[0:41] Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the public hearing

[0:44] for official community plan amendment bylaw 2026 - 25 and

[0:49] the zoning amendment bylaw number 2026 - 26, 434 Lakeshore

[0:55] Drive West to order. I would like to ask the

[0:59] corporate officer to introduce the bylaws. Thank you, Deputy Mayor

[1:04] Gilbert. This public hearing is being held pursuant to Section

[1:08] 464 and 465 of the local government act for the

[1:11] purpose of hearing representation from those persons who believe their

[1:14] interest in property may be affected. The public hearing is

[1:16] recorded in all the contents are posted on our website.

[1:18] The bylaws tonight are official committee plan amendment violent number

[1:22] 202625 and so any amendment bylaw number 202626 for 434

[1:27] Lake Shore Drive West and Agricultural Land Reserve Exclusion Application

[1:31] for 610 Pine View Road. Notice of the public hearing

[1:34] has been duly advertised in accordance with the requirements of

[1:37] the look of from an act. Also copies of the

[1:40] bylaws and support and documentation have been available for inspection

[1:43] on the city of Penticton website. The role of council

[1:46] is to hear representation from those persons who wish to

[1:48] provide comments regarding the proposed bylaws. Everyone who wishes to

[1:52] speak shall be given the opportunity to be heard. However,

[1:54] it is important that all who speak at this hearing

[1:56] restrict the remarks to matters contained in the bylaws. Council's

[2:00] main function is to listen to the views of the

[2:01] public. It is not the function of council at this

[2:03] public hearing to debate the merits that proposed bylaw with

[2:06] individual citizens. No decisions will be made at the public

[2:08] hearing, but will be considered within a council meeting. It

[2:12] should be noted that after the public hearing has been

[2:14] concluded, council cannot hear from interested parties regarding the proposed

[2:16] bylaws. Public hearing number one is for OCP Amendment bylaw

[2:20] number 202625 and zoning amendment bylaw at number 202626. OCP

[2:25] Amendment Bylaw number 202625 proposes to amend official community plan

[2:29] bylaw number 201908 as follows. Amend map one future land

[2:34] use by changing the future land use designation for lot

[2:37] one district lot for group seven, Sumilkamin Division Yale from

[2:40] the Yale Blitton District Plan 35081 except plan EPP91648 located

[2:47] at 434. Lakeshore Drive West from low density residential to

[2:52] high density residential and zoning amendment bylaw number 2626 proposes

[2:56] to amends zoning bylaw 2024 - 22 as follows. Rezone

[3:00] lot one, District Lot 4, Group 7, Samilkamin Division, Yale

[3:04] Formula Yeolitin District Plan 35081, accept plan EPP 91648 located

[3:10] at 434 Lakeshore Drive West from par 4L Small Scale

[3:14] Multi - Unit Residential Large Lot to RM3 Medium Density

[3:18] Multiple Housing and remove site - specific provision section 10.

[3:22] 2. 5. 1f from 10. 2 R4S, small - scale

[3:26] multi - unit residential, small law in its entirety. The

[3:29] site - specific text amendment, which allows a bed and

[3:31] breakfast on the property will no longer be applicable should

[3:34] the property be redeveloped. The proposed amendment would allow for

[3:37] a multi - family residential development up to six stories

[3:40] in height. Seven letters have been received since the printing

[3:43] of the agenda and distributed to council. Thank you. Thank

[3:45] you very much Ms. Collison. Before we go to the

[3:48] public, is there any new information from staff. Thank you,

[3:53] council. I have a short presentation that I'd like to

[3:56] go through. There's no new information, but just to reiterate

[4:00] some of the information. Yeah, thank you. Go ahead, Ms.

[4:02] Tenge. Okay, so this public hearing is for an official

[4:06] community product amendment and zoning amendment for 435 lecture drive

[4:09] west. The properties on across the street from the Okanaganic

[4:14] park, it's vacant. It's being previously occupied by a heritage

[4:18] home called Warren House, building 1912. The proposal CPMM is

[4:25] to change a designation on the property from low density

[4:28] to high density to support the same land use designation

[4:32] in this block. So this designation, so what's existing right

[4:37] now is for your nets and three stories. And the

[4:41] proposed high density residential supports that higher density up to

[4:44] six stories in height. There's also a rezoning request. The

[4:49] change is owning on the property from our 4L, which

[4:52] allow 4 units to RM3, which would allow morning 4

[4:56] units up to 6 stories. There is no specific development

[5:00] proposal at this time, but the applicant has provided a

[5:02] lot of intent, and that was included in council package.

[5:07] A development permit would be required. If they have approval

[5:11] from moving forward. Staff have prepared a mail out notification

[5:15] for properties within 100 metre. In total 192 notices were

[5:20] mailed, norediseed sign was also posted on the property and

[5:24] advertisements were placed in a newspaper. Seven letters were receive

[5:27] encirculated to council. So there are key criterias that must

[5:33] be considered when an OCPMM is proposed. So does it

[5:37] align with the broader CP vision? What are the social

[5:41] economic and environmental benefit to the community? What are the

[5:44] cost implications, sustainability to contacts, and meaningful engagement. So the

[5:51] first criteria, so the OCP supports housing being built close

[5:54] to downtown transit, Mary's. It's also close to a bus

[5:58] route to keep my research, Geraint Mo in the hospital.

[6:03] Second criteria is obviously economic and environmental benefits. Again, higher

[6:07] density, multifamily residential development on this property contributes to the

[6:13] city's housing needs. Um, this already service and central location

[6:17] that can accommodate growth. The third criteria is assessment of

[6:21] development costs. So this is an existing in - service

[6:24] urban lot and any costs will be born by the

[6:27] developer or the applicant. The surrounding properties to the east

[6:33] and south are designated high density residential, which allows up

[6:36] to six stories in height. It's also important to mention

[6:39] that building that are there today, uh, are generally maximum

[6:44] of four stories. And their designation indicate that really the

[6:48] long - term vision is for six stories, but what's

[6:51] existing is maximum of four stories. As I mentioned, there's

[6:55] a four - story height limit on Lakeshore Drive in

[6:58] your CP, but it's limited to properties further down on

[7:01] Lake Shore beside the LaCoana Park and does not apply

[7:04] to this area. The last criteria is ensuring that the

[7:11] public engagement was carried out from May 14 to June

[7:16] 12th. So the Aplicant is proposing to change a zoning

[7:22] from R4L to RM3, which would allow multifamily development of

[7:27] the six stories in height, which also aligns with the

[7:29] high density OCP designation. So that concludes my presentation. And

[7:34] I do believe that the applicant is here. He's over

[7:39] Zoom. He doesn't have a presentation, but he's here to

[7:42] answer any question, council may have. Okay, thank you very

[7:45] much, Ms. Tenge. So we are holding the public hearing

[7:49] in person in electronically, and we'll continue until everyone participating

[7:52] has had an opportunity to be heard. If you are

[7:56] in the Zoom webinar and want to speak, please use

[7:58] the raise hand feature, and you will be given the

[8:01] ability to turn on your camera and microphone and provide

[8:04] your comments. Please keep your comments to three minutes and

[8:08] reframe from cheering or jeering. Uh, you may return to

[8:11] the podium to speak again if you run out of

[8:14] time. So for the first time, is there anyone that

[8:18] would like to speak to official community plan amendment, bylaw,

[8:21] number 20, 26 - 25, or zoning amendment bylaw, number

[8:25] 2026 - 26, please provide your name and street and

[8:29] the street that you live on. You may go up

[8:32] to the podium there, sir. Bill

[8:42] wicket, I live at 433 Churchill Avenue. Immediately behind the

[8:47] proposal. I'm against it for two reasons. Uh, aesthetically, number

[8:54] one. I believe the lackawanna Park Four story heights limit

[9:00] should extend from Winnipeg Street to the sycamous. Right now

[9:05] nothing, a long lake shore is above four stories. Uh,

[9:09] if we allow six further on down, somebody else is

[9:13] going to want more. And I don't want the lake

[9:17] shore. To start looking like Waikiki. Four stories, I feel,

[9:22] is enough. But that is not the main reason. The

[9:25] main reason why. Is if you go to six stories,

[9:30] uh, I've seen proposals from the owners that they're talking

[9:33] about up to 28 apartments. I hope before council votes,

[9:38] each of you have actually driven down the alley. It's

[9:40] not on a street. And there'll be no street access

[9:43] from Lakeshore. The only access is this alley. Right now

[9:48] the alley is so narrow. Two cars can't go buy

[9:51] each other without basically one stopping and allowing waving the

[9:55] other one on. If you allow. A dozen or two

[10:00] dozen or more cars for one unit, one lot is

[10:04] going to be chaos. It's literally a back alley. And

[10:08] right in front of my place is an alley that

[10:12] serves that lot. And it's already got a lot more

[10:17] traffic over the last 10 years with all the four

[10:20] - story places going up. But if you allow six,

[10:24] and God knows how many, possibly 28 apartments, it's not,

[10:29] it's just impossible. There's no room for the vehicles. Uh,

[10:33] I hope you've all driven down that alley. And experienced

[10:38] it. Because right now if you even have a FedEx

[10:41] truck or a UPS truck delivering something to your place,

[10:45] it blocks the whole, not road. It blocks the alley.

[10:49] So vehicle transportation there. Is the mean reason why this

[10:54] proposal should not go to six stories. It should be

[10:57] limited to four stories. And in my opinion, the four

[11:00] units. Thank you. Nope. Oh, sorry. Could we please keep

[11:06] the cheering, no cheering and jerry? We want to make

[11:08] sure that, uh, anyone who can speak, uh, be, be

[11:11] granted to speak without any, you know, biased or any

[11:14] other, um, motivation in regards to that. We want to

[11:18] make sure it's neutral here for this space for a

[11:20] public hearing. Um, do we have someone online that would,

[11:24] uh, if you want to come up, but if we

[11:27] have someone online that would like to speak to the

[11:29] motion, or sorry, the public hearing. Nosed right hand. Thank

[11:34] you. There are no raised tents in Zoom. Okay. Thank

[11:36] you. Go ahead. Am I on? There we go. Biblically

[11:42] Skosky 336 Lakeshore. I'd like to follow up to Mr.

[11:47] Wickett's comments. Um, we shared concerns about development with city

[11:51] council several times since 2009. We've provided tours to councils.

[11:56] I met with Councillor Gilbert in 2024. And receive replies

[12:01] to questions on this proposal recently from councillors Watt and

[12:05] Stuart. As always, we are not opposed to densification or

[12:10] development. Just concerned on how it impacts traffic, parking, infrastructure

[12:15] capacity and public safety as the lakeshore Churchill corridor was

[12:19] not built to handle the volume of development that is

[12:23] now being considered. The number of homes in the area

[12:26] has more than quadrupled in the past 30 years, yet

[12:30] there have been minimal improvements to the roads and the

[12:32] length that serves them. Churchill's alley is a single lane

[12:37] width, but is expected to handle two - way traffic

[12:41] and cross a busy pedestrian beach walkway adjacent to this

[12:44] proposal. So the lane is treated like a street, but

[12:49] without the safety features of a street, there's no sidewalks,

[12:53] no speed control, and limited lighting. Visitors unknowingly park illegally

[12:59] in the lane, further adding to the problem. Now according

[13:03] to pendictons fire department, they don't use lanes to access

[13:06] buildings anywhere in Pendicton. So quick access to lake chart,

[13:11] churchill, or laneway facing doors, especially during weekend road closures

[13:15] in the summer can become extremely challenging. Every second matters.

[13:20] During an emergency. Kudos to our firefighters efforts when Warren

[13:26] House burned and threatened surrounding homes. If a similar emergency

[13:31] occurred during a busy summer event, the outcome could have

[13:35] been far worse. Without addressing these civic concerns, it's possible

[13:41] further large - scale development could create serious liability issues.

[13:47] Churchill Avenue can't absorb the pressure either. As one of

[13:51] pentacton's narrowest and most congested streets, vehicles frequently park near

[13:56] lane exits, and on both sides of the street, reducing

[13:58] sight lines and limited space for the two - way

[14:01] traffic. In fact, penticton transit has confirmed it is one

[14:06] of the narrowest streets they service in Penticton. Because there

[14:13] is no feasible way to widen this road network, no

[14:16] way to fix that. Development must be scaled to what

[14:19] the neighbourhood infrastructure can safely and logically support. So six

[14:24] - story buildings would create far more vehicle pressure on

[14:26] an already constrained access system. Therefore, we support three to

[14:31] four - story buildings as it is consistent with the

[14:34] existing neighbourhood. It's better aligned with the current OCP intent

[14:38] and less likely to worsen already unsaved conditions. So please

[14:42] visit the area before making any precedent setting decisions while

[14:47] keeping in mind that the current conditions as of today

[14:50] don't reflect peak, summer conditions. And finally, be remembered as

[14:56] the council who protected this amazing neighbourhood through thoughtful, sensible,

[15:02] and practical planning by declining this application. Now is the

[15:06] time to set this right. Thank you. Yep. Next person,

[15:14] if you want to come up and then we'll go

[15:15] to someone, we'll go online for the next one. I

[15:18] see that the hand there, but we'll go to the

[15:19] gallery first. Reni Myers, and I'm at 409 Hills Avenue.

[15:27] Uh, that neighbourhood is mostly houses everywhere, except for a

[15:32] long lake showed youth. And, uh, the thought of a

[15:35] six - story building is what got me out here,

[15:38] because to me it's absolutely absurd for the reasons that

[15:41] my neighbours have noticed, so I'm not going to go

[15:44] through all that again. A huge concern for me is

[15:47] the beach access walkthrough, which is always very busy and

[15:53] I use it maybe three times a day. I know

[15:57] all my neighbours use it. Children, dragon, people dragging their

[16:01] wagons, full of the beach stuff. And so six stories

[16:05] of apartments and all those cars. Trying to come and

[16:09] go during the day on that lane, it's impossible as

[16:15] far as how I can see. Just think about it.

[16:18] So, um, that's my say, uh, I'm totally against the

[16:22] sick story building there. It's the, it's crazy. Okay, thank

[16:28] you. I'll go to the raised hand that's online.

[16:42] I've Lynn Kelsey, if you could unmute yourself.

[16:53] Can I try again? Yeah, there we go. Now we

[16:55] can hear you. Oh, now you can hear me. Okay.

[16:57] Well, I'm out of town due to the smoke. For

[17:01] my own physical health. I really disagree with this being

[17:06] a sick story. I totally agree with the comments of

[17:10] the previous people that this, this is just not. A

[17:14] political. I worked on Churchill Street. I know how busy

[17:19] that street is and how big a problem the parking

[17:23] and the traffic and everything is. The laneway is too

[17:28] narrow to support what needs to happen. And as far

[17:32] as I'm concerned. Three stories and maximum four stories would

[17:38] be sufficient for this area. Let's not set a president

[17:42] that turns this into like a lake shore and Miami

[17:47] beach or something. Um, we don't need that. We needed

[17:51] something that has a nice character, which when we had

[17:55] Warren House had a nice character. Let's not ruin the

[17:59] heritage of Warren House by putting up a monstrosity of

[18:03] a six story building. So please ask you to. Really

[18:08] consider this. And, uh, make sure that you make a

[18:12] responsible decision based on the comments that you've heard tonight.

[18:16] Thank you. So for a second time, is there anyone

[18:20] that would like to speak to official community plan amendment

[18:23] by law number 2026 - 2025 or zoning amendment bylaw,

[18:28] uh, 2026 - 26. Yep. Come up to the podium,

[18:33] please.

[18:44] Good evening, my name is Shirley McPherson. I live on

[18:46] 736 Lakeshore Drive. And I just want, I'm here to

[18:49] support all of the people who've already spoken. I don't

[18:52] feel it is necessary to repeat the same things. We

[18:55] have been going through this a lot over the last

[18:57] 10 or 12 years. And, um, this is when I

[19:00] see all of my neighbours. So I really hope too

[19:03] that you will make a responsible decision regarding this. Amazingly

[19:07] crazy idea. We're very fortunate that someone hasn't been struck

[19:11] in the lane. Because it's come very close. Thank you.

[19:22] And is there any other raised hands on Zoom. There

[19:25] are no raised hands in Zoom. Madam, you may come

[19:27] up to the podium. Hi there. I'm Melanie Atkinson. I

[19:37] live at 668 Lakeshore Drive. And I especially at this

[19:42] time of year and with the way things are changing,

[19:44] I'd like to talk about water responsibility. If you're going

[19:49] to be putting in something that six stories possibly 28

[19:53] units that could have two bathrooms, a kitchen sink, a

[19:59] dishwasher, because they all do now. You can say what

[20:03] you want about the developer will have to take care

[20:06] of that. But what does it say about us as

[20:09] a city that we're not looking at that saying, no,

[20:13] the OCP that we have three, possibly four stories will

[20:18] be enough. I also live on Lakeshore and can attest

[20:23] to the fact that that back alley is just an

[20:26] accident waiting to happen. And well, they're under construction. There

[20:31] will be huge problems with people trying to get through.

[20:35] Thank you.

[20:46] Kate, for a third and final time, is there anyone

[20:48] that would like to speak to official community plan amendment

[20:51] bylaw number 2026 - 25? Or zoning amendment bylaw 2026

[20:56] - 26. Yeah. You may come up to the podium.

[21:02] I'm Teresa Dieeds. I live at 422 Lakeshore Drive, which

[21:06] is the Lakeview Apartments. I've lived in Penticton. My entire

[21:12] life. And in the last 10 years have moved to

[21:16] this area. When I first lived here, the first two

[21:21] years I was given a parking permit for Churchill Avenue,

[21:26] which was then taken away. And as Churchill was developed,

[21:32] um, there was so many areas that were single feering

[21:38] places that switched into multifamily. And so many of them

[21:43] were approved. And there wasn't proper parking on these, um,

[21:49] developments. And so therefore a large number of vehicles were

[21:55] then parking on the roadway. And I live in an

[22:00] apartment where there is no, uh, the parking in the

[22:04] back services are apartment. But we have no parking whatsoever

[22:10] right now for visitors. Because there's been such an influx

[22:15] of cars on church hill avenue. And it is a

[22:21] nightmare. I can attest to what everybody said to try

[22:23] to manoeuvre down that road. That road needs to be

[22:27] one side parking because of the congestion. And you cannot

[22:33] get down that street. To cars at a time. And

[22:36] the back lane has become a nightmare. And it is

[22:40] a lane. When they were doing some work on the

[22:45] house down on Lakeshore, just in the last few months,

[22:51] there was huge trucks backing up our laneway. And that

[22:56] was the only way they could get in, because you

[22:58] can't come down the walking lane beside the proposal. It's

[23:03] so narrow. And, um, our alleyway is, there's been damage

[23:10] done to it. Cause it was not put in there

[23:12] with the intent of these big trucks with all their

[23:15] weight to be driving on them. And through our parking

[23:18] area as well. There's been damage in our lot because

[23:22] that's the only way they could pull out. There's no

[23:24] road for anything to come in. And my concern is

[23:28] when they, and if they get approval for this, where

[23:34] are all the big trucks going to park to do

[23:36] the work? How is the garbage man going to get

[23:40] down the lane? He barely gets through their now. And,

[23:45] um. I agree with what everybody has said. They have

[23:49] given it a lot of thought. And not only do

[23:52] I think it would be a good idea to not

[23:54] allow this. I agree. Maybe something, um, with four units

[24:00] in it. But let's put this matter to rest once

[24:03] and for all. And just have something in our bylaws.

[24:10] Where no, we're not going to go there again and

[24:12] debate this six story stuff. It doesn't work on our

[24:14] beautiful street. There's been too many changes already. Let's protect

[24:19] some of what was the thing that lured people to

[24:24] pentict in many years ago. And, you know, I believe

[24:28] you have to have development, but you also have to

[24:31] protect your heritage. And that's not happening in Penticton. Thank

[24:36] you for your time. Is there any raised hands on

[24:41] Zoom. There are no raised hands in Zoom. Okay.

[24:51] Council, do you have any questions. Councillor White. Thanks, Chair.

[24:58] Sorry. I was just going to suggest if you wanted

[24:59] to, all the developer to have an opportunity. Yeah. Thanks.

[25:04] I wonder if you're going to have questions for the

[25:05] developer questions for staff. So, um, yeah, for the developer

[25:08] online, if you want to maybe address any of the

[25:11] questions or concerns that we brought up in the public

[25:13] hearing. Yeah. Hi. Um, my name's Peach Ruttell. We've owned

[25:23] 434 for the longest time. We did suffer the loss.

[25:27] And I understand and hear all the concerns in relation

[25:30] to the height. But at the end of the day,

[25:32] the zone three, RM3 zoning was selected because under the

[25:36] current bylaw, that's the only zoning that would allow a

[25:40] building to be constructed at similar height to the properties

[25:43] next door and behind. And other locations, electric drive. My

[25:49] quest to the council is that by approving an RM3

[25:51] zoning, the council is not granting an absolute right to

[25:54] build the maximum height. It's just creating an opportunity to

[25:59] do so. The right to build is provided under the

[26:03] development permit. Where the public and the council will again

[26:08] have the ability to voice their opinions and approve the

[26:11] height and massing the building. And that's what issues such

[26:14] as laneway access. And other considerations such as height number

[26:18] of units should be addressed. Speaking of opportunity, the change

[26:25] of the zoning to RM3 will also afford the opportunity

[26:29] for. To address the council's concerns raised in the pendict

[26:34] in 2023 housing's assessment, basically for the need for smaller

[26:39] units, not to build a two to three million or

[26:43] even four million dollar single family home on this lot.

[26:47] The opportunity to support housing growth and intensification and central

[26:52] urban area. In line with the OCP policy. And the

[26:56] opportunity to have a positive contributions to pendicton housing diversity.

[27:04] Lastly, the RM3 zoning is a logical extension to the

[27:08] existing high density designations to the eastern south of the

[27:11] property, as you saw presented by the council. With a

[27:16] laneway, yes, it is small, but it forms a natural

[27:20] boundary. And a clear physical edge to the natural transition

[27:25] to low density neighbourhood. As such, it would be in

[27:28] keeping with the rest of Lakeshaw. I trust therefore that

[27:33] the council dispite the potential height implied by M3 zoning

[27:38] approved this opportunity inherent to the RM3. Zonings and leave

[27:44] the discussion to final height as part of the development

[27:48] permit because there are a lot of questions like people

[27:50] raised, which need to be answered. How is Axis going

[27:54] to be provided? How is the water supply? Is it

[27:58] sufficient. How is the traffic flow and waste management going

[28:01] to be? All those things that address as part of

[28:03] the development permit. Anyway, I hope that answers most of

[28:08] the questions that people have had. And I trust that

[28:13] the council will find favor in this proposal. Thank you.

[28:17] Thank you. Any questions. Go ahead, Councillor Raynon. Thank you

[28:22] through the chair. Uh, obviously it's for city staff, but,

[28:26] um. As we pass this through, it would go to

[28:30] another reading, correct? And then we would have an opportunity

[28:33] to, um, set a height barrier. Is that correct? Go

[28:40] ahead, Ms. Dengue. So the chair to council rain. And

[28:45] so what's in front of you today, what we're discussing

[28:47] is the public hearing. Then after it wants to public

[28:50] hearing as calls, you'll be discussing the bylaw stated by

[28:53] the corporate officer. If any changes to the bar, I

[28:57] was, you know, to occur or request. We would have

[29:01] to come back with those changes and then bring it

[29:04] forward and run through the same process. So what's in

[29:08] front of you is a change from the OCP to

[29:11] allow the high density residential as well as RM3. If

[29:15] any changes was to occur within those, we would have

[29:17] to come back with a new byline from the council

[29:21] would have to consider and send to public hearing as

[29:23] well. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Graham. Yes, thank you,

[29:33] the chair. It's sort of a developer. 28 units, is

[29:36] that set? Like that's, that's going ahead. You're not going

[29:40] to shrink that. You need to be 28 units. And

[29:43] if so, these are rental units. And what's the makeup?

[29:46] Is it one, two, three bedroom or is it just

[29:48] one and two bedrooms? Thank you. Uh, good question. Fortune,

[29:53] we haven't got that far. I mean, essentially we spend

[29:57] a long time deliberating whether or not to rebuild our

[29:59] home. Creating a single family home, which would probably worst

[30:03] three to four million. We didn't see that in our

[30:06] interest, nor did it align with pendicton's vision. The problem

[30:10] we face is that we can't do this on our

[30:13] own. So we need funding and we may need a

[30:16] partner. Um, and at the end of the day, the

[30:21] development needs to be economically viable. So the final design

[30:27] and all those questions will still need to be addressed

[30:29] in the future. Because we have no fixed view as

[30:34] to what it will look like other than to say

[30:37] that it would be within keeping of lecture drive. We

[30:41] don't want to create a monstrosity like was suggested the

[30:46] Miami Beach type of look. We want something to be

[30:49] in keeping within massing, but we want it. We need

[30:53] to be able to make it economically viable. So long,

[30:58] long, long statement to say, sorry, I can't answer your

[31:01] questions because we haven't done the design. No, we're not

[31:03] set on 28 units. But the six story building would

[31:08] potentially come to seek 28 units. It doesn't matter doesn't

[31:12] necessarily mean to say that that's what we will build

[31:15] or intent to build. But the more units, the lower

[31:20] the cost of the unit. Because the fixed costs in

[31:23] the design. So if you only have four units. When

[31:26] you add build costs and everything else around there, they

[31:29] certainly aren't affordable to make them more affordable. And again,

[31:34] this isn't true affordability. This is lakeshill drive. But to

[31:39] bring the price down and make it available to more

[31:42] people, you need more units. Councillor, you're a question. Councillor

[31:49] Stewart. Thank you to the chair. And I apologise if

[31:53] I'm stumbling through this. I just want to make sure

[31:55] that I'm crystal clear. Currently before us, if we are

[31:59] voting to pass the rezoning from the current status to

[32:06] RM3, that allows for a high density build. And that

[32:09] in and of itself is one step. And the next

[32:12] step with regard to the size of the structure is

[32:17] a separate and distinct piece that we can also consider.

[32:20] That there's approved or contained within the zoning. Approval. Is

[32:26] that right? Am I close. Uh, Ms. Tenge? Through the

[32:30] chair to councillors, stewart. Um, so again, so the zoning

[32:34] has specifications on height. Density. Uh, so what will happen

[32:39] if the council passed this parallel. Then they would have

[32:43] to come back with a design that would meet the

[32:46] arm three. Bylaw. Um, depending on the size, it could

[32:50] be a staff issued development permit. If they need variances,

[32:55] then we would notify the public again. And we'll come

[32:59] back to council. So there's a chance depending on the

[33:02] size that it could be as a staff level. So

[33:04] not necessarily meaning that they would, the public would be

[33:07] notified again. Because if they meet the intent of the

[33:11] arm three in terms of sight coverage, setbacks, um, then,

[33:16] you know, we look at the form and character of

[33:18] the building in the landscaping. Yeah. Thank you. And just,

[33:23] Councillor Stewart, maybe if you'll follow up, but it might

[33:25] be advantageous to have that follow up when we go

[33:27] to vote for the bylaw when it's coming up here

[33:32] after the public hearings are done. Um, it's more or

[33:34] less having questions for the developer. And I think one

[33:39] of those questions can be done for when the bylaw

[33:41] comes up. Okay. Any other questions from council. Okay. So

[33:50] the public hearing for official community plan amendment bylaw number

[33:53] 2026 25 or zoning amendment by law 2026 26 is

[33:58] now closed and no information can be received. Thank you

[34:01] for those watching. We will now move on to our

[34:04] next scheduled public hearing.

[36:55] Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the public hearing

[36:58] for agricultural land reserve exclusion application for 610 point view

[37:04] road. And I'd like to ask a corporate officer to

[37:08] introduce the ALR exclusion application. And thank you, worship. Public

[37:12] hearing number two is for ALR exclusion application for six

[37:15] pin view roads. It's to exclude a portion of the

[37:17] property located at 6105U road, but one district lot 2710.

[37:22] So Milcomy Division Yale District Plan, EPP22470 from the Agricultural

[37:26] Land Reserve ALR. The AppGants proposing to use a portion

[37:29] of a property within the provincial agricultural land reserve for

[37:32] a residential subdivision. This development is not permitted in the

[37:35] ALR and an application to exclude a portion of the

[37:38] property from the ALR is required. We have received three

[37:40] letters since the agenda has been distributed to council. And

[37:44] you have those now. Thank you. Thank you. And before

[37:48] we go to the public, is there any new information

[37:51] from staff. Thank you, you worship. I have a short

[37:55] presentation. That's OK. So again, this public hearing is for

[38:01] an agricultural and reserve exclusion application. The properties on this

[38:06] outside of Prime View Road contains a single detached welling

[38:10] and an orchard. The applicant is proposing to use part

[38:16] of the property for a residential subdivision. The reminder will

[38:20] stay in the ALR. This is not permitted in the

[38:23] OR and a negative ALOR exclusion application is required. A

[38:28] large exclusion and residential subdivision on the property is being

[38:32] planned since the 90s. The OCP was amended in 2002

[38:38] to allow low density residential development on this property pending

[38:42] the preparation of an area plan. Several previous application received

[38:46] approval with some conditions, but a final subdivision plan was

[38:51] never completed. This application is to accommodate a new subdivision

[38:56] designed from the last approval in 2023. This slide shows

[39:03] the last application presented at council in 2022. So the

[39:07] application was for the full property to be excluded. Ultimately,

[39:12] the applicant receive a conditional approval from the land commission

[39:15] in 2023, but only for a portion to be excluded

[39:20] only so the decision by the LR in 2023 was

[39:24] to exclude about four acres of the land to allow

[39:27] for future subdivision. So the 2026 application ascent front of

[39:34] council today is generally in line with the decision from

[39:38] 2023, meaning that only a portion of the property is

[39:42] being requested to be taken out of the LR as

[39:45] opposed to the previous application, which included the entire property.

[39:50] So you can see on the left corner that the

[39:52] area that's being proposed to be excluded. So the full

[39:56] property is 9. 2 acres total, and the area that

[39:59] being requested to be excluded is roughly 3. 38 acurs

[40:03] to allow a 10 lot subdivision. Ahead of today's council

[40:08] meeting, 106 notices were sent out to the residents located

[40:12] within that 100 metre buffer. Sign was posted, advertisement, and

[40:16] a newspaper, and three large received and circulated to council.

[40:21] So only local governments can make nail art exclusion application

[40:25] to the commission. Um, so council adopted a policy to

[40:28] define what sort of application we could bring forward. All

[40:34] option has to be exhausted and no portion of that

[40:36] property can be designated agriculture in the OCP. So ALR

[40:41] exclusion is the only way to achieve the proposed residential

[40:44] subdivision in the property is designated low density residential, so

[40:49] not agriculture and EOCP. So this application is in line

[40:53] with the council policy. So again, it's been designated residential

[41:01] since the 90s. Um, the residential subdivision aligns with this

[41:04] destination, only a portion is being proposed. And an existing

[41:10] road dedication on the property will dedicate it, but never

[41:15] constructed. We need to be closed as it's part of

[41:18] a previous approval as well. Um, and that concludes my

[41:22] presentation. Thank you. We are holding the public hearing in

[41:29] person and electronically, and we'll continue until everyone participating has

[41:34] had an opportunity to be heard. If you're in the

[41:37] Zoom webinar and want to speak, please use the raised

[41:39] hand feature and you'll be given the ability to turn

[41:42] your camera and microphone on and provide your comments. Please

[41:47] keep your comments to three minutes and refrain from cheering

[41:50] or during. You may return to the podium to speak

[41:53] again if you run out of time. And. Is the

[41:58] applicant present and with the applicant like to make a

[42:02] presentation now or would you like to wait until after

[42:06] the public comments. You're right until after. Okay. Thank you.

[42:13] So, uh, for the first time, is that anyone that

[42:17] would like to speak to the ALR exclusion application. Please,

[42:24] if you could step up to the podium and provide

[42:28] your name and the street you live on and then

[42:31] give us your opinion. Good evening. I'm Henry Tessman. We

[42:35] live at cross the street at 727 Pineview Road. Uh,

[42:40] we're in opposition to the residential subdivision plan for 610

[42:44] pine view route. And our recommending to council not to

[42:48] move forward with the ALR exclusion application to the ALC.

[42:54] Our community is much more developed when compared to the

[42:57] 1990s when the process started with using the agricultural land

[43:03] at 610 Pineview for residential development. The pace of development

[43:08] has been particularly noticeable in our community since the last

[43:11] time we were here for a public hearing back in

[43:15] 2022. We have infill happening on Pine V Road and

[43:19] on Baltimo Avenue. The Avery place development has been completed

[43:24] in that time. The development on Temperstone is just about

[43:28] completed, just a lot or two, are undeveloped. There is

[43:33] development happening now on the north side of Evergreen on

[43:37] the north side of Pineview. And the more substantial development,

[43:41] as you know, happening at the south end of Evergreen.

[43:46] And also at the end of Dartmouth Drive. There's also

[43:50] the ongoing development happening on Hawthorne drive. So there are

[43:55] development happening in our Wilsea community avenue at this time,

[44:00] which begs the question, why do we need to pull

[44:03] agricultural land out to do more residential development. The August

[44:08] 4th staff report states that the development of 610 Pindview

[44:13] contributes to council strategic priority objective of proactively planning for

[44:19] deliberate growth. Focusing on creating and inclusive, healthy and vibrant

[44:26] community. We don't think that this development will actually result

[44:30] in achieving those goals. The proposed 10 law development is

[44:34] on the south side of Pineview Road between two widing

[44:38] curves. Near to the entrance of the proposed development is

[44:42] a steep and winding incline as you come up pine

[44:45] view. There are concrete barriers located on the side of

[44:49] the row on the side of the road below the

[44:52] entrance to the proposed development and the road is narrower

[44:56] here than it is as you go up pine view.

[45:00] The proposed subdivision requires the property to be rezoned to

[45:05] large lot residential. Assuming that this is to densify the

[45:10] development, there will be a substantial increase in vehicular traffic.

[45:14] And the buildings will further decrease road visibility. This is

[45:19] a significant impact on our community. Pineview wrote is a

[45:22] busy road. There is a lot of heavy traffic related

[45:26] to the ongoing residential developments. There is also increased back

[45:30] and forth to the newly created parking lot access to

[45:34] access the upper wiltsy trails and the Skaha bluffs. There's

[45:39] no sidewalk on the south side of Pineview. It is

[45:43] unsafe to cross Pineview except for the deer to get

[45:47] to the sidewalk on the other side of the road.

[45:50] All family activities, as is happening now, will require travelling

[45:54] by vehicle to bus stops to schools and to playgrounds

[45:57] that otherwise are close by and could be accessed by

[46:00] foot. Better residential developments are happening in our community. Council

[46:06] does not need to take land out of the ALR

[46:09] as small as it may be described to further residential

[46:12] development in our community, especially when it is not achieved

[46:16] creating an inclusive, healthy, vibrant community. At this time, the

[46:21] land is still in the ALR. The various conditions that

[46:25] the ALR commission has set since 1993 have repeatedly not

[46:30] been met. The most recent failure is the developer's inability

[46:34] over time two - year timeframe to provide the requested

[46:38] subdivision plan. And new application by council to the ALR

[46:42] commission is required. So at this time, council should balance

[46:47] their priority of supporting a residential development that requires using

[46:51] agricultural land that is currently in the ALR with our

[46:55] community bylaws that requires counsel also to actively protect agricultural

[47:01] land. Time has passed by the need to use some

[47:06] of the agricultural land at 610 pine view for residential

[47:09] development in our community. This is the time for council

[47:14] to rezone 610 pine view entirely to agricultural. Land. We

[47:19] recommend to counsel not to proceed with the application to

[47:22] exclude the subject property from the ALR. We recommend to

[47:27] council to proceed with amending the zoning designation, as stated

[47:31] in the alternate recommendation of the subject property from the

[47:35] detached residential to agriculture. We also want to recommend to

[47:40] counsel that council should undertake a review of the future

[47:45] land use designations in our official community plan. To identify

[47:49] if other ALR land is currently in property designated as

[47:55] being planned for residential use and to amend the designations

[47:59] to agriculture land. Specifically, the current you're going to have

[48:09] two sentences. Okay. Okay. Specifically the current future land use

[48:13] map shows all of six ten pine view as designated

[48:17] for future residential development. This contradicts our OCP bylaw and

[48:22] doesn't reflect the reality that the entire property is currently

[48:25] in the ALR and that the ALR has affirmed its

[48:29] agricultural viability. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Should we

[48:35] go to Zoom call of one of our Zoom callers

[48:39] now. Lori is that, Lori, can you hear us, Laurie?

[48:49] Thank you. Um, my name is Laurie Goldman. I'm on

[48:52] Dolphin Avenue in Penticton. Um, I can't say much more

[48:55] to the gentleman's points who came ahead of me. He

[49:00] covered everything as a climate activist. You know that I'm

[49:04] very concerned about emissions. And I'm very concerned about food

[49:08] sustainability. I have not been out of my house in

[49:12] days except for short trips because of smoke. We are

[49:18] in a climate situation that requires us to consider food

[49:22] sustainability. And I think the ALR was set up for

[49:26] a reason. And this reason is a good one. And

[49:29] we need to consider our future when it comes to

[49:33] food sustainability. Yes. Everybody wants a development. We need development,

[49:38] but this is not the right place. ALR is there.

[49:42] We should actually, um, strengthen our ALR designations to keep

[49:48] our community green and to provide food for people, uh,

[49:52] we are developing the city so well in more dense

[49:56] areas where we can handle the water and all of

[50:01] the other infrastructure. I'm also very concerned about more cars

[50:05] creating more admissions going up into that neighbourhood. Thank you

[50:09] very much. Thank you. Do we have any more comments

[50:13] from the gallery. And so

[50:23] I would say for the second time is that anyone

[50:27] that would like to speak to the ALR exclusion application.

[50:35] And do we have any callers on Zoom with a

[50:38] hand raised? Yes, we do. We have one rate hand

[50:41] coming in just now. And Lynn Kelsey.

[50:56] So, um, I would like to just agree with the

[50:59] gentleman that spoke and also with Lori that, um. I

[51:05] sat on the OCP, not this last time, but the

[51:06] time before. And we made designations very clearly. When it

[51:11] was agriculture, it needs to be agriculture because we need

[51:15] that ability to. Have food. Local in our, in our

[51:20] community. And so I would like to, um, just suggest

[51:24] that this not go through because I don't want it

[51:28] to become a situation where, Oh, well, you approve the

[51:33] top part. Might as well just do the rest. That

[51:36] can't happen. I don't think it needs to happen. Thank

[51:38] you very much. Thank you. And do we have any

[51:44] more. Comments from the public in the gallery. So I'm

[51:53] going to call for a third and final time. If

[51:56] there's anyone that would like to speak to the ALR

[51:58] exclusion application for six, ten point view road.

[52:09] And do we have any more zoom callers? Don't raise

[52:12] hands and zoom your worship. Okay. So now we can

[52:14] hear from the applicant. If you'd like to step forward,

[52:18] sir. Grieving your

[52:28] worship. For those of you that don't know me. My

[52:31] name is Ed Grifoni from CTQ consultants for engineers, planners,

[52:36] and urban designers out of Kelowna. I've been in the

[52:39] valley here for about 35 years, but I started my

[52:43] career right here in Penticton in 1975. And some of

[52:47] the people here know I did many, many planning projects,

[52:52] engineering projects, finance projects for the city of Penticton in

[52:56] the last 35 years as well. Anyway, we've been retained

[53:01] by the Figuera family to review the application that was

[53:05] before the city and before council. And to see if

[53:11] it could be amended. To move it forward in a

[53:14] positive manner. Uh, there was a lot of, for whatever

[53:17] reason, we don't know, but there was a lot of,

[53:21] I think, uh, misled consultants. Miss led municipality and misled

[53:28] land commission. What happened with this application. We've had the

[53:31] discussion with Audrey and her staff. And she's very well

[53:35] aware of all the history, most of which she's presented,

[53:39] uh, tonight. Of what happened with this application. As Audrey

[53:44] indicated, um, zoning on it. There's an OCP amendment on

[53:48] it. And there was a lot of discussion by the

[53:52] land commission in the city of Pendicton that called for

[53:55] this land out of all the ALR in the city

[53:59] of Penticton. To be considered for urbanization. So part of

[54:05] the land that's in the 610 Pine View and an

[54:09] adjacent piece of land. We're targeted by the land commission.

[54:14] Back in the 90s when the land commission came to

[54:17] the city and said, do you want some land out?

[54:20] Which land and why? The justification was made. And then

[54:25] there was also further planning by the city of Penticton

[54:28] in the light of the upper valley view neighbourhood plan,

[54:33] I believe it was called, that continued to support the

[54:36] idea of allowing that area to be developed in an

[54:41] urban way. And that's how all this proceeded. So the

[54:45] land commission's decision to release that land that particular area

[54:50] of land. All of the figuerous land, all of 610,

[54:55] and the adjacent land still stands as far as the

[54:58] commission is concerned. However, like one of the gentlemen pointed

[55:02] out, and like Audrey pointed out at the beginning, um,

[55:05] the conditions weren't met. And this is one of the

[55:10] big issues that we had to deal with to come

[55:12] to this point today. Um, the plan that was put

[55:16] forward by the consultants before, uh, and then went forward

[55:22] to eventually to the commission basically was a concept. And

[55:26] the figuerous people realised that that plan for 10 lots,

[55:32] 10, 11 lots could not be done the way it

[55:35] was laid out. And that is because there's so many

[55:39] insinuating circumstances with that site in terms of developability. Uh,

[55:44] access off of the, um, point view. Um, steep slopes.

[55:50] Environmentally sensitive areas. Uh, the list goes on and on.

[55:55] The plan that went forward, the concept that went for

[55:57] it to the commission was flawed. So we took it

[56:01] and sat down with Audrey and Michael from the engineering

[56:05] development engineering and looked at it and said, you know,

[56:09] what can be done here. And we basically with very

[56:12] small changes in rectified that plan and presented it to

[56:19] the city. And then it went forward as hopefully going

[56:21] forward to the commission. We've had discussions with the commission

[56:25] directly about what is being planned here. They're in support.

[56:30] However, they also work quickly pointed out that because the

[56:34] timeline was passed in accordance to the legislation of the

[56:39] agricultural land, commission act. We had to go with another

[56:43] new application. And that's what's before you hear tonight. And

[56:49] what was submitted to, uh, to the planning department to

[56:52] go forward to the, to the commission. And Audrey, if

[56:55] you would be so kind to just flash up on

[56:58] the screen, the plan, the new plan with the revision

[57:03] that we. Um, so if, if you see

[57:12] that, um, in front of you, the small area in

[57:18] blue is the area, the additional area that's required. So

[57:23] compared to the area outlined in the black line, which

[57:27] was the former application that's being approved by the commission.

[57:31] Conditionally approved by the commission. Um, that blue area is,

[57:36] additional area. And I believe it's barely, barely, uh, but

[57:43] we put much more of the land down below that

[57:46] you see than the checkered green back into the ALR.

[57:50] So there's more land put back in than that's taken

[57:55] out. And that area that's taken out is in order

[57:59] to allow the cul - de - sac, the access

[58:02] road, um, the relotting of the subdivision down below to

[58:08] make it work around the very steep slopes. And the,

[58:12] um, on the ESA environmentally sensitive area down there. Um,

[58:17] so, uh, in conclusion, there's more land that's going to

[58:22] be put into the ALR than what was permitted by

[58:27] the land commission. And at the same time, allows for

[58:31] a very, uh, standard of subdivision that's much better than

[58:36] what was presented before. And this is what we would

[58:39] like to go forward to the commission for consideration. And,

[58:43] um, the commission was quick to point out, as we'll

[58:46] hear as we've heard from Audrey as well, the commission

[58:49] was quick to point out that because there was a

[58:52] little bit more ALR land affected, even though there was

[58:56] more put back in, it had to go through proper

[58:59] process to be considered by the commission. So I hope

[59:03] that explains it. We haven't. We don't think we've done

[59:06] anything untoward with regard to agricultural land protection, uh, or

[59:12] that subdivision that was approved by the commission. Again, I

[59:16] go back to the point that the land commission through

[59:21] working with the city of Penticton. And their OCP back

[59:25] in the early into the mid 90s. They were the

[59:29] ones that basically said, yes, this is land that we

[59:33] will release from the ALR. And that, by the way,

[59:37] is typical of the way a lot of the ALR

[59:40] exclusions in British Columbia Airbnb through an OCP process through

[59:46] due process with councils, with staffs, um, with the public

[59:52] to exclude certain areas of land that are deemed appropriate

[59:56] for, uh, for urbanization as opposed to continuing to be

[1:00:01] used for, um, agriculture. So hopefully that explains kind of

[1:00:06] how we got to where we are today. Thank you.

[1:00:17] And council, do you have any questions. Cancer stewart. Thank

[1:00:23] you. Just to clarify, because I think I wasn't, uh,

[1:00:27] crystal clear on this last one, we discussed this at

[1:00:30] council. I understood that land was not agriculturally viable, but

[1:00:35] then, uh, councillor Gilbert's comment caused me to question that

[1:00:39] assumption because I think he said that it's currently planted.

[1:00:43] Is that correct? Sorry through the chair to Councillor Stewart.

[1:00:50] There is an existing orchard on the property. The zoning

[1:00:57] was changed in the 90s around this area. Um, and

[1:01:00] then again, the OCP designation was changed to low density

[1:01:04] through a review process. Just I'd like to add that

[1:01:07] this was the only area. I think at that time

[1:01:10] that they would be considering taking land or as all

[1:01:14] the DLR back in 2002, I think I mentioned, um,

[1:01:18] that, but there is an existing orchard on appropriate. I

[1:01:20] hope that answer your question. Follow it. And, uh, I

[1:01:27] believe the, um, gentleman stated that ultimately this will result

[1:01:31] in a net positive to the ALR lens. Once this

[1:01:35] area is redesignated, but the, um, another portion is put

[1:01:39] back in. Did I get that right? Through the chair

[1:01:42] to councillor steward, and I think that's still on the

[1:01:46] table here. I think the information that they were, um,

[1:01:51] or wanted to share is that the decision that was

[1:01:56] made previously line commission. It was roughly, um, four acres,

[1:02:01] like I think. And now what they're looking at is

[1:02:04] 3. 38 acres. So they are moving, um, the area

[1:02:10] so they could move the cul - de - sac.

[1:02:13] Increase the access to the existing house because the farmhouse

[1:02:16] is staying on the property. So it has to be

[1:02:19] done because there is a change from the previous, you

[1:02:21] know, application. So it is a slight smaller exclusion, but

[1:02:27] it is still an exclusion application. So, uh, in a

[1:02:31] way. So it's going from four acres, which was the

[1:02:34] previous approval to 3. 38 acres. Any further questions. I

[1:02:44] have a question for the applicant. The entire parcel in

[1:02:49] question is of a mixed quality of land. There's some

[1:02:53] that is suitable for orchard in the sum that is

[1:02:56] not suitable. And so I'm just wondering, we haven't got

[1:03:02] a better map on our computer here because our program

[1:03:05] is not being friendly. So I don't know if we

[1:03:08] have a map of the entire property in its current

[1:03:11] format. Sorry, I don't think so.

[1:03:21] I don't have anything in this presentation. I'm just wondering

[1:03:25] what areas and what percentage of the property is currently

[1:03:29] in orchard, if you could, maybe if the applicant could

[1:03:32] step forward to the microphone and tell us. Where. They

[1:03:42] can tell you is that. When the land, you have

[1:03:45] to come to the microphone, sir, because otherwise people on

[1:03:47] Zoom can't hear you. Good question. Um, what I can

[1:03:54] tell you is when the commission did their work, um,

[1:03:58] they were assessing agricultural land capability soil capability. Class one

[1:04:03] to seven and so forth. So that is on record

[1:04:06] somewhere. Um, we didn't get that information. Our client did

[1:04:10] not get that information. But it is available. And we

[1:04:13] can tell you right now, I've done, I'm not going

[1:04:16] to brag, but I've done most of the big ALR

[1:04:18] applications in the interior and in the open organ and

[1:04:21] colonna. And I find that so many of the lands

[1:04:27] that are getting released. If you dig deep and get

[1:04:30] an agrologist in, they will tell you that there's a

[1:04:33] lot of bedrock and the bedrock in this one here.

[1:04:37] Um, so that has been one of the issues. And

[1:04:40] one of the reasons why part of that land is

[1:04:43] not farmed. And the area down below next to the

[1:04:47] figure island that was approved by the commission at that

[1:04:50] time was in principle wanting to be released as well.

[1:04:55] Cause it was questionable agricultural land. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[1:04:59] you. Any further questions. From council.

[1:05:11] The public question period is. At an end.

[1:05:25] One. Looking for cancer for approval to hear somebody from

[1:05:31] the gallery again. That's the trouble. So. That's the risk.

[1:05:42] Sarah, if you'd like to come to the podium again.

[1:05:46] And we'll take one more comment. I understand that it's

[1:05:49] appropriate to come for a response. I think what we're

[1:05:55] trying to say as a community to council is that

[1:05:58] we have a lot of good development happening in our

[1:06:02] community. We don't see the need why counsel is going

[1:06:06] to, um. Take land agricultural land that is viable. Out

[1:06:16] of the ALRR. And set a priority that that is

[1:06:19] more important in our, in our, uh, community plan bylaw

[1:06:25] and trying to create vibrant communities which is not going

[1:06:29] to be achieved with this. So our community is speaking

[1:06:32] up to say you're not meeting the community goal in

[1:06:35] terms of what you're getting out of this residential development.

[1:06:39] And you're not balancing that out against the priority of

[1:06:42] maintaining agricultural land that is viable and is in our

[1:06:46] ALR. That was the point that we were trying to

[1:06:48] make. Thank you. And maybe if you can wait at

[1:06:51] the podium, please, because I think councillor what has a

[1:06:54] question. Thank you, the chair. So my, my question is,

[1:06:59] if we're hearing bedrock and not necessarily viable, but you're

[1:07:02] suggesting it is viable. The ALR and its assessment of

[1:07:08] the 2022 submission, uh, did an extensive analysis of the

[1:07:14] agricultural viability of the land. There are parts of the

[1:07:20] land that aren't viable, but overall it was a sustainable

[1:07:24] viable agricultural operation. Drive up and take a look at

[1:07:29] the orchard. The peaches are coming off now. The community

[1:07:35] is blessed to have that in its area. Part of

[1:07:38] that is the passion for coming here and providing that

[1:07:40] feedback continuer decision making process. Thank you. Any further questions.

[1:07:50] From council? Council is Stuart. Thanks to the chair. I'm

[1:07:54] not sure. I guess this is more of just a

[1:07:56] comment that we can debate it later to here. It

[1:08:02] was just gathering information from the public. On their opinions

[1:08:07] and the applicant. And then when we come back to

[1:08:10] the meeting, then we get a chance to debate. Thank

[1:08:13] you. Thank you. So. Now we've had the full

[1:08:23] submission of comments from the public. I'm going to call

[1:08:27] this public hearing to an end. It is now closed

[1:08:33] and no new information can be received. Thank you for

[1:08:37] those watching. And we will now reconvene the regular council

[1:08:40] meeting. If you're watching the live stream, please exit the

[1:08:43] public hearing and click on the regular council meeting live

[1:08:46] stream link. We wait just a couple of minutes for

[1:08:51] our technology to click through.

Public Hearing

Agenda

Transcript