't going to say,

[0:48:35] I am not doing what I'm capable of doing.

[0:48:39] But to address this to house size is to say that house size, limiting house size

[0:48:46] size will affect the amount of greenhouse gas that we're meeting.

[0:48:54] Yeah.

[0:48:54] We just have to find.

[0:48:55] So that's how I wanted to connect something that we had to move forward.

[0:49:03] So through limiting house sizing?

[0:49:05] Is asking us to do on all levels of our government, provincial and the Islands Trust.

[0:49:14] So through limiting house size?

[0:49:16] Yes.

[0:49:16] Thank you.

[0:49:20] OK, so Paul was next.

[0:49:24] Just a clarification on the question of insurance. I'm just in the process of reviewing that issue and looking for more information.

[0:49:38] So Donna, I'd like to get from you some specifics on what you're suggesting.

[0:49:43] What I've found so far from two insurance companies is that yes, there is an additional charge being added,

[0:49:51] But it's being added

[0:49:53] for building code changes.

[0:49:59] Legally nonconforming was not one of the factors.

[0:50:03] So I'd like to further explore that

[0:50:05] so I can get an appreciation.

[0:50:07] So if I can get that information from you.

[0:50:09] You have to talk to Jim.

[0:50:11] Jim Perch.

[0:50:13] I can read you something on insurance right here

[0:50:15] seeing as it's a topic.

[0:50:19] Does everybody want to hear it?

[0:50:20] Sure.

[0:50:21] Just to make sure.

[0:50:22] This is from Law and Peace Insurance.

[0:50:26] And I would do the same thing as you were

[0:50:28] six months ago, Paul.

[0:50:30] This just popped up.

[0:50:32] And special conditions, I'm not gonna read the whole

[0:50:37] works, just what, for the purpose of this coverage,

[0:50:42] we will consider dwelling insured to 100%

[0:50:46] of its replacement value if you provide us

[0:50:49] with replacement cost calculator acceptable to us every five years.

[0:51:03] That's the first statement, but here's the one that I really wanted to.

[0:51:06] In determining the cost of repairs or replacement, we will not pay or

[0:51:12] include the incremental cost of repair or replacement

[0:51:17] due to the operation of any law regulating the zoning,

[0:51:25] demolition, repair, construction of buildings,

[0:51:28] and their related services.

[0:51:31] So I think the key here is the law is regulating zoning.

[0:51:37] So if you're non-conforming, you're not gonna pay it.

[0:51:43] And they don't need to mention non-conforming.

[0:51:45] Can you email that for me so I can build that?

[0:51:48] Yeah, I can.

[0:51:49] Just go email it.

[0:51:50] Thank you.

[0:51:51] Steve?

[0:51:52] They may be referring to, when they talk about services, they may be referring to

[0:51:57] uses, but in my discussion with insurance companies in the last term, all of them

[0:52:04] told me that the insurance covers the value of your house.

[0:52:08] It doesn't care about anything else.

[0:52:11] If you are concerned about it, they said there is a policy that you can apply for to protect

[0:52:17] yourself against any changes in the bylaw.

[0:52:20] But insurance is value.

[0:52:21] It's not use.

[0:52:22] If you're trying to take an insurance policy out on the use, that's something

[0:52:28] different, like a commercial business.

[0:52:31] But as far as the structure that that commercial use is being taken in, then that's

[0:52:38] what you're insured on.

[0:52:40] It's got nothing to do with whether you're conforming, legal non-conforming.

[0:52:43] And I was told that if an insurance company brings that up, find another insurance company.

[0:52:50] It brings stuff up like that when you're making a claim.

[0:52:55] Oh, by the way.

[0:52:56] So there's just one further thing.

[0:53:00] Everybody's insurance, you should look for this.

[0:53:03] There's a rider and you're usually charged for bylaw coverage.

[0:53:09] So it's in every insurance policy that I got 10 quotes,

[0:53:14] or a bit of an answer, at least six quotes

[0:53:19] from different insurance companies,

[0:53:21] just for my personal health,

[0:53:22] and every one of them has something

[0:53:24] about bylaw coverage in there.

[0:53:27] And they also limit the amount of,

[0:53:30] if you have to upgrade because of your nonconforming,

[0:53:35] conforming then they only pay a limited amount over and above 100% so it's

[0:53:42] definitely there and my insurance agent said it's there there's just every

[0:53:49] insurance company is different.

[0:53:54] No I just I didn't interpret what he read the same way so I was just

[0:53:59] struggling with the interpretation because you can if the zoning changes

[0:54:05] and you need to rebuild, you're allowed to rebuild what you have.

[0:54:10] So there's nothing like, if you have to build to today's building code, that's another

[0:54:17] issue because it's gotten considerably more costly and complicated.

[0:54:22] And so in a lot of cases where there has been destruction and things have to be

[0:54:27] rebuilt, often people can't rebuild the same of what they had because it's gotten

[0:54:32] so much more expensive to do that.

[0:54:34] And so they're forced into a situation.

[0:54:35] And that's, you know, energy step code's very complicated,

[0:54:39] there's zoning changes and whatever,

[0:54:41] but you can still rebuild what you had,

[0:54:44] that's what the by-law says.

[0:54:46] It's just, you know, you may not be able

[0:54:48] to afford it anymore.

[0:54:49] Like, unless you've got a complete replacement cost

[0:54:52] rider that allows you to build that way,

[0:54:55] then, you know, that's where the road comes from,

[0:54:58] because you may not be able to afford it,

[0:55:01] because you're not getting the value

[0:55:03] to build today what you had.

[0:55:05] So I didn't, in all deference to Gordy,

[0:55:09] that interpretation, I didn't take that same as being

[0:55:14] what he took of us, just a difference of opinion.

[0:55:18] It is, but you're choosing to ignore the zoning factor

[0:55:21] and this is a zoning issue.

[0:55:25] But you don't know how it's changed.

[0:55:30] The Bible says you can have what you had before.

[0:55:35] We've strayed away from house size again.

[0:55:37] Yeah, quite insurance.

[0:55:39] So I just, sorry, I just like to say that I think, you know, we've got a bunch of really

[0:55:46] good ideas.

[0:55:47] But again, to drag us back to your opening comments, we also have to think about the

[0:55:54] next 20 to 30 years.

[0:55:56] We also have to think of what we want this community to be, how we want it to

[0:56:00] support the people who may come here, because goodness knows there's this big thing

[0:56:05] about affordable housing, attracting young families, and it goes on and on and on, and

[0:56:13] making little tiny houses.

[0:56:15] The rule of the day, I think that we're out of step with what we might need, what

[0:56:25] people may need now, what people may need in the future, and how we can accommodate

[0:56:31] that within the lot sizes that we have here and within the construction that we have

[0:56:37] here.

[0:56:38] Because there is no, you look around South Pender, 30% agricultural land, which is huge

[0:56:45] lot sizes, and forest land, 30% park, which will not be developed, and the rest of

[0:56:53] it is the rest of us.

[0:56:55] And as Gordy's indicated, 80% was already built, it's not going to get subdivided,

[0:57:00] not going to be this huge amount of development. So how do we work with what we've got in terms

[0:57:08] of our land base, which has its own issues with the topography and everything else,

[0:57:14] our water for some people, not for everybody, doesn't have that problem. And how do we

[0:57:20] look to the future?

[0:57:21] Those are the questions.

[0:57:25] I think those are things that we're missing in this discussion. I don't know how you

[0:57:30] fix it, but...

[0:57:31] No, I think we've made a good start today with a lot of different ideas coming forward.

[0:57:37] So yeah, I think this is a good start.

[0:57:41] There's a lot of things to consider, there's a lot of people bringing forward different pieces of information for us all to factor in here.

[0:57:50] And like I said, at the end of the day, we have to find something that's going to work as a whole for this community.

[0:58:00] So we haven't quite struck on anything yet today where we all said, hey, that's the ticket.

[0:58:06] But no, but you know what? There are some things that we have to get on that people have looked

[0:58:12] around the room and said, you know what? That's not a bad idea. I forgot to mention one thing

[0:58:22] that I read before going over some of the other island bylaws. I'm not waterfront, but

[0:58:28] But there was something in there,

[0:58:33] somebody was talking about where

[0:58:34] you can build on your lot.

[0:58:36] And there was something in there

[0:58:38] about if you had an engineer, some sort of engineer,

[0:58:46] let certification, that you might

[0:58:48] be able to go farther ahead than what the bylaw said.

[0:58:52] Or you might have to go back.

[0:58:54] So there is something in one of those bylaws

[0:58:59] that says something about setbacks from the sea.

[0:59:03] I think that was, and I think I read something along,

[0:59:05] because I was looking in all,

[0:59:06] I've been reading all the titles as well.

[0:59:08] Maybe it's also in Maine.

[0:59:10] I don't think there was a couple of islands,

[0:59:12] one of them, but they were talking,

[0:59:13] and this is more to do with setbacks,

[0:59:15] not house sizes.

[0:59:16] Well, it can be influenced either, frankly.

[0:59:18] Yeah, but that had to do if you were on a,

[0:59:20] on a, on a, on a bluff or a cliff,

[0:59:25] if it had a certain geological structure,

[0:59:29] and stability that had a qualified person

[0:59:35] confirming the integrity of it,

[0:59:38] that you might be allowed to build to a smaller setback,

[0:59:46] but there was still a very defined setback.

[0:59:48] So yes, that was something else that was brought up.

[0:59:52] But as-

[0:59:53] And what we talked about last week was that

[0:59:55] while that's achievable and people are prepared

[0:59:56] pay to do that. What isn't taken into account is that those slope areas are

[1:00:04] defined sensitive ecosystems and they are the most threatened ecosystems here.

[1:00:09] Exactly and that is a different element that would have to get factored

[1:00:13] into that so if it is if it has an ecologically sensitive area then

[1:00:18] that should be like a DPA area and that you shouldn't be allowed.

[1:00:21] But all the shoreline is actually sensitive.

[1:00:24] It's defined in the zoning map and so forth.

[1:00:28] Exactly, then.

[1:00:29] Environmentally sensitive areas.

[1:00:30] Yeah, correct.

[1:00:31] So if it is an environmentally sensitive area,

[1:00:33] then that should be written in as well saying,

[1:00:34] if it's environmentally sensitive, you can't.

[1:00:37] If, for whichever one property that might not be on an ecological,

[1:00:42] the one section that might not be ecologically sensitive,

[1:00:45] which, you know, be hard-pressed to find, blah, blah, blah.

[1:00:48] But yeah, I mean, that was somebody else's bylaw.

[1:00:50] that wasn't really brought up in that setback conversation that I was in so I

[1:00:54] don't really have anything more to say. Go ahead Paul.

[1:00:59] Thanks I agree with your earlier comment about when we look at solutions that have been applied in other islands

[1:01:07] we have to be cautious to see if it fits our circumstances and just to the point that was just made our island has most of our

[1:01:19] smaller lots under one acre or less than one acre, about 63 percent, are along

[1:01:29] along the north east coast and the southwest coast, all along the water.

[1:01:37] And so I think that when we're talking about solutions here, that's one

[1:01:43] of the factors that we need to keep in mind is the number of small lots

[1:01:47] and the number of sensitive lots along the water. So that's just a thought about how

[1:01:55] we look at other bylaws on other islands.

[1:02:00] I just wanted to, there was some talk about the development permit area. In this particular

[1:02:08] case, a development permit area for residential areas is not really applicable because the

[1:02:14] DPA you can apply form and character of a commercial zone there is so they if

[1:02:21] you want to

[1:02:21] put the island, the entire island under a development permit area, it would have to be under some environmental

[1:02:28] cars or heritage or something like that. It could be under foreign characters so that the idea of a DPA as a solution is not really practical here.

[1:02:37] I think we had that conversation earlier as well. And in conclusion, yes?

[1:02:43] Well, from all of the discussion here, I think it's clear that there's not a one-size-fits-all.

[1:02:50] But that said, the bylaw is really about a default position.

[1:02:55] So the default position would be different size lots, different size houses, and there's

[1:03:00] always a way that you can go through a variance permit, either through the Board of Variants

[1:03:06] or a variance permit application.

[1:03:08] It's not that onerous, I don't think, to be able to do that.

[1:03:10] So if you come to a decision that you want to do something that's different than

[1:03:14] the default position whether it's siding or building size. I think Heather you mentioned about the

[1:03:21] multi-family house, right? So that's a reason to say, you know, this size won't fit.

[1:03:25] We're gonna have four families or three families in one building. Therefore, we'd like to build something a little bigger.

[1:03:30] So you apply for a variance and you know, if you've got good reasons it can be granted.

[1:03:34] But I think you've got to start with a default position and the default position doesn't have to be huge.

[1:03:39] I think, you know, the current bylaw has a default position that is a starting point for

[1:03:44] And there's not a lot of application because there's not a lot of buildings that are going to be built

[1:03:52] other than maybe replacing some old ones or the odd 20% that are undeveloped.

[1:03:56] So those ones, if somebody wants to build something different and they've got good reasons to,

[1:04:00] they can make that application.

[1:04:02] So I think keeping the house sizes and the sightings the way they are

[1:04:06] they are and then looking for remedial applications if there's reasons to do it

[1:04:12] is not a bad position to start from.

[1:04:23] I think...

[1:04:25] Do you want that written on the...

[1:04:28] It's recorded and Christine can add it later.

[1:04:32] So yeah, did you have a suggestion to put on the book?

[1:04:36] Because I think we've had a few people say already leave it the way it is.

[1:04:40] So I don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over.

[1:04:43] We went out in a limb here.

[1:04:46] Yeah.

[1:04:47] Like a long limb.

[1:04:49] Is it skinny?

[1:04:50] Sorry?

[1:04:51] Is it a long skinny limb?

[1:04:53] It's a long skinny limb.

[1:04:54] We had a three and a half hour workshop recently and no notes were taken and there was a long meandering conversation.

[1:05:05] There were some specifics. There were lots of great ideas. None of that was captured.

[1:05:10] And I am concerned that we got together, spent the time, invested the time because we all think it's really important.

[1:05:19] And I don't know how our contribution in that regard is going to be considered,

[1:05:26] or that's going to be brought forward.

[1:05:28] And so I'm, you know, as I say, I'm going way out on the limb here, but I am concerned about that.

[1:05:34] I'm concerned that that time was a waste.

[1:05:36] Which, what do you...

[1:05:38] Our house side, our setback workshop.

[1:05:43] The one with Dad?

[1:05:44] Yes.

[1:05:45] I know that he's working on a spreadsheet.

[1:05:47] He had the spreadsheet and told us that for him to consider the changes, we would have to enter our information in the spreadsheet

[1:05:54] and that it was to be circulated.

[1:05:56] I don't believe anybody here has received a spreadsheet.

[1:05:59] I think he's doing that. He's on his way to doing that.

[1:06:02] I don't know anything about his process because we haven't spoken.

[1:06:06] My process was a little different. I'd like to capture it. But none of it was captured

[1:06:11] So it's incumbent on us to take the time now when we get the spreadsheet assuming we get it to

[1:06:16] To re-enter all of our feedback and hopefully it would be considered

[1:06:21] you know what you're pressing on a timeline in terms of getting a report to the ABC so that they can make a judgment on

[1:06:28] this and

[1:06:31] We're missing a big part of it. So and I was going to say these conversations

[1:06:35] on over we can have as many of them as are needed and that's what we've said all along.

[1:06:40] And I don't think that we've really hit as a community anything really close to a solution

[1:06:49] that would satisfy everybody yet. We've had some good ideas come out, we've had some

[1:06:53] you know collective nods around the room on a couple of points and then a lot of conversation

[1:07:00] that just it's not quite we haven't quite found that middle ground yet so I think for me

[1:07:05] I don't think we're there yet.

[1:07:07] I think we're still in the information collection stage.

[1:07:11] And for myself, this will go, I'll capture it,

[1:07:14] send it off to staff, and they'll send it off

[1:07:17] as a package to the ABC for sure.

[1:07:20] But I don't think we're ready yet.

[1:07:23] I still think we need to do a bit more thinking on this.

[1:07:29] You're also charged with responsibility of leadership.

[1:07:33] And I think that we've proven.

[1:07:36] I think it's been proven time and time again that you get more than two people in a room,

[1:07:43] there's going to be a variety of opinions.

[1:07:44] It's very, very difficult, if not impossible, to get consensus.

[1:07:49] And so if you're looking for a complete consensus, you'll never get it.

[1:07:53] But there were some things agreed on.

[1:07:54] We got to a point where we were saying, OK, well, setbacks, everybody was kind of

[1:07:58] agreeing for the most part.

[1:07:59] There was some dissent, but a 50-foot setback from the front room, that's not a bad idea.

[1:08:06] seem to have a consensus. Those things are in a moment. I want to applaud you and Doug

[1:08:15] for taking this on and taking this approach, but it does need to be captured and all considered

[1:08:25] and I'm concerned at this point that that's not going to happen. So I'm raising it.

[1:08:30] That's the limb I'm not on.

[1:08:31] No, no worries. And what I would recommend is reach out to him and find out where he is in that process,

[1:08:37] because like I said, I'm not in the loop with him and what he's doing on that.

[1:08:41] Yeah, and ask him. And he may be closer than you think, or he may...

[1:08:47] As you can see, it's difficult to capture all that happening.

[1:08:53] And that's why I'm like, okay, this one is turning into, I'm not going to be able to remember all the nuances,

[1:08:59] which is why I asked if I could record it, so that I could actually capture better the nuances.

[1:09:03] the previous one about the setbacks, it was much easier for me to capture and retain.

[1:09:10] I just want to say that I was told by Doug that he is going to have, I don't know whether

[1:09:15] he can do this, but he's trying to get what he captured, however he captured it.

[1:09:22] He was taking notes I think.

[1:09:25] I sat across from him so I didn't see him take a single note, but okay.

[1:09:29] Oh did you? I thought, I don't know, I remember something's going on there.

[1:09:33] that he was going to be sending something around

[1:09:36] through the Atlas Trust.

[1:09:37] He was trying to get them to send an email to do that.

[1:09:43] But what I was going to say, so in your view then,

[1:09:45] would a survey be better?

[1:09:47] No.

[1:09:50] No, capture the information that's presented.

[1:09:52] There was great dialogue, great discussion.

[1:09:53] People came out informed, people made submissions.

[1:09:56] We all took the time.

[1:09:57] We thought it was important enough

[1:09:58] that we came to the room

[1:09:59] and we spent three and a half hours in the discussion.

[1:10:01] Oh, yeah, he must hear from 2.30 to 4.30.

[1:10:04] The rest of us were here at 2 o'clock.

[1:10:06] OK.

[1:10:06] So.

[1:10:07] I agree.

[1:10:10] But that aside, I mean, it's difficult to capture

[1:10:14] the nuance of all of this.

[1:10:15] So we're now, let's assume 300 and whatever email

[1:10:20] addresses are all going to receive the survey

[1:10:22] or the spreadsheet, because there are no names captured

[1:10:26] or where from the meeting.

[1:10:28] So I'm not sure how it's going to be distributed.

[1:10:31] But I don't know.

[1:10:33] I know somebody.

[1:10:33] I think it was you, Paul, that

[1:10:35] suggested having a survey through Islands Trust. Is that something?

[1:10:40] I wrote a letter some time ago and essentially what I said in the letter was at the time we were

[1:10:46] looking at repealing bylaw 122 and reverting back to the 2016 house size limits and I said

[1:10:56] it would be simple enough to send a survey out to the community saying here's what the

[1:11:03] values were in 2016, here's what the current values are, here's what our OCP goals are,

[1:11:12] which of these best conform to the OCP goals, or do you feel other values would better

[1:11:21] conform to the OCP goals so you just have simple questions about how size, setback,

[1:11:27] So that's what I suggested because what that does is if it goes to everybody in the community

[1:11:34] and if it's validly constructed, which I think staff are capable of doing, I believe that

[1:11:41] they can do that and then it's reliable. It's something you can rely on. I agree

[1:11:48] with John that there was a lot of good conversation in the meeting with DAG but

[1:11:54] the idea of him using his spreadsheet, he called it, he just put his own views on the

[1:12:06] spreadsheet up and that's all that was captured there.

[1:12:09] So we're kind of going, oh, okay, so now we're going to get DAG's spreadsheet in the

[1:12:14] mail to add what we want to do.

[1:12:17] It just seems to me like a waste of time.

[1:12:20] It should be today.

[1:12:22] With all due respect, if you're talking and complaining about DAG, you should be talking to him, not Christine.

[1:12:28] I don't remember anything coming up in the meetings and saying you're not capturing this.

[1:12:33] No, everything seemed fine.

[1:12:35] Let's close this down.

[1:12:36] Because I wasn't in the meeting, I don't have conversation with DAG, I don't know what went on.

[1:12:42] So I can't answer any of this, all I can say is go talk to DAG.

[1:12:45] I thought he led the meeting very well because in the past we've not been listened to.

[1:12:51] Now we are.

[1:12:53] So let's, I can't make any comment about the meeting that was with Dave because I wasn't there.

[1:12:58] I can't do anything about that so I'll let you guys, if you want to have an offline discussion about it feel free.

[1:13:05] But is there anything else that we'd like to discuss before I close down my recording?

[1:13:11] Just one other thing, just a comment about the, I'm not sure what this lady's name is, who was sitting beside Paul.

[1:13:18] I thought that was kind of a good suggestion she made about the natural materials.

[1:13:27] And perhaps there could be something about the passive solar and those types of things as well because that mitigates the environment.

[1:13:37] That's what was in Bylaw 123.

[1:13:40] That was my understanding what the intent of 123 was, was to bring those values into

[1:13:45] the discussion and consideration.

[1:13:47] Yeah, I don't think we had that in 123.

[1:13:52] 123 was about everything from nature and siting and environmental benefits and all

[1:13:57] those sorts of things.

[1:13:58] And so that was bringing that other part into the discussion.

[1:14:01] So it was more than just siting and zoning, there were other considerations.

[1:14:05] And of course, as we know, there is no bylaw 1, 2, 3.

[1:14:09] There were two separate topics that were in there,

[1:14:12] and they needed to be separated out.

[1:14:14] So unfortunately, this was a topic

[1:14:17] that was chosen for us to move forward with.

[1:14:19] Once this is dealt with, then we

[1:14:20] can take a look and see what we're

[1:14:22] going to deal with next, if that happens in our term.

[1:14:26] But yeah, so what I'm hoping is in our term

[1:14:31] or in the next term, however long it takes,

[1:14:34] we will come to something where we can say yes this is good. This works for most of us

[1:14:41] and not just some of us. And I know there's a solution out there, we just have to find it.