[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.