[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.