[0:02] Okay, good evening everyone. Welcome to the regular council meeting for Tuesday,

[0:05] July 21st. It's currently 7:00. Before we get started,

[0:09] the Village of Anmore would like to open our meeting by recognizing the many

[0:12] indigenous peoples of our area, including the following First Nations

[0:16] with communities that are now located in the region that we know as Metro

[0:18] Vancouver. It'll be the Musqueam, Squamish,

[0:21] Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem. Further, we'd like to honor the

[0:25] important place in history occupied by the many tutorial keepers of these lands

[0:28] and waters around us since time immemorial.

[0:30] I'll call the meeting to order. Could I get someone to move the agenda as

[0:34] circulated? >> Second.

[0:37] » Call the question. All those in favor? Carried unanimously. Uh

[0:42] we have public input. Uh public is to uh come forward and ask any

[0:47] questions regarding to business that's on the agenda. Uh

[0:50] Agenda items only. 2-minute time limit applies to speakers. Anybody wishing to

[0:54] come forward and discuss anything on tonight's agenda?

[1:01] Nope. Okay.

[1:03] Move on to uh delegations. We have a delegation from Lina Aziz to present

[1:07] regarding Lower Fraser Valley Flood Plains Coalition, a regional request.

[1:18] I'm going to I I'm just going to ask Did Did you want

[1:22] to come to public input comment on anything at public input?

[1:25] Okay, I'm just going to if we can just put you on hold, sir.

[1:29] Please come up and state your name and address.

[1:38] » Zane Erickson, 2000 Rich Mountain Drive. I'm just um

[1:43] just wanted to bring up something about the proposed changes to the

[1:47] » Could you pull the mic up a little? Yeah.

[1:50] There you go. Perfect. >> Just the changes to the zoning bylaw,

[1:54] and I'm just looking for more specificity

[1:57] in what's written. Specifically regarding

[2:01] basements and

[2:04] I found a little bit vague where it was described that

[2:08] um they're wanting to limit it to a partially exposed.

[2:13] I didn't see a definition of what partially exposed means.

[2:18] And I think by reading it that I find the intention that limiting the height

[2:22] to 2.75 m from the basement floor to the main floor

[2:28] is what would be the guiding definition of partially exposed.

[2:32] And I'm just concerned that in Ann Arbor uh if we reduce

[2:38] basement ceiling heights to 8 ft uh with large spans, with the way that

[2:43] houses are designed in Ann Arbor we're going to have people with

[2:47] you know, 7-ft ceiling heights in basements if you need to do large spans

[2:51] with floor trusses like we do so we can run all their ducts and what not through

[2:55] there. And so I I'm just concerned that

[2:59] these changes that are being made are

[3:03] maybe academic more than um real-world examples happening in the village. And

[3:10] so I think some of that just needs to be looked at a little bit more.

[3:14] » Good. Thank you very much. >> Yeah.

[3:17] » Any other public comments before I vote? Sorry. We'll get back to our delegation

[3:21] now, Ms. Lena Aziz. Thank you. And thank you for your patience.

[3:25] » I just think we're just putting out

[3:27] like that you know, our website and a little bit

[3:30] of teaching a little bit about it.

[3:36] Sure.

[3:42] » And please feel Yeah, feel free to change that. Move that. Yeah.

[3:53] » Uh good evening, Mayor Kumpel. My name is Lina Lee. I'm the Watershed Programs

[3:57] Director at Watershed Watch Society, a conservation charity based in Fort

[4:02] Langley, BC. Our work goes where salmon goes and

[4:05] where problems lie. >> Today

[4:08] » Sorry.

[4:11] » Okay. Is this all right? >> Yes, it's fine.

[4:14] » All right. Today, I'm speaking as a member of the Lower Fraser Floodplain

[4:17] Coalition. The coalition is a group of organizations, experts, and advocates

[4:22] working toward integrated, fish-friendly, and climate-resilient

[4:26] floodplain management across the Lower Mainland.

[4:29] Our vision is simple. That the people and the non-human

[4:32] relatives of the Lower Mainland are healthy, safe, and resilient to

[4:36] flooding.

[4:39] I'm here with a request that the Village of Anmore join other communities in

[4:42] becoming a signatory to the Regional Joint Statement on Action for Floodplain

[4:46] Resilience in the Lower Mainland. Since uh 2022, we've been convening

[4:52] local governments and First Nation leaders and experts from across the

[4:55] region to build the relationships, the knowledge foundation, and momentum

[4:59] needed to ready our region for flood resilience.

[5:02] Over the seven dialogues we've hosted, themes around coordinated action,

[5:07] regional action, sustained funding sources, and advocacy to the feds and

[5:10] the province keep coming to the keep coming to the surface.

[5:14] Those seven uh meetings are represented by the seven reports we have on the

[5:18] slide there.

[5:21] Uh something else that's emerged from the regional discussion is that it's

[5:24] time for multi-benefit flood management in the Lower Mainland. We are stuck with

[5:28] the approach to flood control infrastructure that was developed rather

[5:31] hastily in 1948-49, and that combined with provincial

[5:35] downloading of flood management to local governments leaves us confined to

[5:39] piecemeal approaches, but it doesn't have to be that way.

[5:42] Across the border in Washington state, there's a program called Floodplains by

[5:46] Design. The state the the state of Washington has invested five $359

[5:50] million in large-scale multi-benefit projects

[5:54] that have reduced flood risk for 88 communities, restored over 275 km of

[6:00] salmon habitat, supported local farms and boosted

[6:03] regional economies since 2013. These investments have already saved

[6:07] nearly $2 million in avoided flood damages. Beyond safety and habitat

[6:12] gains, the program is a powerful economic driver. Every million dollars

[6:16] um invested generates 2.2 to 2.5 million in

[6:20] economic local economic activity, with about 80% of that money staying in the

[6:24] community. The program has leveraged has leveraged funding for local from local

[6:29] and federal partners at a 3:2:1 ratio, creating thousands of jobs statewide.

[6:34] We have been um learning from and being mentored through that program over the

[6:37] past few years, and we want to create an investment of that kind for British for

[6:42] the the Lower Mainland.

[6:45] But despite all the goodwill demonstrated in the region and the good

[6:50] ideas that are out there, we have to acknowledge that we are in a crisis

[6:53] situation. Flood risks are escalating. In the Lower

[6:57] Mainland alone, we have lived through major flooding in '21,

[7:01] '24, '25, and a bit also this year in the spring of 2026.

[7:07] Aging infrastructure, development on flood plains, and a changing climate are

[7:11] all converging. >> [snorts]

[7:15] » Uh I should note, of course, the BC flood strategy does exist. It's been

[7:18] around since 2024, [snorts] but there's zero funding to actually implement that

[7:22] strategy. Flood resilience is not discretionary

[7:25] spending. It is prudent financial management. Every time we kick the can

[7:29] down the road, we are gambling with the lives, the homes, food security,

[7:33] infrastructure, and ecosystems in the Lower Mainland.

[7:36] In fact, a single major flood in the in the region could wipe out over $350

[7:41] billion in economic value. The Close to Home report by the Canadian

[7:45] Climate Institute makes clear that BC will be the province hit hardest by

[7:49] escalating flood and wildfire-related disaster costs. And yet we continue to

[7:53] build in high-risk zones, locking in future losses.

[7:57] Of note, I just want to say there has been no significant federal or

[8:00] provincial investments in flood safety in our region since the Fraser River

[8:04] Flood Control Program ended in 1995. But opportunities do exist.

[8:11] The federal government has a clear interest in a resilient Lower Fraser, as

[8:15] mentioned in recent announcements. It's an opportunity to channel investments

[8:19] that deliver regional solutions that work with nature and the economy.

[8:23] It's worth noting, also, that the $150 to $164 million awarded through DMAF to

[8:29] the region has been scattered amongst individual

[8:32] projects, not a coordinated regional program,

[8:35] which has made which unfortunately has not made our region flood resilient.

[8:40] A real investment program means sequencing the right tools in the right

[8:43] order, building local capacity, funding applied funding applied

[8:48] research, creating jobs, and prioritizing the most vulnerable

[8:51] communities first.

[8:54] Which all of that brings me to the joint statement that I'm here about today. The

[8:58] aim is to express a unified regional voice across local governments and First

[9:02] Nations and support advocacy to federal and provincial governments for stable,

[9:07] long-term investment in flood resilience that protects people, communities, and

[9:11] ecosystems from flood risk. And this is not just

[9:14] riverine, we're also talking about overland flooding and things like

[9:17] atmospheric rivers. It is an opportunity for the city as as

[9:21] for the village as leaders to send a clear message to

[9:24] Ottawa and Victoria, letting them know that we are ready to work together as a

[9:28] region to build flood resilience for our communities. We know what we need, and

[9:33] federal and provincial governments must step up to protect this region of

[9:36] national significance with a program that reflects the magnitude of the task

[9:40] at hand. To that end, we are calling

[9:44] the joint statement calls for a dedicated long-term flood resilience

[9:47] program for the region, stable committed funding, not project by project funding,

[9:52] regional coordination, investment in critical infrastructure, and the full

[9:57] flood risk reduction toolbox, including nature-based solutions, and capacity

[10:02] support for First Nations and local government leadership

[10:05] to move this work forward. So, on May 29th, the Metro Vancouver

[10:11] Regional District's board endorsed this joint statement, and since then we have

[10:15] been doing delegations to two municipalities across the region. So

[10:19] far, we have got endorsement from Metro Vancouver and the SLRD, the

[10:23] Squamish-Lillooet Regional District. We are

[10:27] seeking endorsement from the FVRD later this month. City-wise, Port Coquitlam,

[10:33] the City of Coquitlam, City of Delta, Township of Langley, and the City of

[10:36] Langley have all signed on. We're in process with the City of Vancouver,

[10:40] Maple Ridge, and City of Surrey as we speak. And we have um

[10:45] more coming up after the after the August break.

[10:51] So, to summarize then,

[10:55] I should turn my sheet over. Essentially, this the statement is

[11:00] calling on the provincial and federal governments to recognize that

[11:02] collaboration, not competition for piecemeal funding, is the foundation of

[11:06] for resilience in the Lower Fraser, and that enabling First Nations and local

[11:10] governments to work together to meet responsibilities to their communities

[11:14] that flow from rights, titles, and jurisdiction is part of that foundation.

[11:19] And we're calling on the federal and provincial governments to develop a

[11:22] sustained long-term investment program for the Lower Fraser adequate to support

[11:27] collaborative work across for federal, provincial, and local governments, First

[11:32] Nations, and the private sector to achieve regional flood plain resilience

[11:36] that works with nature, not against it. This work is bigger than one community,

[11:40] and we're hence we're um trying to bring everyone together so we can work

[11:44] together. Thank you.

[11:48] » Good. Thank you. Um with my role on Metro Vancouver, we we

[11:52] did endorse this, and we've really had a challenge because there is

[11:55] the provincial government and federal governments are not putting any funding

[11:58] towards this very significant issue that is facing uh a lot of our

[12:03] municipalities. I especially feel for like a municipality like Pitt Meadows of

[12:08] very small size just doesn't have the funding to be able to do this, and no

[12:11] money coming from the province or the federal governments to be able to to do

[12:14] a lot of these things. And I know it at Metro Vancouver, we also had the the

[12:18] Fraser Valley uh flood plains task force that we have

[12:21] there, and we we are have a real challenge with it as well to maintain

[12:24] funding for that. So, anyway, I really support uh

[12:28] your what you're what you're doing and getting and us all advocating for the

[12:31] same thing and and helping out. We but it also I think includes dredging as

[12:35] well because a lot of the uh areas of the lower Fraser need to be dredged

[12:39] because they're now the siltation that's come down over the years, and and the

[12:42] federal government, which is their responsibility, is not participating in

[12:45] that at all. So, I'll just open up if anybody has any other further questions,

[12:49] but just wanted to thank you again for coming and for your presentation and the

[12:52] work that you're doing. Any

[12:55] Any other comments? Councilor Richardson.

[12:58] » So, I I went to your website to try and understand. Like, I understand it's a

[13:04] group of people coming together to try and raise awareness,

[13:08] but I didn't read any examples. This is what we'd like to do.

[13:12] And in your presentation, you even said, "We're building on flood plains and

[13:16] putting people at risk." Where? How many? Which municipalities?

[13:22] Cuz it seems to me it would be the responsibility of the

[13:25] municipalities not to do that, not the provincial government or the federal

[13:29] government to restrict municipalities from where

[13:32] they want to build. So, I was a bit confused

[13:36] sort of how it would work, where the money would go, and what it would do.

[13:40] » Yeah. Um actually right now, I think it's bill 44, provincial bill 44, where

[13:47] um the province is kind of directing local governments in one way to build in

[13:52] order to densify communities, which um in some communities are they're

[13:57] considering more development and more denser development in the flood plains.

[14:02] Burnaby is one. PoCo is another.

[14:05] Um so, that's kind of

[14:08] what I mean by we're building more in the flood plain, and perhaps not to

[14:11] certain flood standards that um have to be updated still, especially for

[14:16] the local communities having to update their flood standards. The The second

[14:21] part of What was the What was the second part of the question?

[14:24] » I was kind of looking for a specific examples of where the money would go,

[14:28] what it would do. Like are they looking to have the federal

[14:32] government come in, and your numbers were huge, raise all dikes on the Fraser

[14:37] Valley, you know, 5 ft?

[14:40] Like I I I was a bit

[14:42] confused like even work with nature. Like if you work with nature, the river

[14:45] just flows. So, our point actually is in some ways

[14:49] is to not work with nature. We want to control it and force it into

[14:53] particular channels and paths. >> So, that's what's happened before, Ian.

[14:56] » So, I I didn't quite understand what the

[15:00] overall goal is. >> Yeah, well,

[15:03] there are many different steps before we actually start breaking ground and, you

[15:06] know, doing any of the flood resilience projects we'd like to see happen. Um

[15:10] right now, we have funding from NRCan, Natural Resources Canada, to do research

[15:16] on critical infrastructure. So, we're starting to identify where are the

[15:21] critical infra- infrastructure at the moment? So,

[15:24] railways, roads, focusing on those, their

[15:28] their their their flood risk weaknesses. So, that work current studies currently

[15:32] being conducted through UBC School of Engineering.

[15:36] And we would love to have more communities on board and participating

[15:40] in that study so that their critical infrastructure in the communities are

[15:43] getting studied and addressed.

[15:46] So, that's one thing that's happening. More There is more

[15:50] need

[15:55] There is further need for actually doing more applied research cuz we actually

[15:59] don't know where all of the high-risk flood areas

[16:03] are in the Lower Mainland. It shifts. Right now, everyone's

[16:07] focusing on the Sumas Prairie for obviously good reasons. But, this past

[16:12] March, we had a slide at the top end of the Coquitlam River. Well, that's an

[16:16] area perhaps of high risk as well. So, there are so many different areas of

[16:20] high risk within our communities that we haven't fully identified yet. So, that

[16:24] has to be done. We talk about using the flood

[16:28] flood risk toolkit, and that is everything from gray infrastructure like

[16:33] dikes, pump stations, you know, channeling things, all the way

[16:38] to green gray solutions like greener dikes,

[16:42] using berms for example, or creating constructed wetlands. So, those are more

[16:46] nature-based solutions, constructed wetlands to hold more water and allow it

[16:50] to flow more slowly because as we are developing and have developed in our

[16:55] floodplains and our slopes, we have taken away the capacity of forests and

[17:00] wetlands to do what they need to do. We have lost 80

[17:05] 82% or so of the wetlands in the Lower

[17:08] Mainland. So, therefore, we've lost the to capacity of to hold water in the

[17:13] region. >> So.

[17:15] » yes. >> Yeah, I just wanted to kind of wrap this

[17:17] up. Basically, in essence, you're an advocacy group for all the

[17:21] municipalities and different um uh bands up along the the Fraser River,

[17:26] which which is something that you're looking to coordinate a

[17:31] kind of a central um request to both levels of government

[17:34] and work as a as a as a as a unit rather than what happens right now, which is a

[17:39] lot of municipalities, i.e. the Richmonds and that have their own flood

[17:41] plans, but they're not in conjunction with other neighboring municipalities

[17:45] like Delta and such like that. So, really, I think the the essence of of

[17:49] the ask is just to uh sign on with the other municipalities as to this regional

[17:54] body kind of speaking for all of us and

[17:57] getting the required funding that we need to get from the senior levels of

[18:00] government. Is that >> Yeah. Yeah, we do advocacy. We also do

[18:04] convening. We bring local governments and First Nation leadership together. We

[18:08] do this at the regional scale, so Hope to the Salish Sea up to, you know, the

[18:11] Squamish Lil'wat Regional District. Um but we also do this subregionally at

[18:15] smaller groups, so we can we can talk about things at different levels based

[18:18] on what's needed. So, we do we do the advocacy. We do the convening, bringing

[18:24] together people, and we're creating a knowledge hub. We're creating the shared

[18:27] knowledge uh space for communities to access. So, we are not we are not the

[18:33] ones who would In essence, we should not be the ones as

[18:38] uh we're not leadership, right? We're kind of behind the scenes, but we want

[18:42] to support and encourage leadership to have have um

[18:46] uh the words and the knowledge to then go forward and speak to the province and

[18:50] the feds and bring this investment to the region.

[18:53] » Thank you. Is this something you have a resolution

[18:55] for us or something we can move to endorse?

[18:59] » Perhaps if council desires um uh a resolution can be um that the uh

[19:06] council uh supports the request uh of the delegation. Something as simple as

[19:11] that, perhaps. >> Would that be Would the Village of

[19:13] Anmore Council support the the

[19:17] movement of the I forget what exactly the name is.

[19:20] » statement. >> The the Lower Mainland Lower Fraser

[19:23] Flood Land Coalition. >> Um yeah, yeah. The exact name of the

[19:27] statement is I believe you have it as well. Yeah, and if you wanted to see the

[19:32] wording, it is on my slide deck as well. >> We can We'll word smith. So, I'll call

[19:35] the question and Do I have someone to move that

[19:38] resolution? To endorse the flood lands. Okay,

[19:42] Counselor Krygier. >> So, are we requesting to send a letter

[19:46] of support or >> I did

[19:50] » I Is it a >> What is the actual action? That's what

[19:53] I'm a little confused about. >> we've been what we've been receiving

[19:55] from other local governments is a very brief letter showing reflecting support

[20:01] for the joint statement, as well as a logo that we can then put up on our

[20:05] presentation and on our website. So, that's that's the basic ask.

[20:08] » Okay. >> And then, of course, as we're moving

[20:10] forward, if there's interest in being part of our convenings and being part of

[20:14] any advocacy that does happen at the at the high upper levels of government,

[20:18] being invited to participate in that as well.

[20:21] » Okay. So, could I get someone Does somebody

[20:25] want to move that motion to submit a letter? Moved.

[20:28] Anybody want to second? I see Paul's going to second it.

[20:31] Okay, any further discussion? Councilor Richardson.

[20:36] » Yes, I kind of mentioned earlier, like I I couldn't really understand who you

[20:40] were, how you were funded. You said you were a non-profit.

[20:43] And I I didn't quite understand your role.

[20:47] And in order to send a letter saying I support you, I kind of have to know

[20:52] more. >> Okay.

[20:53] » So, I I can try and find out offline, but I couldn't find it before. So, maybe

[20:59] we can have a conversation or something. >> I'm happy to chat. But, very quickly, we

[21:03] are really just like a a of different organizations who are who think the

[21:07] region needs to be organized in a in a better way. We don't have a regional

[21:11] flood plan. Um and we're at risk because of that on

[21:14] many different levels. Environmentally, but also economically, our community is

[21:18] at risk. So, for all of those reasons, a number of organizations came together.

[21:21] If you go to our website, you will see who we are on there. We're uh like

[21:26] researchers, engineers, uh environmental organizations, um

[21:31] a legal like West Coast Environmental Law Society, they provide legal legal

[21:34] advice. Um uh Farm We also have uh Farmland

[21:38] Advantage, so we have like a agricultural um

[21:41] part members part of our coalition.

[21:45] So, we >> question from Councillor Craig. Are you

[21:49] a registered Well, you're not a charity, but are you a an organization, a

[21:53] society? >> coalition. So, a coalition of different

[21:57] organizations who are like Watershed Watch, who I work for, is a registered

[22:01] charity. Um the the First Nations led emergency

[22:05] planning uh secretariat is um is a What are they? They're a nonprofit, they're

[22:11] not a registered charity, but they're First Nations led and our work is very

[22:15] much based in and supported by what they do. So, all of the different um

[22:19] organizations that are part that are in the coalition, um we we are like we have

[22:24] our own charters and mandates and all of that, but we come together for this

[22:28] cause and try

[22:30] to bring the region together. >> Okay.

[22:34] » I think that's the coalition. >> So, you don't have a

[22:37] Do you have a budget? Do you have Is everyone paid by their organization that

[22:41] represents? Sorry for these questions, but

[22:44] » no, totally, it's fine. Um So, yeah, so we I can speak for myself.

[22:49] I do have a budget that pays for my time that I apply for grants. Um like to

[22:54] foundations, and that's at Watershed Watch Salmon Society, but the coalition

[22:59] to help with some of our studies I mentioned ENR We have $1.8 million from

[23:04] NRCan. We recently were awarded some money through the through the Ministry

[23:09] of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship as well as the Ministry of Agriculture

[23:13] because they want us to continue our engagement with between farmers and

[23:17] First Nations in the Valley. So, that's some other work that we're doing. Um so,

[23:21] you know, little pots of money here and there to

[23:24] help us do our work.

[23:25] » Thank you. Okay, I'll call the question. All those

[23:29] it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor?

[23:31] Opposed? I don't even see Oh, uh motion's carried. Thank you. Thank

[23:37] you very much for coming out and presenting.

[23:41] Okay, uh we have the minutes of the regular council meeting held on July

[23:45] 7th, 2026. Recommendation that those uh minutes be adopted as circulated. Could

[23:51] I get someone to move that? Move, second. Any discussion on those minutes?

[23:56] See none. All those in favor? Opposed?

[24:00] Carried. Any business arising from the minutes?

[24:04] No? Okay. We have a consent agenda. Um we only have one item on the consent

[24:10] agenda, the Orphan Dyke advocacy letter to the province.

[24:17] Uh Who uh who should I go to about

[24:21] explaining this? Ms. Elder?

[24:24] » I It is just for a receipt. >> Oh, it's just for a receipt. Okay.

[24:28] Someone to to move receipt.

[24:32] Move, second. Any discussion? See none. All those in favor?

[24:39] Opposed? Carried. I didn't ask you. Okay. We're on to uh

[24:43] legislative reports 9A OCP bylaw amendment 722-2025

[24:48] infield development first and second reading report dated July 17th, 2026

[24:52] from Manager of Development Services attached.

[24:55] Mr. Joseph. >> Uh excuse me before we begin, I will

[24:59] recuse myself. >> Okay.

[25:00] » We'll be We'll be doing infill, hopefully, in the future.

[25:06] » Okay. Mr. Joseph.

[25:22] » Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council. If you can put the mic a little closer.

[25:26] So, this report is to present updated draft of the official community plan

[25:29] amendment bylaw number 722-2025, which proposes updates to OCP policy RLU

[25:34] 16, along with corresponding amendments to the infill policy number 61 for

[25:38] Council's consideration of first and second reading, and to seek direction on

[25:41] referring this amendment to external agencies as required under section 475

[25:45] and 476 of the Local Government Act. So, back at the May 20th, uh, 2025

[25:49] meeting, Council directed staff to propose amendments to OCP policy RLU 16.

[25:54] Staff returned in September 2026 with proposed amendments, and Council passed

[25:57] a resolution directing staff to prepare changes to both the infill policy, as

[26:02] well, uh, RLU 16 and the infill policy. At the May 19th meeting, Council

[26:06] directed that the amendments be deferred as it was identified that the proposed

[26:09] new minimum lot size provision for double fronting parcels would permit a

[26:13] density greater than that what was allowed under the most recent OCP

[26:16] updates. So, staff have further revised the draft

[26:19] amendment bylaw and infill policy number 61 for Council consideration based on

[26:23] this feedback, and have since removed the density specific provision for

[26:26] double fronting parcels altogether. The previous inclusion for parcels

[26:29] between 2800 and 3924 square meters to be eligible for infill, where the parcel

[26:35] double fronts onto two separate public highways, would have equated to a

[26:38] density of a of around 8.67 units per acre, which exceeds the OCP, uh, policy

[26:44] RLU 17 associated with recent OCP amendments that have been established

[26:48] that has established a maximum density of six units per acre for infill lots.

[26:53] Uh so, the standard minimum lot size range of roughly 1 to 2 acres uh

[26:58] and the current maximum density of 2.04 parcels per acre per acre will continue

[27:02] to be to apply to all infill parcels, including those for double frontage. So,

[27:06] staff recommend that any further review of infill density uh be considered as

[27:09] part of a future OCP update. The amendment also proposes to remove

[27:13] number three of RLU 16 for the requirement that the entire parcel have

[27:18] an average slope of 20% or less. While keeping a number four of the policy for

[27:22] the requirement that the building site have an average grade of 20% or less.

[27:26] This gives more flexibility for lots with varied topography while maintaining

[27:29] control of the siting that keeps development uh off steep slopes. It's

[27:33] also worth noting that the steep slopes development permit area adopted through

[27:36] the recent OCP amendments still applies to lots with an overall average grade of

[27:40] 20% and will require a development permit and geotechnical assessments

[27:43] where needed. The amendment also provides additional

[27:46] flexibility on frontage requirements described in RLU 16 number six. So,

[27:50] panhandle lots and lots using an access easement are treated as comparable

[27:53] scenarios, both requiring similar standards for emergency access.

[27:58] The previous draft amendment had a 50-m frontage requirement for panhandle lots

[28:02] and this has since been revised down to 25 m matching what's proposed for the

[28:05] lots utilizing an access easement alternative.

[28:12] In regards to updates to infill policy number 61 section

[28:19] Section two requires that the access strip of a panhandle not be included in

[28:22] the calculation of the minimum lot size. Section four of the policy exempts

[28:26] panhandle lots and lots utilizing access easements uh from a 25-m frontage

[28:30] requirement, but but requires that the parcel width and depth be at least 25 m

[28:35] in length to maintain green space between homes as illustrated in figure

[28:39] three and four of the policy as attached to the report, matching the intent of

[28:42] the 25-m uh road frontage requirement. Staff have also consulted with the

[28:47] assessment Volunteer Fire Department on emergency access requirements for these

[28:50] lot configurations, which have informed section 5 of the info policy number 61,

[28:54] which requires panhandle lots and lots using an access easement to meet a set

[28:58] of criteria that will be enforced uh through covenants on title.

[29:02] These include a minimum of seven 7.5 m access strip for panhandle lots, a

[29:06] minimum 6 m wide paved access for panhandle lots and access alternatives,

[29:11] access alternatives use existing driveways where feasible, maximum of 12%

[29:15] driveway grades or access grades, uh adequate overhead clearance for fire

[29:19] apparatus where an arborist report and tree management plan may be required at

[29:22] rezoning, clear and visible address signage from

[29:24] the highway, safe and accessible emergency entry at all times, and only

[29:28] one parcel that may be created uh utilizing an access by easement.

[29:33] So, a council approval of a waiver permitting subdivision where the

[29:36] frontage is less than 10% of the parcel perimeter uh will be required uh when

[29:40] warranted for these lots. And also referral to the fire chief may occur at

[29:44] any stage in the info process. Finally, amendments to section 8 of the

[29:47] policy proposes to update the list of desirable community amenities since the

[29:51] community hub is now complete and upgrades to the Spirit Park are

[29:53] underway, staff have replaced the municipal hall with park enhancements

[29:57] and park acquisition as an active CAC priority.

[30:00] Staff has not proposed a change to the actual CAC target value at this time,

[30:04] though council may direct staff to commission a new land lift study or

[30:07] adjust in the current figure based on CPI indexing as recommended by the

[30:11] previous report, uh which would bring it to approximately $189,633.

[30:17] So, if council wants to pursue this uh either

[30:19] either um two options, uh direction can be given

[30:22] tonight along with uh the other recommendations.

[30:27] Local Government Act requires a consultation with potentially affected

[30:30] agencies before public hearing, so staff recommend referral to the Miss Palaces

[30:33] Belcarra, Port Moody, School District number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,

[30:38] Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First Nations with all responses brought back

[30:42] to council as part of a public hearing package.

[30:44] Would you like me to read the recommendation?

[30:47] » Sure. >> So the recommendation is that Village of

[30:50] Bel Air Official Community Plan Bylaw Amendment number 722-2025

[30:54] be given first and second reading and that Bel Air Official Community Plan

[30:57] Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025 be referred to the following committees

[31:01] as it relates to the mandate of each committee.

[31:04] And that in relation to Village of Bel Air Official Community Plan Amendment

[31:06] Bylaw number 722-2025 amendments associated with the proposed

[31:10] updates to policy RLU 16 and full development council will provide the

[31:14] following additional opportunities it considers appropriate for consultation

[31:17] with persons, organizations, or authorities it considers

[31:20] will be affected including the municipalities of Village of Bel Air and

[31:23] the City of Port Moody, School District number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,

[31:27] Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First Nations. And that all information

[31:30] resulting from the Section 475 and 476 referral

[31:34] and received by the Village will be brought forward to a council as part of

[31:36] a public hearing package and that a public hearing be scheduled following

[31:39] the referral process. Thank you. >> Good. Can I get someone to move that?

[31:45] Move seconded. Seconded. I'll open up for discussion.

[31:49] Councilor Richardson.

[31:53] Okay. So, when I

[31:56] read through this, we just did an OCP amendment. We're now

[32:01] doing another one and I'm worried we're bumping into an election

[32:05] and maybe it's not the right thing to do. So, if you just kind of

[32:09] qualify times. If this is passed, when would the public hearing be?

[32:15] » I think the next council meeting is in September.

[32:19] I think in the 20-something, 22nd. Should be a sufficient time for a

[32:24] referral process to take place as well as to schedule a public hearing. So,

[32:27] that would be probably when the public hearing would take place.

[32:30] » Okay. And then after that, it would be third reading.

[32:32] » At the same meeting, potentially the >> But then you have to do a fourth

[32:35] reading. >> Correct. October.

[32:37] » Which would >> Or

[32:40] Oh, third and adopt because of it's OCP. So, you could potentially do the

[32:43] adoption at third reading as well. So, September

[32:47] meeting. >> Third and fourth.

[32:50] Okay, cuz it's banging into the election and I'm

[32:55] for some reason it it's I'm a bit leery on it. With that said,

[32:58] um I'm good with like the pan handles. I'm

[33:01] good on the 20%, you know, for the building area only.

[33:05] Um good on the size of the double roaded

[33:09] lots. I'm I'm struggling with the

[33:14] the manifestations and maneuvering to allow the you know, 0.89 or the 8.9

[33:21] versus the six in the OCP. And I was wondering if that cannot be

[33:25] done or held done better in zoning. So, like right now we say all lots 1/3

[33:31] of an acre can have a carriage house a suite and a building.

[33:35] But we could change that if you're a double side infill, you don't get that.

[33:40] And then it cleans it up a little bit and this becomes more about enabling and

[33:46] less about massaging the OCP. And I don't know if that's possible or not,

[33:52] but my I'm leaning more that direction. >> Yeah, so to the chair, I think that

[33:57] you're running up against one other issue and that's the 2.0

[34:01] uh for uh lots per acre. Um so, that I guess for

[34:05] the double frontage purposes, you could have two lots uh sort of uh there, but

[34:10] we've since removed that um sort of uh section for the RLU 16 policy

[34:16] under previous direction um because it it just exceeds the dense the

[34:20] current density of the OCP. So, you could potentially include it an

[34:25] additional zoning bylaw or a zone for the specific lots

[34:30] where you wouldn't allow for um let's say all all three of the units per lot.

[34:35] So then maybe if it's two, then you would still be in line with the OCP that

[34:39] was currently passed. >> Cuz that's my concern. How much of this

[34:42] is to enable uh more flexible infill

[34:47] and how much of this is to change the current OCP to allow the potential exit

[34:53] extra density on like a 0.8 acre lot that's divided into with three units on

[34:58] each side? >> Yeah, so through the chair, for tonight,

[35:01] the current bylaw that's in front of you for consideration does not consider

[35:04] additional density at all. That's since been striked out since the last meeting.

[35:09] So the double frontage lot is not under consideration at this time.

[35:13] » Okay. So then I'm

[35:16] confused. Cuz I read a whole bunch of this stuff

[35:19] is about adjusting the 0.6 the six units per acre

[35:25] density in the OCP to allow something more. Am I Did I misread that?

[35:30] » Yeah, no, through the chair, this was it was just a clarification segment. Yeah.

[35:34] » Okay, and then my last question is is it an issue at all? Like say we boot

[35:39] it down the path to the next council, are there like 10 people lined up that

[35:44] say, "I want this today?" Do we have anybody or can it be left until like

[35:50] we're going to redo the OCP in the next term is my understanding. So can it be

[35:55] wait till then? >> Yeah, I mean, we have had active

[35:58] interest numerous active interest in in sort of these type of configurations.

[36:03] Uh we do have one active application in regards to 20% average slope. However,

[36:09] you know, those considerations uh they also have to conform to the active

[36:13] policy and of course the option to defer it to it all OCP update is is always a

[36:19] possibility. >> Okay.

[36:24] Couple of uh questions I have for you. Um

[36:28] you know, uh again, when I struck the task force back

[36:32] in 2018, I've done infill. That's why I've no longer recused myself. I'm

[36:36] beyond that. Um you know, infill was to provide gentle

[36:40] densification, no new infrastructure,

[36:44] not on a steep slope, and it was to retain the semi

[36:48] semi-rural feel of the village. Very, very specific. And I think um

[36:53] the uh councillors uh

[36:56] Webber and uh and Trolbridge actually did a really

[36:59] good job was they set up a group and and met several times and and discussed

[37:02] this. I've had a couple people who couldn't be here tonight, but are pretty

[37:07] concerned about these new changes, and the one being the panhandle.

[37:11] They said, "Are you aware that most of the panhandles are strata roads? And so,

[37:15] what you're doing is you're literally putting a neighbor against other

[37:18] neighbors on the strata road to allow them access to that to that panhandle."

[37:23] Number two is will this also allow lots that are very deep allow them to put a

[37:28] panhandle in to be able to to develop the rear of the property, which again is

[37:32] going to take away from the semi-rural feel that the initial infill was was

[37:37] proposed to do. So, I am not in favor of this at all because I think it opens up

[37:42] Pandora's Box and to creativity that could be had with people putting

[37:46] panhandles. And then I know I think it was in the mid mid-2015, 2016, um we

[37:52] actually had a moratorium about adding panhandles, and I think this will

[37:55] actually add panhandles. So, I do have some concern people are not pleased

[38:00] about this about the about the ability of using panhandles to facilitate their

[38:05] frontage, um because they're using a panhandle to

[38:08] access their property right now, and they're strata, and so there's a big

[38:12] legal concern about that that I don't know has been taken into consideration

[38:15] in this aspect. And then >> Oh, sorry. Go on.

[38:18] » Yeah, and then furthermore, you know, they when we when we did the initial, we

[38:23] I think there was a lot of parameters that were established out of IE the

[38:27] Ravenswood neighborhood with the 25 m and that and again this get we're

[38:31] starting to get away from that. The the slope aspect I think is

[38:35] you know, I've certainly I have no issue from going a little bit higher to a

[38:40] higher percentage on the on the on the grade if it if it's not going to add any

[38:43] extra and it meets the driveway requirements regarding regarding grade

[38:47] and stuff like that but the the panhandle I I I don't think should be

[38:52] an option used in infill at all. So.

[38:57] Go ahead. >> Yeah, so I just want to address a couple

[38:59] of things. So the panhandle I was for the

[39:02] the panhandles would would essentially just be that property's driveway. So

[39:07] there's no strata cuz there's no sharing on a it's just for that specific real

[39:11] estate entity using that panhandle as part of one

[39:15] singular parcel just like any other parcel would use a their their driveway.

[39:19] » The concern when I read this and the concern that people brought up to my

[39:21] attention is where there's a panhandle that is shared by two or three homes

[39:28] those that is a strata road and it's owned by each one of the owners.

[39:33] And therefore that you're putting owner against owner to be able to allow him to

[39:37] add another title to that another access point to that where it's only to

[39:40] facilitate currently the three homes or two homes or whatever it is right now.

[39:44] So there was some big concerns about that.

[39:47] » Yeah, so I know there is an option to have sort of a shared interest and and

[39:50] sometimes an access easement that's a specific sort of

[39:55] I would say access alternative that could be sought through a subdivision.

[39:58] However, as it's proposed it's just for the singular access for the current

[40:02] parcel under the application. >> So people could then create their own

[40:06] panhandle if they had their own property to be able to access the rear of the

[40:09] property. >> Yeah, I mean like I guess easements

[40:12] between property owners can can be established at any rate.

[40:15] » Yeah, okay. I saw a Webberink had his hand up.

[40:20] Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor McKeown.

[40:23] I have to agree with Mayor McKeown and Councillor Richardson. I think this is

[40:28] all a little too close to the election. This could all get turned around after

[40:32] the election. So,

[40:35] I would I would not be in favor of moving forward with this at the time.

[40:41] » Okay. Did I see Councillor Trobridge Did you have your hand up or you just

[40:43] adjusting your Go ahead.

[40:47] » No, sorry. It was my hand up. I I'm of the same

[40:51] mind. I mean, I like everything uh

[40:55] I'm comfortable with everything, I should say, in terms of the slope

[41:00] applying to just the building envelope, things like that make a lot of sense.

[41:05] But, if it's all packaged together with panhandles, etc., I prefer to defer it.

[41:12] » Good. Okay, so we have a motion on the table

[41:15] that's moved and seconded. So, so to defer it would then simply be to

[41:20] wait to be voted against it. So, all those in favor of

[41:24] Oh, sorry, Councillor Richardson, do you have one more comment?

[41:27] » Yes, one comment and one suggestion. So,

[41:33] my read of this is existing panhandle lots are not considered in this. Is that

[41:39] true? Like, if you have a lot that's narrower

[41:43] than 20 50 m, you could potentially

[41:48] put something behind your thing and create an access that would look like a

[41:51] panhandle, but current panhandle lots, like the rear part of a

[41:56] any lot that has a panhandle currently, this does not apply to. Correct?

[42:00] » Yeah, so as the bylaw is currently worded, 50-m frontage is a requirement

[42:05] to be eligible for infill. Okay. So, that unless the panhandle is 50 m wide,

[42:09] which I doubt. >> Okay, fair enough. So, then

[42:12] you know, I would make the amendment that

[42:16] uh be given first second reading and then Ambleside be referred to the

[42:20] following No, not committees. That it be amended so that the only

[42:25] thing considered is that 20% on building area.

[42:29] And then all the other stuff gets passed down the pipe.

[42:34] Because the my understanding in talking with one person that has the 20% issue,

[42:39] like 20.05 or something. That the lot's a bit of a V

[42:44] and they're not planning to build on the V, which is a creek. But that, if you

[42:48] add up the slope, the absolute value, makes a very steep lot, even though the

[42:51] lot's not that steep. So, you know, mathematically how it goes. So, I don't

[42:56] know if we can do that and just limit it to the one

[43:00] thing. >> So, so right now we have a motion on the

[43:04] table that encompasses all everything. We could do an amendment which would

[43:09] take it down to But we'd have to vote those other ones down.

[43:11] » Okay, fair enough. >> So, I think it's best that we just

[43:13] simply vote it down currently. Or if that's the if that's what the appetite

[43:18] of council is, and then we could come back with another one which is just and

[43:21] describe a little bit more cuz I'd like to get a little bit more details on the

[43:25] grade and why it was actually even initially set up as well at 20% or where

[43:29] that number kind of came from. I think it was kind of arbitrarily kind of taken

[43:33] out of there in our in our one of our GSL maps. And that's so, I'm going to

[43:39] call the question. All those in favor of what's on voting this in favor right

[43:44] now. Opposed?

[43:49] Motion is defeated. Okay. So, we'll come back with something then.

[43:54] Okay. Move on to We're now on to 9B, zoning

[43:58] amendment bylaw classification of basement exemption.

[44:01] » of order here. So, if we defeated option one

[44:06] how do we get option two onto the table? >> We we debated all of that and I said to

[44:12] Mr. Joseph to bring back the the height requirement if possible and then we can

[44:16] talk about that. Go ahead, Ms. Helwig.

[44:19] » Thank you. Through the chair, I think that that would be challenging to also

[44:23] be bringing back additional information um given that there's only two meetings

[44:28] uh until the end of the council term. There's a meeting on September 22nd and

[44:33] then another one in October. We could certainly report back uh in

[44:38] the September meeting, but then to schedule a public hearing and bring it

[44:43] forward to adoption would be very challenging um in that time frame.

[44:48] » To change that threshold, the percentage of the grade

[44:52] percentage, is that a full OCP review?

[44:57] » To the chair, no. This I mean, it's been considered and reviewed, which is part

[45:00] of this package. However, um as it essentially it would just be to strike

[45:04] out number three of RLU RLU 16 from the the bylaw. That's where the bylaw would

[45:09] read. >> But as I said, I would like to

[45:11] understand where that came from and and the ramifications of that as well.

[45:16] » Yeah, I'm so

[45:18] 20% is is the sort of the number that was chosen for steep slopes generally.

[45:24] Um I don't have the exact history, but I imagine that sort of uh through

[45:28] discussions probably you know, with the village that they decided that infill

[45:32] shouldn't be on steep slopes and if steep slopes equals 20%, then the

[45:35] average grade percentage applies to all. >> So, Ms. Ms. Helwig or Esson,

[45:41] that minor adjustment to go from 20 to say 25%,

[45:45] is that could that be done over two meetings?

[45:49] » Is it public hearing? >> It's a

[45:51] imma- it's a fairly small change in that regard. So, we're not changing the

[45:55] intent of the bylaw. We're not changing very much of it.

[46:00] » still would be through the chair. It still would be a bylaw amendment.

[46:03] » Right. >> So that could be done in two meetings.

[46:06] » Yeah. >> Um being the first meeting would be

[46:09] September 22nd. Your second meeting in October

[46:14] I want to say seven-ish. Um however, that would also

[46:19] be the public hearing night and there would not be um time for referrals to uh

[46:26] any other municipalities, school district, First Nations, or any

[46:30] committees. If that's council's desire to just do that bylaw amendment, that

[46:34] could be >> So would

[46:35] » technically achievable in two meetings. >> I just wanted to you know, um

[46:40] it by it increasing the threshold doesn't

[46:43] necessarily sort of address what we're we're doing, the intent of it. The

[46:48] intent is where there is a building site that is less than 20% that we're not up

[46:53] holding it up because 10% is drastically steep and now has

[46:59] contributed to the overall average density. That could be 25 or that could

[47:02] be 30 or 40. But it would what's on the ground is the intent is to just allow

[47:07] for the areas that are completely not in steep slope areas to be developed under

[47:11] development permit guidelines.

[47:14] » So I think it's best My personal view is that we would just leave leave this as

[47:19] be because again, we have a discussion that's been an ongoing discussion about

[47:22] basement heights, which are all about slope as well, which is coming up with

[47:25] the next item at this point in time. So >> You both through the chair. I don't know

[47:30] if they're completely related because you know, development on 30%, 40% is

[47:34] » Yeah, it's it's dealing with slope uh slope development. So

[47:37] » Yeah, I understand. It's just not a OCP issue.

[47:39] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Hello.

[47:42] » Councilor Trowbridge. >> Yeah, so

[47:46] um I don't quite maybe don't understand,

[47:50] but I don't see the relationship to a slope discussion. My understanding

[47:55] is that removal of 16 RUL or RLU was to allow if if a if a

[48:05] if a property had a steep slope on it, but it was not in the building envelope,

[48:11] then we would allow the building in the building envelope. It It It's really

[48:16] more about where the slope is, isn't it, George?

[48:20] » Mr. Chair, that's correct, yeah. So >> Yeah, so I would be fine

[48:25] uh with with an amended motion going forward with that component without the

[48:31] rest, which is, I think, what Councillor Richardson suggested.

[48:35] » So, we voted Procedurally, we voted down the motion

[48:38] that was on the table, which included everything which Mr. Joseph put on the

[48:42] thing. So, it would have to be a new motion forward that if somebody wants to

[48:46] put it forward that we would we would entertain.

[48:49] » I'll put that motion forward that we entertain the one segment.

[48:56] » I'd second that. >> What What do we put What is the motion

[48:59] that you're seconding? >> The My understanding the motion is,

[49:04] which we're going to get from our corporate officer in a very exacting and

[49:07] precise way very shortly, is that

[49:12] on lots where the or the average gradient may be more than 20% if there

[49:18] is a building area less than 20% that that would be allowed in infill. And And

[49:24] the reason I would support that is like here's two examples. You have a lot,

[49:29] it's an acre, half of it's dead flat,

[49:32] half of it's at 40%. Okay? That would not be allowed.

[49:38] Half of it's dead flat, the other half is at 30%, that would be allowed. And I

[49:42] really don't see the difference between those two lots other than the steepness

[49:46] of the embankment down to the creek or whatever it happens to be. So, I I'm all

[49:51] in favor of if you have a building area that's suitable, you get to build.

[49:57] » Okay, so do we have a motion on >> Mr. Chair, I can read out a motion. Um

[50:02] so, I suppose where's the original?

[50:11] So, the recommendation is that the Village of Anmore Official Community

[50:13] Plan Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025 as amended.

[50:19] » No, it's not amended. We didn't amend that motion was voted down.

[50:23] So, there's a new motion. >> No, but if we're going to amend what's

[50:26] on currently. Well, we could.

[50:40] I don't either.

[50:45] » Can we just take the one section and put put it as a motion?

[50:54] » Um I need um Counselor Richardson, through

[50:58] the chair, if you could please give me a complete sentence,

[51:02] that would be very helpful.

[51:05] Okay.

[51:09] Yep. >> Your mic's not on.

[51:15] » Back to the beginning. I don't know the exact wording, but that the

[51:20] existing bylaw or the policy 61 be amended so that on

[51:28] that you're allowed to do infill on lots where a building area is available less

[51:34] than 20%.

[51:40] Is Is that sentence enough? >> [laughter]

[51:46] » I I know. >> [snorts]

[51:48] » Cuz cuz this will drive to the public hearing, right?

[51:53] If we give it first and second, public hearing is next, so it should be pretty

[51:56] clear what we're saying. >> Absolutely.

[51:59] » Okay, can I Do you want me to try something?

[52:03] Do you want me to try something here that hopefully we captures it? So, the

[52:06] motion would read that um where a building site is equal or

[52:11] less than the 20% slope, infill properties would be accepted under our

[52:16] current policy.

[52:22] » Perfect.

[52:25] » So, through the chair and just um chatting with Mr. Joseph here,

[52:30] we could potentially amend

[52:34] um 722-2025

[52:38] that is included in the agenda package in a way that we could give it two

[52:43] readings this evening if Mr. Squizzero Cara

[52:46] is uh all right with that. Uh Mr. Joseph

[52:50] has the sections of that bylaw, which is on 20 page 25 and 26 of your agenda that

[52:56] could be amended, um given two readings, and then we could move forward

[53:03] that way this evening and go to public hearing in September.

[53:07] » Um so, just to clarify, um updating the the sentence on the

[53:13] um item three

[53:15] on page 25, is that what I'm looking at? Mr. Joseph.

[53:21] » Yeah, that's correct, yeah. >> Okay.

[53:24] Um we can we can potentially say that the

[53:28] um the bylaw section

[53:32] two uh item three be amended, and then whatever the amendment needs to be, that

[53:40] we can add the amendment and uh go forward with

[53:44] that.

[53:47] So, >> Councilor Richardson,

[53:51] if I read 722-2025,

[53:55] it actually be able to identify building site sites that are equal to less than

[53:59] 20% slope. It's actually already in there. It doesn't have to be amended.

[54:04] » We would need to amend to delete the parts of the bylaw that you do not wish

[54:08] to include. So, um if you will indulge for a moment, Mr. Joseph can read that

[54:14] out for council. >> Okay.

[54:24] It was a hot day out there today.

[54:31] This doesn't talk about pan handles. Thank you all for your patience.

[54:40] Yeah, that's right. Um so, I'll just start from here.

[54:45] We don't need to do anything with it.

[54:49] Okay, so the amendments uh would be to number two of the bylaw.

[54:53] Uh that the Village of Anmore Official Community Plan Designation Bylaw number

[54:57] 532-2014 be amended under chapter 4, Land Use, as

[55:01] follows. So, delete policy RLU 16 in its entirety

[55:05] entirety and replace it with the following.

[55:08] And uh I'll just read out the sections. So, policy RLU 16, and this is uh what

[55:14] it is already currently written for this intro paragraph. The village supports

[55:18] infill development and subsequent creation of new residences that maintain

[55:21] the existing semi-rural nature of Anmore. Infill development is the

[55:24] creation of new parcels within the existing developed area of the Village

[55:27] of Anmore that are serviced by existing infrastructure. The intent of infill

[55:30] development is that it will enhance and not take away from the look and feel of

[55:33] the neighborhood. It is expected that any new infill homes will blend into the

[55:37] existing neighborhood, minimize the disturbance to natural environment, and

[55:40] will adhere to the same setbacks as the existing neighborhood. Infill

[55:43] development should be guided by infill development policy that aligns with

[55:45] specific requirements that the community expects expects from infill development

[55:49] to ensure that it meets the intent of this policy. The maximum density allowed

[55:53] for infill development is 2.04 parcels per acre.

[55:57] Parcels that are eligible for consideration under this policy must not

[56:00] have been created through previous comprehensive development plan,

[56:03] be between 300 3 3,925 square meters and 8,900 8,094 square meters in area,

[56:13] be able to identify building sites that are equal to or greater than 20% slope,

[56:20] not require the extension, expansion, extension or expansion of any village

[56:24] road or water infrastructure, and have at least 50 m frontage on a

[56:28] public highway, and have been in existence for at least

[56:31] 5 years as of the date of the application.

[56:39] » Yes. We're So, for those people listening,

[56:43] we're striking off the back half of item five.

[56:47] » Correct.

[56:52] » Okay. >> I move it.

[56:54] » Move it. Could I get someone to second it?

[56:57] » Second. >> Second. Open up for discussion.

[57:02] Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question.

[57:05] » All those in favor?

[57:07] Opposed? Motion's carried. >> Okay.

[57:10] » And that's ordered through the chair. I'll just read out the rest of the

[57:12] recommendations for the referrals that are required,

[57:15] as well as public hearing. >> Oh, what what's now required for public

[57:20] hearing? >> Yes.

[57:21] » Yeah, that cuz yeah, yeah, it was the package.

[57:25] » Um so, following that uh and that uh and more official community plan amendment

[57:31] bylaw number 722-2025 be referred to the following committees as it relates to

[57:35] the mandate of each committee. And that in relation to the Village of

[57:39] Anmore Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025,

[57:42] amendments associated with the proposed updates to policy R only 16 infill

[57:46] development, Council will provide the following additional opportunities it

[57:48] considers appropriate for consultation with persons, organizations, or

[57:51] authorities it considers will be affected, including the municipalities

[57:54] of the Village of Belcarra and the City of Port Moody, School District number

[57:58] 43, Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First Nations, and that a

[58:02] public hearing be scheduled following the referral process.

[58:06] » Do we need to move that in Okay, [clears throat] can someone to

[58:10] move that? Second? I'll call the question. All those in favor?

[58:16] Carried. Do we have more to add?

[58:20] » Did you want to add any committees for >> No.

[58:22] » Okay. >> We Yeah.

[58:24] » That's right.

[58:27] » Okay. So, can we move on to uh 9B?

[58:33] Are we good?

[58:37] Are we good?

[58:40] Oh, right. Oh, you can get

[59:18] Okay, we're now on to uh 9B Zoning Amendment Bylaw classification on

[59:23] basement exemption report dated July 17th, 2020 from Manager of Development

[59:27] Services attached. Mr. Joseph. >> Thank you.

[59:31] So, the purpose of this report is to present bylaw number 745-2026,

[59:34] a zoning amendment bylaw that clarifies how the basement exemption applies under

[59:37] section 5.25 of the zoning bylaw, along with the related housekeeping correction

[59:41] to section 5.6. So, at the May 5th regular council meeting, staff brought

[59:45] forward proposed amendments to the section 5.25, the basement exemption

[59:49] provision. Council deferred that discussion and asked staff to come back

[59:52] with visual impact modeling to see what the current regulations allow in terms

[59:55] of building massing. Staff returned on the June 12th with a report that

[59:59] included visual representations of what's permitted under the under the

[1:00:02] existing rule and identified the specific sections proposed to be

[1:00:05] clarified. At that meeting, council passed a motion directing staff to

[1:00:09] initiate amendments to section 5.25 and section 5.6. Additional sections are

[1:00:14] being proposed to provide greater clarity in relation to the basement

[1:00:16] exemption. So, the current formula in section 5.25

[1:00:20] from letters A through D that determines how

[1:00:23] much basement floor area is exempt from the floor area ratio calculation will

[1:00:27] remain the same. What the amendment does is add three new sections, E, F, and G,

[1:00:32] that address how the exemption applies across the building. Uh because the

[1:00:35] current wording may incentivize numerous exposed basement floors that would be

[1:00:38] eligible for 100% basement exemption, which would increase the apparent

[1:00:42] massing of the building. There is currently no limit on how many

[1:00:45] stories in a single building can qualify qualify for the full basement exemption.

[1:00:49] So, on slope lots, final finished grade and building design can produce two or

[1:00:53] more stories that each meet the definition of a basement, some of them

[1:00:56] partially exposed, which can make a building look like it's four to six

[1:00:59] stories tall from the street level. Subsection E fixes this by limiting the

[1:01:03] exemption to no more than one uppermost basement story per building.

[1:01:07] Sub-basement stories below that would still be permitted, but they would count

[1:01:10] towards the lot's maximum floor area ratio like any other floor area.

[1:01:15] The second consideration is height of a story. As currently worded, there's no

[1:01:18] cap on the floor-to-floor height that the exempt story uh would apply to,

[1:01:23] which means a single basement story could be built well beyond the typical

[1:01:26] story height and still only count count as one story for the purposes of

[1:01:30] subsection E. So, subsection F caps the exempt story at 3.66 m, which is 1/3 of

[1:01:36] our 111 m maximum building height, essentially the height of one story

[1:01:40] within a standard three-story envelope. However, staff have also included

[1:01:44] subsection G. It provides a full 100% exemption for stories below the exempt

[1:01:48] basement story, but only where that story is completely buried entirely

[1:01:51] below finished grade at every point around the building's perimeter.

[1:01:57] Staff recognize that the story with no exterior exposure at all doesn't

[1:02:00] contribute to the parent massing of the building, so staff have included the

[1:02:02] section to differentiate between a partially exposed stories.

[1:02:06] Finally, staff are proposing a housekeeping amendment to section 5.6.1,

[1:02:09] which clarifies how building height is measured, so that it's based on a lower

[1:02:12] of the average natural grade or average finished grade. Right now, that section

[1:02:15] doesn't quite line up with section 5.5.2,

[1:02:19] which already uses that standard, and this brings the two into alignment, and

[1:02:22] it also reflects the current staff practice.

[1:02:25] So, the recommendation is that council give first and second reading to

[1:02:27] Ambleside Amendment Bylaw number 745-2026

[1:02:30] related to section 5.25 basement exemption and section 5.6 building and

[1:02:34] structure height, and that a public hearing be scheduled for Bylaw 745-2026.

[1:02:39] Thank you. >> Could I get someone to move that?

[1:02:43] Move, second, open up for discussion.

[1:02:47] Anybody? Uh okay, I I I have a couple of questions. And so,

[1:02:53] I can't support this if it doesn't at least offer a 9-ft ceiling height for

[1:02:57] the basement. I don't have a problem with basements going deeper

[1:03:02] um than that, but I just wanted to clarify cuz it's this is kind of compli-

[1:03:06] I saw in here there was a calculation of 2.75 m for the basement floor, but most

[1:03:12] basements that I'm going into right now are minimum 9-ft finished. And I I can't

[1:03:17] do an 8-ft finish because again, we're also supposed to be promoting suites in

[1:03:21] the in these in these buildings as well. So, if you can you confirm what the

[1:03:25] finished height would be or presume

[1:03:28] you could give me the rough height as well. It would probably be It would have

[1:03:30] to be about 10 ft then. >> Yeah, so the full story is 12 ft.

[1:03:35] » Okay. >> So, it's 3.66 in the amendment bylaws.

[1:03:38] » So, it says on page seven no greater than 2.75 m.

[1:03:44] Which is 9 ft. On page seven or sorry, 46 of your

[1:03:49] report if there's a color picture of the house up above it.

[1:03:52] » Yeah, so I think what you're referring to is the previous report where I

[1:03:56] referenced what West Vancouver's height limit is for exempted story. What What

[1:04:01] we're proposing is 1/3 of our current height, which is 3.66.

[1:04:04] » 3.6 m. So, can you tell me what is 3 3.6 in

[1:04:08] » 12 ft. >> 12 ft. So, basement height would be 12

[1:04:12] ft. Could go down >> from floor to floor.

[1:04:14] » Right. And it can go down into the ground to make that 12 ft.

[1:04:18] » This only for the exempted portion is 12 ft. Anything that's completely buried

[1:04:23] there's no height there's no height. There's no height cap.

[1:04:28] » Okay. >> There's a full exemption. There's no

[1:04:29] height cap. >> Okay.

[1:04:34] Do I have Councillor Do you

[1:04:38] » Just to clarify, this is the 3.66 m is only on the additional floor on the

[1:04:45] exempted part when you're like building on a hillside.

[1:04:48] » Correct. Correct.

[1:04:52] Just on a hillside. >> No, it it doesn't apply. This is just

[1:04:56] primarily where the problem would exist. >> Throughout, right? Yeah. Cuz you can on

[1:05:00] a on a slope or fairly fairly level lot, you

[1:05:03] can still go down. As you want, right?

[1:05:06] » Yeah, so they you could. >> Yeah, and I guess one of my questions

[1:05:11] that I had as well was on I guess it's it's the color one here which is page

[1:05:15] six or 45. Just about where average grade is and how that's

[1:05:21] calculated.

[1:05:24] » Yes, so we mean the average grade is is >> If you could use that photo there just

[1:05:28] to kind of give me I an understanding

[1:05:30] » Which figure? Sorry. >> The the bottom one.

[1:05:33] » Three? Figure three? >> I guess it's the color probably one,

[1:05:36] yeah. >> Yeah, so it's it's where the perimeter

[1:05:40] of the building meets the ground. And so if it's going up a slope, that perimeter

[1:05:44] goes up the slope with it. So if it's on a fairly, you know, uh

[1:05:48] even path, then the average grade becomes the halfway number of where

[1:05:53] where the perimeter meets the ground. >> Okay.

[1:05:59] That was all the questions. So you've confirmed that the the basement there is

[1:06:02] not a limit of of an 8-point, which is great. So any other questions before I

[1:06:05] call the questions? Seeing none, all those in favor?

[1:06:11] Carried unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Joseph.

[1:06:13] » Thank you. >> Okay.

[1:06:15] Uh we'll now move on to uh 12A Committee of the Whole meeting.

[1:06:21] The following recreation was made. Uh Mr. Boyd.

[1:06:26] » Thank [clears throat] you, Worship. Uh so the The purpose of this report is

[1:06:30] to uh follows the introduction of the development cost charges by the law,

[1:06:35] which uh was uh shown to council at Committee of the

[1:06:39] Whole. It Uh this report provides a brief summary of that introduction,

[1:06:42] presents the proposed 2026 DCC uh rate schedule for the village, and it

[1:06:47] seeks council's direction to prepare a draft DCC bylaw.

[1:06:52] So a quick background. At the Committee of the Whole, staff introduced the DCC

[1:06:55] framework and the case for updating the villages and charges. And just to

[1:06:59] summarize that that is that the DCCs are one-time charge for new development

[1:07:04] authorized in the part 14 division 19 of the LGA.

[1:07:08] Uh that allows us to recover the growth related share of capital costs of

[1:07:12] infrastructure required to service new development.

[1:07:15] The village's existing DCC bylaw dates to the 20 2005 and no longer reflects

[1:07:20] current construction costs, the village capital planning, or anticipated growth.

[1:07:24] Provincial best practice is to update the TCC program every 3 to 5 years.

[1:07:30] Rates are established through a defined methodology, projecting growth,

[1:07:33] identifying the growth related capital projects,

[1:07:36] and costs, assigning each a benefit allocation between existing and new

[1:07:40] development, applying a municipal assist factor, and dividing the recoverable

[1:07:44] costs across the expected growth units. Staff worked through the recreation tool

[1:07:50] with council committee of the whole, illustrating how the inputs

[1:07:53] input assumptions produce the proposed rates. A comparison with the neighboring

[1:07:57] municipalities was provided for context, and staff outlined the process ahead, uh

[1:08:01] preparation of draft bylaw, consultation, readings, approval by

[1:08:05] inspector of municipalities, and then adoption.

[1:08:08] This report is just to advance this to council uh for their consideration.

[1:08:13] » Good. >> So, as we can see in the rate table

[1:08:15] below, uh these were developed based on the conversations that we had at the

[1:08:19] committee of the whole. Um Uh so, the residential rates are based

[1:08:24] on occupancy assumptions of one suite per single family house, adding an

[1:08:28] incremental 1/2 person per lot, consistent with the current small-scale

[1:08:32] multi-use uh housing provision. This was a conversation that we had at the

[1:08:37] committee of the whole on whether we should assume that there was going to be

[1:08:41] more uptake or not of uh suites within the village. Um staff could take this

[1:08:46] away as well and and continue to look at past uh building permit applications to

[1:08:51] determine what the occupancy rate of suites have been in the village over the

[1:08:54] past 5 years. We currently haven't done that.

[1:08:58] Uh okay, next one. Uh sundry sewer is is

[1:09:02] not applicable cuz we don't have sanitary sewers within the villages a

[1:09:05] service. We currently only have it within AGP.

[1:09:10] And we don't anticipate building any sewers of our own, so therefore there

[1:09:12] are no projects. Um, an important note was regarding

[1:09:16] protective services. Although recent provincial legislation added fire and

[1:09:20] police facilities as eligible DCC categories, fire protection in the

[1:09:23] village is delivered through the Sasamat fire protection service, a Metro

[1:09:27] Vancouver regional district function. And policing capital was not a cost

[1:09:30] borne by the directly by the village. The village therefore has no eligible

[1:09:33] protective services capital cost on which to base a charge. As noted above,

[1:09:38] the fire protection in the village is

[1:09:41] delivered through fire Sasamat fire protection service, a Metro Vancouver

[1:09:44] regional district function, and the associated capital assets, including the

[1:09:47] fire hall, are regional assets funded through the

[1:09:50] service rather than by the village directly. For this reason, the

[1:09:53] growth-related capital cost for the anticipated fire hall upgrades cannot be

[1:09:57] recovered through the village's own development cost charges. It is

[1:10:00] nonetheless appropriate for the development to contribute its fair share

[1:10:03] towards these services. So, I therefore recommend the village formally request

[1:10:07] that Metro Vancouver consider establishing a DCC for Sasamat fire

[1:10:10] protection service to recover the growth-related portion of the fire hall

[1:10:14] upgrades cost consistent with the newly eligible fire protection service

[1:10:17] category under the LGA. Any such, uh, charges would be developed, adopted, and

[1:10:22] administered by Metro Vancouver through its own bylaw and cost allocation

[1:10:26] process in consultation with the Village of Anmore and Belcarra as being

[1:10:30] participating members of the service and would apply in addition to the village's

[1:10:34] DCC rather than through them. So, we also, uh, prior, sorry, following the

[1:10:39] publication of this report, we've also received word back

[1:10:44] from the province to clarify this note. And I'll just read, uh, one particular

[1:10:47] note from within their their email that was, and I quote, "Our interpretation of

[1:10:52] capital cost is that the capital asset be owned or controlled by the local

[1:10:57] government such that it is capitalized on the audited financial statements of

[1:11:01] the local government. So, based on on that coming back from the

[1:11:05] province, they kind of substantiated what we thought in the past that that

[1:11:08] because we don't actually own the asset, we're not allowed to collect DCC. Again,

[1:11:12] it's important to note that we we do have a mechanism to collect it, but Amur

[1:11:16] itself cannot collect it directly based on legislation.

[1:11:20] Uh okay, land use categories and zoning. Uh the rate schedule presents charges

[1:11:25] for a full range of land use categories. So, the DCC framework is completely and

[1:11:28] internally consistent. Some of these categories do not currently permit or or

[1:11:32] contemplated under the villages zone and bylaw or OCP. The inclusion in the

[1:11:37] schedule is for the calculation and information purposes only. It does not

[1:11:40] imply or confer any development entitlement, zoning permissions, or

[1:11:44] rights to develop these uses in the village until the zone and bylaw is

[1:11:47] amended to permit a given use. The corresponding DCC rate has no

[1:11:51] application, and the value set in the rates now is that should council of the

[1:11:55] future consider enabling any of these uses, a defensible

[1:11:59] charge would be already be established and showing that any such development

[1:12:03] contributes fair share towards growth-related infrastructure.

[1:12:06] And then lastly, uh park acquisition charges. Uh the proposed schedule does

[1:12:11] not include a park acquisition DCC. While park acquisition is an eligible

[1:12:15] category under the Local Government Act, a defensible parks DCC must be grounded

[1:12:19] in adopted parkland provision standard, typically expressed

[1:12:23] as an amount of parkland per capita or per dwelling, from which the quan- the

[1:12:28] quantity and cost of the land need to be need to serve growth can be determined.

[1:12:32] The village does not currently have a policy establishing a park provision

[1:12:35] standard. In its absence, there is no defensible basis on which to determine

[1:12:39] the per capita land requirement or the associated acquisition cost, and the

[1:12:43] parks acquisition charge has therefore been excluded at this time. Should

[1:12:46] council wish to pursue parkland acquisition funding through DCC in in in

[1:12:50] the future, staff would first recommend adoption of the park acquisition policy

[1:12:54] standard and would then allow a park DCC to be calculated and incorporated into

[1:12:59] the bylaw amendment. Then finally, financial implications.

[1:13:04] The the the financial implication obviously there's there's none related

[1:13:08] to staff direct the the uh to the village directly. The

[1:13:13] However, there would obviously be a cost association with managing the DCC's work

[1:13:19] and once adopted the DCC charges are expected to materially improve the

[1:13:22] village's ability to fund growth related water drainage and road infrastructure

[1:13:26] from development rather than from general tax base.

[1:13:31] Lastly, next steps from staff recommendations would be to

[1:13:35] prepare the draft development cost charges bylaw incorporating the proposed

[1:13:38] rate schedule and supporting background study, consult with the development

[1:13:41] community and other interested parties consistent with the provincial

[1:13:44] guidelines, request Metro Vancouver consider establishing a development cost

[1:13:48] charge for Semiahmoo fire protection services to recover the growth related

[1:13:52] cost of the firehall upgrades, and bring the draft bylaw to council for

[1:13:56] consideration.

[1:13:59] Okay, I can read the resolution if you wish you wish to.

[1:14:04] » Sure. >> Okay, that staff be directed to bring

[1:14:06] the draft development cost charges bylaw forward to council for consideration and

[1:14:11] that staff be directed to undertake consultation with the development

[1:14:14] community and other interested parties on the proposed development cost charges

[1:14:18] and that staff be directed to contact Metro Vancouver in relation to

[1:14:21] consideration of the establishing a development cost charge bylaw for

[1:14:24] Semiahmoo fire protection services. >> Good. Can I get someone to move that?

[1:14:30] Moved and second open up for some discussion.

[1:14:33] Mr. Boyd, just for clarity, I just wanted to who did you talk to at the

[1:14:37] province regarding the Metro Vancouver's role with the Semiahmoo volunteer fire

[1:14:41] department so I can follow up with them. >> One second.

[1:14:49] » Or Ms. Elwork, who did it that >> I've got it. It's uh Ministry of Housing

[1:14:52] and Municipal Affairs uh the financial office and uh

[1:14:55] » And is there a Do you have a person there?

[1:14:57] » Uh the person that sent to us was Jenny Chang.

[1:15:00] » Could I get a copy of that, please? >> I can circulate it to all of council.

[1:15:04] » Perfect. Thanks. Um the reason I say that, Mr. Boyd, is

[1:15:07] that we um I was concerned about this because

[1:15:10] again, there is such confusion when it comes to the fire department um and the

[1:15:14] real clarity of it is is that the uh Metro Vancouver

[1:15:18] simply we pay them a service to operate the fire department and the assets are

[1:15:22] actually owned by each of the municipalities. And they've given a

[1:15:25] legal ruling saying that we should be collecting the DCCs and it should be

[1:15:28] part of this program. So I'd I'd certainly like to to flush that out a

[1:15:32] little bit because I know it is somewhat confusing. So but anyway, it's been uh

[1:15:36] I'll I'll follow up cuz I Metro Vancouver had some interest there. Ms.

[1:15:39] Alaric. >> Sorry, Mayor McKeown. I may have

[1:15:42] misunderstood. Um did you say who gave a legal ruling regarding this?

[1:15:46] » No, that opinion that we that I distributed to staff and council was

[1:15:50] there from a legal aspect.

[1:15:55] From I think it was Mr. Brant, Brant Smith or whatever sent that out this

[1:15:58] morning. So

[1:16:01] anyway, open up any Councilor Craig.

[1:16:04] » Did we have a Why was it sent to Metro? Did we have a

[1:16:07] motion to send it to them? I thought that was done after. Yeah, as a

[1:16:11] » As a fire trustee, I sent it there cuz I was sure unclear of it why it was being

[1:16:15] uh separated here. So >> Okay.

[1:16:19] » Okay. Councilor Richardson.

[1:16:24] » Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around all that.

[1:16:27] So in summary, cuz it was a bit hard to hear.

[1:16:31] If the village owns the asset, we can charge or plans to own the asset, we can

[1:16:37] charge DCCs. Is that correct?

[1:16:41] » So yeah, it has to be on our financial. That's right.

[1:16:44] » Sorry, through the chair, it must be owned or controlled by the local

[1:16:49] government such that it is capitalized on the audited financial statements of

[1:16:53] the local government, which in this case it is not.

[1:16:57] » Okay, so ju- just just on that cuz when I read the letter from Metro,

[1:17:02] I didn't hear a clear opinion that we could collect DCCs on them. I thought

[1:17:08] our plan was that we were going to ask Metro, since it's their asset, to

[1:17:12] collect DCCs like they do for uh water and sewer directly to the

[1:17:20] village. So, Metro Vancouver would charge the DCCs. Is that correct?

[1:17:23] » Mitch would collect DCCs for the water that is outside of the village that

[1:17:27] comes to the to the village.

[1:17:30] » Yeah, but they they do collect for those services.

[1:17:35] So, Metro Vancouver we haven't got an answer back from Metro Vancouver that

[1:17:38] they can they can collect. >> Through the chair, we have not formally

[1:17:43] reached out to Metro Vancouver. Um Mayor McKeown, uh I understand reached out to

[1:17:47] Metro Vancouver, but we're waiting for direction from council. And as part of

[1:17:52] the process, we would be reaching out to Metro Vancouver. Um as we indicated,

[1:17:56] we've already reached out and got response back from the province. And

[1:17:59] additionally, we will be um seeking legal advice through the village

[1:18:04] solicitor who will be uh preparing the bylaw for us, and we have had some

[1:18:09] preliminary discussion with them on this, and will continue to explore

[1:18:12] options on um how we may collect DCCs.

[1:18:17] » Okay. And then my last question is, like if we were planning to build a

[1:18:22] water reservoir in 20 years to support our growth, we could collect DCCs on

[1:18:29] that project, could we not? Mr. Boyd?

[1:18:33] » Mr. Boyd's shaking his head as I think yes.

[1:18:36] » Yeah, correct. It is provided it it was it was being built in relation to the

[1:18:41] growth within the village. So So, typically that would be the answer to

[1:18:44] that. >> So, therefore, if we got commitment from

[1:18:47] Metro Vancouver that once it was all paid off, they would transfer

[1:18:52] the fire hall to Anmore, then that would be the same thing. We're

[1:18:57] just going through some other path, are we not?

[1:19:01] » I suppose the answer would be >> No, concurrently.

[1:19:04] » Sorry, to share the um assets that are already developed, we can't post a DCC

[1:19:10] after the fact. So, the assets are currently held under Metro's financial

[1:19:16] statements. As such, that's why we we would propose to go through Metro's DCC

[1:19:21] bylaw.

[1:19:25] » I I What's the question, Councillor Richardson? Could we transfer the

[1:19:28] ownership for the fire hall to the village?

[1:19:32] » Yeah, Lena kind of answered it. It's like

[1:19:35] it We already [clears throat] The asset's already there, but we just get

[1:19:39] it transferred at the end doesn't count is what I heard. But, you know, I was at

[1:19:43] the Well, we could build it for 20 years and then maybe it would, but

[1:19:47] anyway. But, you know,

[1:19:50] » [laughter] >> it's it is a bit of a convoluted mess

[1:19:53] cuz we as trustees we went through this in the fact if we were to ever to

[1:19:56] separate, how do the assets get divided? And so, it is a very it's not an easy

[1:20:02] easy easy ask whatsoever. So, I've got uh Councillor Trowbridge.

[1:20:08] » Thank you. Yeah, my understanding of the motion that's in front of us though is

[1:20:12] that staff is going to explore every opportunity to recover DCCs in whatever

[1:20:19] route uh through whatever legal process. So,

[1:20:24] uh I'm in favor of just moving this forward and letting staff do their job.

[1:20:29] » Good. Um any other questions or anything else? I

[1:20:32] I had one, Mr. Boyd, regarding the park DCC.

[1:20:36] Um, I read through the parks master plan and from page one on, it talks about us

[1:20:42] implementing a park DCC. And I know Metro Vancouver, we've recently done

[1:20:46] that in the last year and it was very very well received because again, as

[1:20:50] you're creating and in this case, there seems to be possibly an incentive for

[1:20:55] more multi-family because of the costing of of the DCCs being proposed. The green

[1:21:00] space that's going to be required in that. So, is is that something that

[1:21:03] could be added on to this DCC cuz it's referenced quite heavily in the fact in

[1:21:08] the parks master plan, which I guess was done sort of 2015-2016.

[1:21:15] » For sure, yeah. I mean, the the village have the right to to acquire DCCs for

[1:21:20] for parkland acquisition. Again, the policy just needs to be

[1:21:23] written mainly to it. So, I wouldn't recommend attaching it to

[1:21:26] this DCC because it's going to take a little bit of time consultation to get

[1:21:30] through that unless it's council's will. But, most certainly, you you can write a

[1:21:35] DCC for parkland. >> Yeah, and I just I also wanted to just

[1:21:39] add that, you know, Metro Vancouver, this Friday, we're actually going to

[1:21:43] reduce DCCs that Metro Vancouver's employ

[1:21:47] employ instigated because of the fact of the

[1:21:51] and it has to go to the register of uh of municipalities of Victoria and there

[1:21:57] seems to be this big push in reducing costs to be able to produce housing. So,

[1:22:00] we're not sure whether this will get approved, but we'll we'll certainly put

[1:22:04] it forward, but I'm looking forward to some to having some more discussion.

[1:22:07] It's a significant raise to what we're currently paying, which is currently

[1:22:10] about $10,700 per lot that's being created and taking

[1:22:14] it up to 23,000. It's It's significant. And then, when you throw on, you know,

[1:22:19] the Metro portion, TransLink, you know, we're at $32,000 for the creation of a

[1:22:25] lot, 33,042 for the creation of a lot, which is

[1:22:29] which is significant. So.

[1:22:33] Good. Okay, no further questions. I'll call the question. All those in favor?

[1:22:38] Opposed? Carried unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.

[1:22:41] » Thank you. >> Uh okay, now we'll move on to the

[1:22:44] mayor's report. I don't really have a lot. Uh please be cautious. The water uh

[1:22:49] restrictions went down to phase or to level two.

[1:22:52] So, you are allowed to water shrubs uh and hand watering. Allowed to wash your

[1:22:57] car. Um fire ban is in. It's I know that a

[1:23:01] new fire just opened up in the Fraser Valley tonight. It's it's a very, very

[1:23:06] precarious time right now. We need to get through the next couple weeks.

[1:23:08] Hopefully, I think there's going to be some rain due on Saturday and Sunday.

[1:23:12] And I think that's about it. I'll move on counselor's reports. Counselor

[1:23:17] Richardson. >> Okay, three things. One for the public

[1:23:23] and I think Miss Elrick might cover this is election

[1:23:27] dates uh for the information sessions.

[1:23:33] » Through the chair, is that for candidate information

[1:23:37] » Yes. >> sessions?

[1:23:38] Um yes, he stole my thunder. >> Okay, so I'll let you

[1:23:42] go ahead. >> go ahead.

[1:23:43] » [laughter] >> Okay, go.

[1:23:44] » No, I happy to give you the dates um

[1:23:46] » No, no, just save it. I don't need to. Um the other thing was mentioned

[1:23:50] earlier, this was the last meeting for public input until after the election.

[1:23:55] So, what public question period? Say your peace or forever hold your more.

[1:24:00] Um on garbage days, it's interesting to me

[1:24:03] because the bears go around and tip garbage over.

[1:24:06] And unfortunately, or fortunately, it lets me see what people are throwing

[1:24:10] out. And I have to say I'm a bit appalled on

[1:24:16] the recyclables and compostables that are in garbage bins. I don't know if

[1:24:21] there's anything we can do about it, but glass bottles, clear plastic,

[1:24:25] plastic films, etc., etc., etc. And it drives me nuts. So, um I just want to

[1:24:30] say it doesn't take a lot of time. Please

[1:24:34] put more care in your garbage and recyclables.

[1:24:38] And then the last thing is I bumped into Jay Sharp a few times at my office,

[1:24:42] which is the leftmost seat at Starbucks at 1:30

[1:24:47] most days. And we've had chats with other residents

[1:24:51] about the fire halls. And I suggested to Mr. Sharp that he

[1:24:57] could do a town hall or something cuz it he brings the temperature down of people

[1:25:01] who are quite upset. And he informed me that he cannot do

[1:25:05] that without the approval of the trustees.

[1:25:08] And really council has this council has no say

[1:25:12] on the fire thing other than through the

[1:25:15] trustees. So, I make my request to the Anmore trustees, could you request or

[1:25:21] give permission to Mr. Sharp to do a town hall

[1:25:24] on the fire halls? That would be greatly appreciated by the residents at large.

[1:25:29] Thank you. >> I I actually believe there's going to be

[1:25:31] an RFP coming out. There'll be an actually a special meeting for the for

[1:25:35] the handy note of the RFP for the design and everything. So, that would be a

[1:25:38] perfect opportunity to to get people out to ask questions. So,

[1:25:42] to me. Okay. Uh Chief Administrative Report.

[1:25:48] » Thank you. The election candidate

[1:25:52] um sessions. Um and these are the sessions that are uh administered by our

[1:25:58] Chief Election Officer, Lori Darkis, um where potential candidates can find

[1:26:04] out uh about the election process, about uh

[1:26:08] what uh being an elected official uh looks like,

[1:26:13] and and responsibilities related to that. So, we are looking at holding two

[1:26:17] info sessions this time. Um all of this information will be up on the village

[1:26:21] website in the coming weeks as well, but the dates for the info sessions will be

[1:26:25] in the evening August 27th and September 2nd

[1:26:30] uh right now. And uh so, please check for that and other information and

[1:26:35] updates on the election uh page, which is on the Village of Anmore website, and

[1:26:40] we will be uh more targeted uh communication coming out on that. Um and

[1:26:45] then additionally further to um the recommendation this evening, uh watch

[1:26:51] for um early September. We expect that we will

[1:26:55] be having uh an information session um firstly for the development community,

[1:27:00] but then secondly um for the broader public on uh development cost charges

[1:27:06] and uh what exactly they are and uh how they're determined and and projects and

[1:27:12] whatnot um just so that the general public uh understands the uh DCCs and

[1:27:18] the bylaw before it comes back to council uh hopefully later in September.

[1:27:23] That's it for me. >> Good. Thank you. I've got uh some

[1:27:27] general correspondence letter dated from the chair of the regional district of

[1:27:30] the Central Okanagan and town of Lake Country. Public input and question

[1:27:34] period. This is the last one, so I thought you said it was the Is it the

[1:27:39] last one? It is, yeah. So, please name Name and address, please.

[1:27:43] » Is this working? >> You're

[1:27:45] » product 1815 East Road. I'm just wondering if the municipality proper, I

[1:27:51] mean, uh the village is exempt from the water

[1:27:55] restrictions. I see, for example, circle hoses out here and

[1:27:59] uh or something that's making the plants grow quite well. And I was just

[1:28:04] wondering if if the village is uh exempt from water

[1:28:08] restrictions uh when we were

[1:28:11] uh obeying them. >> Well, the water restrictions now are

[1:28:14] down back to a level two, so you are allowed to hand water shrubs and that,

[1:28:18] yeah. >> But, water is we uh

[1:28:20] the residents were restricted from using soaker hoses.

[1:28:24] » I >> I don't know how the vegetation out here

[1:28:26] grew out quite

[1:28:28] quickly and must have been fed by water. I'm just wondering if there's exemptions

[1:28:33] for the village and not for residents. >> Just for clarity, are you talking about

[1:28:38] the ferns that came up from the dirt area in the front?

[1:28:41] » and also at the steps here. >> Uh I don't know about the steps, but

[1:28:44] those darned ferns, they they come up no matter what you do.

[1:28:50] So, in the front around like on the east Sunny Side Road section, all the green

[1:28:55] that came up through the newly laid in soil, I don't think that was watered at

[1:28:58] all. >> Okay, Joe.

[1:29:00] And I was just curious. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:29:12] » Hi, this is Mike 2555 Sunny Side Road. Um

[1:29:17] I don't know if I'm allowed to how I'm going to be able to ask these questions.

[1:29:20] Do I do it through you? >> Yeah.

[1:29:22] » Because it's a contractor and it's also a member of the staff

[1:29:27] that I have these questions for. >> Can you send me an email about it or

[1:29:32] » Uh >> Can you generalize what what it

[1:29:35] » Okay. Well, >> Uh we don't want anybody's name

[1:29:38] mentioned or anything like that. >> No, I'm not Well, May 5th, I uh we had

[1:29:43] the council meeting. After the meeting, we talked about the drainage of the

[1:29:47] Spirit Park. After the meeting, I met with the city ca- the municipal

[1:29:52] contractor in charge of that and we set up for a time, 2:00 the next day to

[1:29:59] go and and meet over there. Um I was there for more than half an hour,

[1:30:06] gave up because he never showed up. So, May 6th, the next day or that day, um I

[1:30:12] phoned city hall when I went in and I I asked the receptionist or whoever

[1:30:17] answered the phone, um what do I do? Can I have his number? She said, "No, I'll

[1:30:22] leave a posted note for him. I will get him to contact you and also email him."

[1:30:29] So, I emailed him. That was on May 6th. June 23rd, I I also left my phone

[1:30:36] number. June 23rd, I sent another email. This time I CC'd one of the staff. I'm

[1:30:42] not allowed to say which staff because we're not allowed to say names. Uh that

[1:30:47] was June 23rd. I emailed the staff saying, "Hey, um well, not the staff. I

[1:30:52] CC'd the staff and I emailed the contractor.

[1:30:56] And I said, um we were supposed to meet. That was a month ago. I waited a month.

[1:31:02] How come we didn't meet? Here's my phone number. Can we please meet?" Then, um

[1:31:07] today is the 20 >> first

[1:31:10] » first of July. I still have not received any correspondence from the city staff

[1:31:16] and the contractor in charge and they've already um sent the tender out for that

[1:31:22] or awarded the tender. So, so who do I What do I do?

[1:31:25] » If I can ask if you can send me that string of emails

[1:31:30] and and that and then I will I'll talk to Karen

[1:31:33] » Okay. >> uh Ms. Halbert.

[1:31:34] » Okay. Yeah, because >> Okay.

[1:31:36] » I'm I'm frustrated that it's been 2 months and it's been a month for the

[1:31:41] city staff to get back to me as well as the contractor. 2 months.

[1:31:45] » Okay. So. >> Okay.

[1:31:46] Any other questions before Okay, motion to adjourn.

[1:31:52] Moved. Second. All those in favor? Carried unanimously and thank you

[1:31:55] everyone. Have a great summer. We'll see you in September.

[1:32:08] » Mhm.

Regular Council Meeting

Transcript