[0:02] Good afternoon everybody and thank you very much for making the time to attend

[0:07] this afternoon. Pursuant to section 131 of the community

[0:13] charter, I'm bringing forward for council's

[0:17] reconsiderations decision regarding Highland Zoning bylaw number 100. But

[0:22] before I get into that, I'm going to start the call the meeting to order and

[0:28] acknowledge we're meeting in the traditional territories of Laquangan

[0:31] Chinoten and Hulcoming speaking First Nations with whom we are committed to

[0:35] building stronger working relationships. Today's meeting is being livereamed and

[0:41] recorded enhancing transparency, inclusiveness, accountability, and

[0:45] efficiency. Members of the public can watch live or view through the record

[0:49] view the recording through our meeting portal under the tonight's agenda page

[0:54] or on the District of Highlands YouTube channel. Information and links to access

[1:00] the meeting were provided on today's agenda. Um members of the public are

[1:04] welcome to share their comments during the petitions and delegations of the

[1:08] meeting either in person or electronically. to speak at the meeting

[1:12] and receive the Zoom information the public was asked to request to speak

[1:15] through the meeting portal. So far, Mr. Scott Richardson has registered to speak

[1:20] and is attending via Zoom. And also, I believe uh we've had an indication that

[1:25] Karen Burns will also be attending. I thought in person, but

[1:31] hopefully uh she comes in person. If not, maybe she'll be online.

[1:35] Anyways, with those additions, I look for approval of the agenda. Moved by

[1:40] councelor Singh, second by councelor Anderson. All those in favor opposed,

[1:44] none opposed. That carries. All right. And so if we have our first speaker,

[1:50] that would be Mr. Richardson. Welcome.

[1:56] » Thank you, Ken. Mayor, uh, council. Um, first off, oh man, look at you guys back

[2:03] at it. Um, this has been a really long, incredibly

[2:08] long, excruciating journey both for you and staff. I can't see staff, but I'm

[2:13] quite sure they're there. Um, and uh, I just well, I appreciate all that you've

[2:20] put into trying to get this right. Um, uh, so I wanted to say that at the

[2:26] outset. Um I also wanted just to reflect on the fact that really the consensus in

[2:32] the community um just for context was to reroute all

[2:37] of these properties.

[2:42] That was the consensus and over uh several months what emerged was what

[2:50] I would call a compromise significant compromise.

[2:55] um to do something called regenerative

[2:59] development. The main feature of which uh as it's explained in the

[3:05] uh in the documents is net positive.

[3:11] Um so I think it's just useful to say reing was plan A. Um plan B a great

[3:19] compromise but if it is not doable there's always plan A.

[3:24] Um now having said that I don't want to press that point. Uh

[3:31] I um I although I do note that there was some

[3:37] I think there was some mention of assessment values. Um there's no assess

[3:42] assessment value offered for rewed Milstream Meadows. Um, but

[3:49] related to that, I guess I had a question

[3:53] because I wasn't I was curious. I wasn't sure how to

[3:59] how do property assessment values factor in decisions related to this

[4:05] bylaw or um

[4:10] uh I think there was some suggestion that the property could even be a a chip

[4:16] in um treaty negotiations. So, uh, I'm at a lo complete loss as to how th that

[4:23] those relate or are relevant. Uh, it's not your job to answer every curiosity

[4:28] or question I have, but I just sort of thought I'd mention that in passing. And

[4:32] again, I'd like to end with really a big note of appreciation

[4:38] looking at the sunny day outside and all the other things you guys could be

[4:41] doing. Um, so thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[4:47] Do we have uh Karen Burns available? >> Doesn't appear that she's here yet, but

[4:52] she did send a written submission earlier today that was circulated to

[4:56] council regarding the bylaw. Um her written submission will be appended to

[5:01] the agenda for um the public record, but council has received it.

[5:06] » All right. Thank you.

[5:13] So going on with 3.1, the bylaw would establish the proposed

[5:18] general commercial industrial regenerative development M1 RD and

[5:24] medium commercial industrial regenerative development M2RD zones and

[5:29] apply the M1RD zone to 1965 Milstream Road, Milstream Meadows. The

[5:35] recommendation before council was that the bylaw be given first and second

[5:39] readings. This reconsideration is to provide council with an opportunity to

[5:44] further reflect on the matter in light of the significant work undertaken to

[5:49] date. The direction previously provided by council and the broader policy

[5:53] context established through the official community plan and South Highland's

[5:58] local area plan processes. Council previously directed that zoning

[6:03] amendment be prepared, that a public hearing be scheduled, and that an open

[6:08] house be held to gather public feedback on the proposed zones and resoning.

[6:13] The proposed bylaw represents the culmination of the resoning application

[6:17] and the incorporation of the South Highlands local area plan into the into

[6:23] the official community plan. Reconsideration would not enact the

[6:29] proposed bylaw. Rather, it would allow council to revisit the matter and

[6:33] determine whether the bylaw should proceed through the legislative process,

[6:37] including a public hearing and further consideration. Given the length of time,

[6:43] this application has been active. The public engagement undertaken to date and

[6:48] the policy direction previously established by council. I believe it is

[6:53] appropriate to provide council with an additional opportunity to consider

[6:56] whether the proposed proposed bylaw should advance to the next stage.

[7:02] All right. When considering this, I know also we have Quinn Dailyaly from the CRD

[7:09] uh available soon. So um I believe my briefing portion is finished and I am

[7:14] going to go on to 3.2 now. And this is where the highlighting zone bylaw um be

[7:21] considered. And I have some more comments to add right now. And one of

[7:24] them is that people um this does not what Schlap did made a recommendation

[7:32] and we all appreciate that hard work and we all appreciate the consultation but

[7:37] this is not a a departure from the schlap recommendations because on the

[7:40] schlap recommendations itself it showed properties that had commercial and

[7:46] industrial buildings on it and these were acceptable. The slot

[7:50] recommendations were very high high they they encompassed a broad array of ideas

[7:57] for this area. Now, what's come to light that didn't happen before was that there

[8:03] have been several inquiries by the by the CRD and others

[8:10] that this property the property 1965 Milstream thing has their property

[8:14] values have been affected from the original plan from the original zoning

[8:20] potential of commercial and industrial to the point now where the property

[8:25] values are lowered by in one case 66% % in another case 90% somewhere that's

[8:32] pretty and I want to ask council if their own properties were devalued 60%

[8:37] or 99%. Now, how would that feel? You know, and

[8:42] this is something that is an actual fact.

[8:47] So, what we want to do is we look at that. We have the three pillars that we

[8:53] have economic, social, and financial. So, we're going off the start here with

[8:57] a actual very negative economic potential, a net negative

[9:03] potential of this loss of potential property value. And it's something that

[9:08] directly affects and it's why when I talk to CRD directors and staff that

[9:13] they are concerned they're concerned about this and what we can do is I want

[9:18] to explain that the schlap allows this kind of thing. It it's already in the in

[9:24] in the report. That's what we'd like to engage. I think council always planned

[9:28] to engage and to put these kind of things into our OCP um and as a as a

[9:35] zoning and by no way does this affect all the good positive net positive

[9:40] things that can happen there and like I say I appreciate all the work and all

[9:45] the consultation but what we want to do is be able to market this property at a

[9:50] value that a you know corrects what's happened to the property valuations. So

[9:56] what'll happen here is we can bring bring the marketability up to what I

[10:00] believe would be a more fair market value. That would be a win for our our

[10:04] good friends and neighbors and neighboring municipalities who have

[10:08] spent a lot of taxpayers dollars as Highlands also has spent a lot of

[10:12] taxpayers dollars on this remediation. So, this would give it a chance to, you

[10:17] know, to recover some of those funds and it's really still fitting within uh the

[10:22] reports and the comments from the Schlatt group that uh that the council

[10:28] has embraced. Um, all we want is a fair hearing on this. All we want is to I

[10:35] think the public weigh on it because I think that that fact that's kind of a

[10:38] bit of a new information and it kind of surprised me when I heard of this

[10:42] devaluation. I'm sure it surprised everybody, but I think we can correct

[10:46] this. And an easy way to do it is to continue the process that we we started

[10:51] here. And I think we should continue that. An easy way I think mostly it's a

[10:56] um it's a bit of maybe a confusion of what what's there right now that and

[11:03] it's we've have that potential to to correct that confusion. If we can make

[11:07] that clear to people so that the our property values are fair property

[11:12] values, then I think it'll be a win-win for the CRD and the people who funded

[11:17] this. It'll be a win-win for Highlands taxpayers and we haven't lost anything

[11:22] on the all the other fine points of of uh climate mitigation and the

[11:28] environment because they're all still intact and all still there. And uh as

[11:32] you as councils wear aware well well that time there are time considerations

[11:38] here and so I really appreciate your help with this.

[11:43] That's what I have to say and uh I don't know if council has any comments on on

[11:48] council Anderson. I don't have the uh the special device

[11:57] staff will help me there.

[12:01] We're just pausing a sec to get our communicator going.

[13:01] There we go. >> There we go. Councelor Henderson, you're

[13:04] online. >> Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And

[13:07] I have a question that I expect is through the mayor to staff, if I may.

[13:11] Just a process question because we don't um have the benefit of entertaining

[13:16] reconsideration very often. Um and my question is are there any constraints

[13:21] that we should be aware of about what what is involved in any reconsideration

[13:25] discussion? So for example um prior to putting any motion on the floor, can we

[13:30] engage in questions or some brainstorming? Uh are we restricted to

[13:33] the motion that we we spoke to last time? Are there any any elements like

[13:38] that that we should be aware of before we get underway?

[13:41] So, the motion that you're considering under the reconsideration is the one on

[13:45] the agenda, which also includes the amendment that um was um approved by

[13:50] council, and that's what um you should be considering tonight or today. Um but

[13:58] you can still make amendments to the motion that's on the table. Um or you

[14:03] can make other motions.

[14:09] » Right. Just a question. Council Mlean. >> Thank you, Mr. Ear. Um,

[14:16] so I'm sorry. Are we being limited to questions to staff right now?

[14:21] » We can go questions, but the the motion's going to be there for

[14:24] consideration. Questions can be first. Sure.

[14:28] » Well, um,

[14:31] actually, I'd like to make some points. Um so going through the um survey again

[14:41] today which was the recent survey for the open house that the district held on

[14:46] July 22nd 2026 evening. Um although there was only nine people

[14:54] in attendance staff reports and only eight people completed survey responses

[15:00] which is of course a small snap snapshot but however um I uh value their um

[15:07] efforts and uh opinions and um what appeared to me to be mostly

[15:14] um of uh importance to them as as the question was posed in the survey

[15:20] um was not uh much support towards local

[15:25] jobs, recycling and circular economic activities.

[15:31] Um and none of the eight respondents had remediation cost recovery as a matter of

[15:40] import of importance to them. So, and uh also out of the survey when

[15:47] considering future uses in the regenerative development area, um this

[15:54] the uh respondents uh indicated

[16:00] of course their residents that um they're still looking for the net

[16:04] positive impacts as set out in the Highlands official community plan with a

[16:10] reputable means for measurement. >> [snorts]

[16:13] » Pardon me. And um there out of the survey there appears to be a a a

[16:19] preference for uh possible uh commercial development over low-end industrial

[16:26] parks. um as well as there was from my

[16:31] perspective and my read low support for the questions specific to composting and

[16:37] recycling facilities as well as aerobic composting facility.

[16:43] So, and there were additional um negative comments on using the word

[16:50] industrial um

[16:54] for the for lands in the South Highlands.

[17:00] So, I just wanted to um uh resurrect that that has for me that has some

[17:08] influence. And then we have some correspondence from some residents

[17:12] today. one of them. Mr. Scott Richardson was a member of the South Highlands

[17:17] Local Area Plan Task Force. Um, uh, Karen Burns was not,

[17:25] uh, she provided some input as well. I appreciate that that input and the time.

[17:30] [laughter] and uh councelor Anderson as we know is the

[17:34] » [clears throat] >> um council liaison to uh the South

[17:38] Highlands local area plan and I was the uh alternate for council and we all

[17:43] attended uh [clears throat] both of us all attended the meetings and read the

[17:47] material and um I as I indicated before I read all the comments

[17:53] uh the survey um which were quite high um I think

[17:58] there was close to 300 uh surveys that were completed out of that

[18:05] uh exercise for the South Highlands local area plan.

[18:11] So, um I find this to be a bit of a

[18:19] conundrum and um I guess I too would perhaps would like

[18:24] to know from the province what what the hurry is on on this

[18:31] because from it's my understanding it's the province of BC that is uh pushing

[18:38] the District of Highlands and perhaps the capital regional

[18:42] district staff to come to some resolution on the property known as 1965

[18:49] Milstream Road. So I I don't know exactly why and I think it would be

[18:54] respectful and appropriate for the province to provide us with that

[18:59] information. Albeit that I realize that um perhaps the pro province doesn't

[19:06] particularly care too much uh of the Highlands needs. I don't know. But um

[19:13] anyway, so I just wanted to make those uh comments because I bothered to write

[19:17] them up today. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[19:21] All right. Uh I'm just going to ask staff do do uh for the motion for

[19:25] reconsideration does have to be restated now or is it just fine the way it is on

[19:30] the paper? >> I would suggest restating it. I would

[19:33] restate it. >> So whoever's whoever's moving some does

[19:37] someone want to move it and state it? >> Yeah. And if if there are no further

[19:42] questions I would like to move it. Have another question.

[19:47] » Yes. [snorts] >> Go ahead. customer.

[19:50] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, yes, I do have a question through to staff um just

[19:56] regarding um um the fact that um today in the

[20:01] Goldstream Gazette, there is a advertisement

[20:07] posted for the public hearing on September 8th for 1965 Milstream

[20:13] Property regarding the reszoning. And I'm just very curious as to why that has

[20:21] moved ahead when um it wasn't necessarily known at the time that um

[20:28] council was going to um support staff's recommendation or not. Thank you.

[20:36] So, um, at a previous meeting, council did, um, indicate that they stated the

[20:41] date would be, um, September 8th for a public hearing. Um, to be able to meet

[20:47] the legislative advertising requirements, it would have needed to be

[20:52] in this paper and the following paper. And to get it into the paper, we have to

[20:57] have it um to them by Friday morning prior to like Friday last week. So, we

[21:04] put it in hoping that um we could cancel it in time, but it was not an option. It

[21:11] had to be cancelled by noon on Monday. Um and so we will be putting if it does

[21:18] not go forward to public hearing, we'll be putting an advertisement in the paper

[21:21] indicating that it has been cancelled in the following newspaper.

[21:25] Yes. >> Yes. It was council resol res resolution

[21:29] um to hold a public hearing >> on September 8th.

[21:36] » All right. Any questions? Seeing none, I I will make that motion. And that

[21:42] Highlands winning bylaw number 100 1998 amendments number 49 M1 RD M2RD 1965

[21:52] Milstream Road bylaw number 488 2026 be given first and second readings as

[21:57] amended to add industrial uses within the zone shall exclude wrecking and

[22:02] salvaging operations to six section 11.5.21

[22:07] to one of schedule B to bylaw 488. That's the motion. Do I have a seconder?

[22:41] Gord. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, don't

[22:45] see a seconder. So, I would like to propose a motion

[22:50] arising from this topic and uh I've written one out and I'll

[22:55] pass it out to all the individuals uh because it's got a couple bits and

[22:59] pieces of components and it's easier to have in front of you when I read it out.

[23:03] So, I'm just going to pass it out and I will read it.

[23:44] So, the motion is that staff be directed to write to

[23:50] the Capital Regional District advise that council would welcome a new

[23:54] resoning application for 1965 Milstream Road prepared and submitted by the

[23:59] Capital Regional District as owner and to convey A the following considerations

[24:04] for council's benefit in addressing such an application. A that the zone be

[24:09] crafted by the applicant drawing on the South Highlands local area plan, the

[24:15] regenerative development designation, development permit area 4, and the

[24:21] community input received through the process to date.

[24:24] B. That the application include measurable performance metrics

[24:29] addressing some or all of water, waste, storm water, energy, carbon, and ecology

[24:35] habitat. C. that the metrics need not meet a full

[24:41] regenerative development standard in every category, but that one or more

[24:45] metrics be demonstrabably net positive against the stated baseline as per date

[24:51] of as per stated baseline as per date of the certificate of compliance.

[24:58] D. All rain water and storm water falling on the site be used on site with

[25:03] any excess being used to support ecological flows.

[25:07] E. The application may identify a community amenity offered voluntarily by

[25:14] the applicant in support of the application.

[25:18] F that the application identify for each proposed metric the

[25:23] instrument for which it would be made enforceable either through zone text

[25:27] amended DP permit area guidelines under section 490 and 491 of the local

[25:33] government act and that council confirm that it will receive such an application

[25:38] and that any reapplication interval under the district's development

[25:41] application procedures be waved for this purpose.

[25:47] So, I'm hoping that might be seconded. >> Oh, thanks.

[25:51] » Thanks. I'm going to speak to it.

[25:56] So, I think that Mr. Richardson spoke about his appreciation of all the work

[26:02] that's gone into this so far. And I want to start with something that I mean

[26:06] quite sincerely that the CRD is an exceptional organization with

[26:10] exceptional staff. I've had the privilege of working alongside them for

[26:14] 12 years. Nothing I'm about to say is a criticism of them.

[26:21] And let me concede the obvious that this isn't the outcome anyone at this table

[26:25] wanted. Uh we've put real time into this.

[26:30] But here we are. There is no assessment tool. And even though the tool and even

[26:35] if the tool existed, there is no development in front of us to assess it.

[26:38] It's kind of like being asked to build a lock before anyone has shown us the

[26:42] door. It's a big ask when frankly we have more limited capacity and resources

[26:48] in relation to what the CRD has to draw upon.

[26:51] It's worth remembering how we got here. When this first came forward, it was

[26:56] bundled alongside a proposal this community had deep concerns about. The

[27:00] adjoining application was denied. This one was placed in hold. And when this

[27:04] community was carrying the weight of the provincial process for the neighboring

[27:08] property, we had asked for a letter of support. It came, but it came after the

[27:12] commenting window had closed. Our community did that work alone and we

[27:17] paid for it alone. And out of that came the task force and out of the task force

[27:21] came slap the very plan that we're working from today.

[27:26] But the question I put to us is is simply whose application is it? The CRD

[27:32] owns the land. The CRD knows what it intends to do with it and understands

[27:36] the constraints on it better than anyone. The CRD has the planning staff,

[27:42] the ecological environmental staff, and the engineering staff resources that we

[27:46] just don't have. What I'm proposing cost the district

[27:50] nothing but a letter. It asks the owner to come forward with a zone drawing from

[27:54] the work we are we've already done with real numbers on water, stom water,

[27:59] energy, carbon, waste, ecology, habitat. at least one of them net positive with

[28:05] particular attention tied to water staying on site and used to support

[28:09] ecological flows and with an understanding that if an amenity were

[28:13] voluntarily offered the community would consider it and I don't think that's a

[28:17] door closing I think it's an invitation and I think it's the right one to extend

[28:22] and I would hope that I can gain the support of council for this

[28:28] Councelor Rousley, >> thank you. Um, I would support this

[28:32] motion. I think that's a good solution and and I would ask through the mayor to

[28:37] staff whether they have I know this is short notice, but whether they have had

[28:42] a chance to consider uh this motion and whether they have any response. Thank

[28:48] you.

[28:53] » Through the mayor. Um, I think it's a sound motion. Um,

[29:02] it it it doesn't talk about uh covenant. I I'm not sure. I can't I apologize that

[29:08] I don't know off my off the top of my head what 490 and 491.

[29:13] » Okay. So, so I think that was the an important factor that um the CRD

[29:18] mentioned. Um,

[29:28] yeah, I I think it's a sound motion. >> Thank you. I I appreciate that response

[29:33] and and I'm going to ask if if there were to Amanda, please, if there were

[29:39] any um [clears throat] legal flags in the motion, whether whether anything in

[29:44] that sort of perk perked your legal ears. Thank you.

[29:51] Um, I don't see anything off the top of my head without looking

[29:55] at it closer um that it wouldn't um there would be any legal red flags or

[30:00] anything like that. >> Once again to to our planner. Thank you.

[30:06] » So through the mayor again um that the zone be crafted by the applicant. I

[30:11] would I would caution on that. Um that's something the district should do. Uh we

[30:16] always ask an applicant to review a zone once we've put it together. Um because

[30:23] it's their it's their land. We want it to be what we need it to be. So I think

[30:30] uh director to write to would welcome a new resoning application prepared and

[30:34] submitted to convey the following considerations. So um that's the only

[30:40] comment I would make that I I would not I would not expect an applicant to draft

[30:44] a zone for us. Sometimes it's helpful um but it wouldn't be an expectation

[30:49] » and and so would it be more uh would it be uh better to say that a zoning

[30:57] application be drafted by the applicant >> or the proposal

[31:02] » a proposal >> that the proposal be crafted by the

[31:04] applicant. >> Okay. Well, with that with that a I

[31:06] would make that amendment then that the that the zone be propo that the proposal

[31:13] by the applicant drawing etc rather than the zone be crafted.

[31:19] [snorts] Now we have a second.

[31:25] Okay. Discussion on the amendment Charlie

[31:33] Mlan. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, can I could just

[31:37] get uh clarification on which uh [snorts]

[31:41] letter of the alphabet uh councelor Rousing is speaking to?

[31:44] » I'm talking to the A section of the motion that begins. Okay.

[31:48] » That the zone be crafted that a proposal. That's

[31:52] » all you need to say is a Um,

[31:59] so this is just on the amendment. So I um I will leave my uh comments for now.

[32:05] However, I will say I guess um I will say um I have spoken to this in the past

[32:13] at this council table. I had queried why aren't we letting the capital regional

[32:18] district submit their own resoning application and proposal

[32:23] um and and see what they come up with and um

[32:29] so I'll leave it at that in respect to the amendment. Thank you.

[32:39] » I don't see any other speakers. So I'll take a vote on the amendment. All those

[32:43] in favor opposed and none opposed. That carries

[32:48] on to back to the main motion. As do we have any other speakers on this?

[32:59] Councelor Anderson. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I first I

[33:05] just want to say thank you um councelor B for taking the time. Presumably it

[33:09] took quite a bit to put this together. I mean, I've been struggling with wanting

[33:13] to find some way that sounded like a path forward and I I wasn't really

[33:17] coming up with much that felt helpful. So, I think this is an interesting

[33:22] approach and I think it's one really one that that makes some sense to to

[33:26] certainly consider. Um, I'm just I'm curious if I could have a question

[33:30] through to staff from a process perspective then. Um would this mean

[33:35] that we would be waiting for uh the CRD presuming they would be willing to do

[33:42] this which we don't know for sure but um would we just then be in a position of

[33:46] waiting for them to bring something forward.

[33:50] » So through the mayor yes >> thank you. Uh yeah, I'm in support of

[33:56] this. The the most robust response I've seen so far that that helps us um

[34:02] continue to move this forward because I'm not interested in standing in the

[34:04] way of this. It's just we need some way to do it in in a fashion that allows us

[34:09] to actually, you know, articulate what's going on

[34:12] through the South Island local area plan. And we were we're like a lot of

[34:16] that work has been done and I'm glad it's referenced here. Um so maybe maybe

[34:20] this is a strong a strong suggestion. sourcing.

[34:25] » Thank you. My light's still on. Yeah, I I think we've been floundering a bit uh

[34:29] just because of unknowns and and to look at a proposal seems to me a lot easier

[34:35] than to try and create a proposal out of thin air. So, uh, I I think it's I think

[34:41] it's a great solution and it it gives us I doubt I doubt this council will see

[34:47] it, but uh it it gives us something to which to react rather than to create our

[34:54] own. I hope it I hope it relieves our staff of some of some pressure and uh

[34:59] and uh some some discomfort. So, so, uh, I'm I'm glad to throw this over to

[35:06] Cardi.

[35:09] » Quiet. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um I would um

[35:14] actually like to get um confirmation as to who actually owns this property

[35:21] because I uh one of the CRD staff at a previous meeting uh here with council

[35:28] and staff um indicated that um the CRD does not own the property fee simple.

[35:37] And so I really don't know who the register owner is. I know approximately

[35:41] 1985 the province

[35:46] turned it turned it over I've looked at the wording it doesn't get very explicit

[35:52] they turned it over to the capital regional district and um so just so we

[36:00] know who we're waiting to hear from if if if we could um have that clarified I

[36:06] think that would be helpful thank you through the chair to staff or whoever

[36:09] can answer that in the very near future. Thank you.

[36:16] » I I would suggest uh Mr. Dailyaly is probably the best person to answer that

[36:21] question. >> Fine with the uh council accept that.

[36:27] » Okay, Mr. Daly. >> Uh thanks very much. Um yeah, and thanks

[36:32] for the question. It is through the mayor. Uh it it is uh a somewhat

[36:37] complicated answer, so I apologize that I can't to say uh yes or no. Um the the

[36:43] land was transferred to the CRD through what's called a sponsored crown grant uh

[36:48] with a reverter clause on the title. So if you actually go into the um the

[36:54] torrent system and look at the legal uh description and and standing of this

[37:00] this property, it does say CRD is the owner. It also has a notation that if

[37:05] it's not being used for septic lagoon purposes that the province has the right

[37:10] to revert it back to crown land status. So that is where the ambiguity in

[37:19] ownership is coming from. We we do not own the full package of of rights uh

[37:26] that we would under a normal fee simple ownership model. We for example could

[37:32] not um move forward any with any um anything that's going to impact the

[37:38] title without the province accepting that uh um that at that action. Um

[37:45] similarly with resoning we will have to uh with an application for resoning we

[37:51] will have to receive um uh compliance from or sorry confirmation from the

[37:57] province that they will allow us to make that application if we do decide to go

[38:01] down that path.

[38:05] » Thank you for that. And as we've just found out, the CRD isn't

[38:11] responsible for all the zoning decisions on this and that it would require the uh

[38:16] participation of the province for this. So in that sense, the motion uh fails

[38:22] from that point of view because it's just going to half half the owner. So we

[38:26] can't uh cause that uh discrepancy to allow that to go forward for us.

[38:34] Go ahead, councelor Baron. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the the

[38:39] determination of that uh to me sort of fails the test because it was the CRD

[38:45] that originally brought the very first resoning.

[38:47] » So, if that was the case, the CRD would be very well aware that they have that

[38:51] opportunity. So, I think that that uh discussion point as to this motion

[38:56] failing uh doesn't uh doesn't stand.

[39:02] » I'd pose that question to Mr. Daly. Um yeah, I would say that we are able to

[39:09] take the uh take the the request forward. It's just the final

[39:14] determination would require input from the from the province. So what um what

[39:22] is going to happen is if we put in a resoning application um then we will

[39:27] have to reach out to the province and receive permission and we have we did do

[39:32] that with the 2015 uh resoning application and did receive approval at

[39:37] that time. >> Thank you councelor.

[39:42] » Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um after 12 years of sitting on the climate action

[39:47] intermunicipal task force, there were a lot of conversations about obviously

[39:54] climate change adaptation, mitigation uh through economic

[40:00] uh social and uh habitat, you know, nature-based uh type lenses.

[40:08] uh 12 years of it. In fact, there's a lot of discussion on that and I know

[40:13] that the CRD has an incredible um team of people with expertise in all of these

[40:20] different areas that uh could potentially put something together. um

[40:26] whether or not a proposal put together by the CRD would be uh entertained by

[40:33] probably the next council at this point. Who knows how fast they could do it, but

[40:38] uh uh would be yet to be determined, but at this point I I think it's a good step

[40:45] forward for uh at least this item not just dying on the table. So I will

[40:53] support this motion. Any

[41:14] further discussion by members of council?

[41:23] All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor?

[41:26] Opposed? None opposed. That carries. Thank you. I look for adjournment.

[41:35] All those in favor? Oppos? Not opposed. That carries.

Special Council Meeting - August 26, 2026

Transcript