Good evening and welcome to the Special Council meeting of
Monday, August 24th, 2026 versus a motion to call the
meeting to order. Council, please. Sumoved. Holes in favor and
carried. Thank you. Next is the land acknowledgement. Thank you.
Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that this
meeting is taking place on the shared traditional ancestral and
unseated territories of the Swasan, home musculum and other co
- sales peoples. We extend our appreciation of these First
Nations for the opportunity to hold this meeting here today.
Madam Kirk, please. Thank you. Next, that brings us to
number three, the Agenda Endorsement and the Motion recommendation before
Council is that the agenda for the August 24th, 2026
Special Council meeting B endorsed. So moved. All those in
favor. And carried. Thank you and brings us to part
four bylaws for final adoption. We have item 4. 1
final consideration, an adoption of bylaw number 8511 at 11129
80th Avenue and the Delta Zoning bylaw number 76 amendment
bylaw number 8511 2025. We finally considered an adopted. Any
discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor. And carried. Thank
you. That brings us to item 4. 2, final consideration
and adoption of bylaw number 8597 at 5002 56 Street.
Council. Move that Delta zoning bylaw number 2750 1977 amendment
bylaw number 8597 2026. We finally considered and adopted. Second,
any discussion, seeing none, all those in favor. Any opposed
and carried. Thank you. That brings us to part five
Administrative Reports. We have item 5. 1 development variance permit
for a basement access depression at 6632 Lambert Crescent and
the recommendation is that the application for Development Variance Permit
LU0 10057 be denied. So I moved that to a
development from variance permit to LU010057 be issued. In SD
alternate option mentioned. Is there a secondary. Any discussion. Council
Guys. Thank you, sorry. Thank you Mayor Harvey. Just a
quick question through to staff, Miss Berry. Can you just
go over what the Bylaw currently is for the Depression
that we do allow and why this is coming to
Council at this moment. Thanks. Thank you. It was very
pleased. Thank you through Mayor Harvey. Certainly. So the bylaw
currently allows a 12 square meter basement access depression and
the applicants here are requesting an increase from 12 square
meters to 21. 6 square meters for the size of
the basement access depression. Thank you. Thank you for that.
And I did read the report with interest, of course,
and staff outlined a few risks involved with precedent, you
know, letting this type of variance go when normally there
is a bylawship forth. I think if there's, you know,
I think I feel a little bit more comfortable if
we're going to see this a little more. I know
we sort of saw something on our last agenda. The
next item on the agenda also has this basement access
depression. Um, if we wanted to relook at the bylaw,
that's one thing. But I think doing these one -
off approvals, um, with the risks that staff of outlined
is just, um, maybe getting ahead of ourselves. I think
too, with the report, you know, I think it's kind
of asking for too much. Staff don't really see the
need to double the size of the depression. And I'm
just not sure if it's more than what they need
for access to two dwellings. So those are my comments.
Thanks. Any further comments. Councillor Hall. Thank you. Um, I
just want to say I appreciate the concerns around, um,
uh, in the, in the report and with regards to
precedent. And I don't take those lightly. Um, but this
property does have some unique circumstances. The lot slopes upward
resulting in a deeper basement axis and the need for
larger staircase. Um, the larger basement axis does provide a
safer, more functional space, um, also independent access, making things,
um, practical like moving furniture, uh, in and out and
creates a brighter, more, sorry, a brighter, more open living
environment for the secondary suite, which in my opinion, I
think is a big draw. Um, for me, this comes
down to the specific site conditions, um, for this property.
And I believe that with a significant slope, um, and
functional benefits, it does justify a little bit of flexibility
here. And therefore I am comfortable supporting the variance. Thank
you. Any further discussion. Councillor Kruger, please. Uh, yeah, thanks.
I think the picture on attachment E really illustrates the
problem here and what the applicant's trying to do. It's,
it's cheaper to not go for the variance. It's going
to be more expensive for them because it's going to
be increased excavation cost, but you've got to think about
the fact there'd be people living in these units. The
secondary suite is going to get built no matter what.
It's about the quality of life for the tenants that
are going to be living in here. You know, the,
the, the, the issues that have incited with regards to,
to access the ability to move furniture in and out
of the suite, uh, light the ability to actually have
natural light coming into the suite. So I'm fine with
this. We've got a variance process for a reason. And,
uh, in this particular case, and as Councillor Joel noted,
uh, the slope of the site, uh, I'm very comfortable
with it. But, uh, again, we've got to be thinking
about when we're approving these units, that people are going
to be living in here. These are going to be
people's homes. We're going to be raising their families. Um,
and so the quality of life considerations as well. Uh,
so without mine, I'm fine with it in this case.
Thank you. Any further discussion. Ms. Spence, quite a bit
of time today going over this. And this extra space
isn't about making the health speaker. It specifically needed to
fit a wheelchair accessible ramp instead of just stairs. Since
ramps need much more room to make us safe, gentle
slope. In looking at the rest of the numbers, the
house is still well under the size in lock coverage
limits allowed for this property. So this isn't a pattern
of the owner's trying to build more than they're permitted.
It's really a one - off need specifically tied to
accessibility. And as other Councillor just mentioned with regards to
it is more expensive to do. But it's for a
good reason to provide accessibility for the use of that
suite in the future. I'll call the question. All those
in favor. Any opposed and carried. Madam Kirk.
One more. Thank you. Your worship that brings us to
item 5. 2. In a late to move a motion
with regards to the development. That development variance permit, LU010010,
the issue. And is there any discussion. Councillor Binder, please?
Yeah, just very briefly. I similarly did review, uh, this.
And it has a similar circumstance relative to the stairwell.
But the other, uh, issue with this is the option
of, um, not allowing for the, uh, sanitary, uh, to
remain on the current gravity feed. And, um, the City
of Delta has generally approved gravity feed for the sanitary
in situations where it is not appropriate or accessible. In
this case, that's very unique. And I really understand, uh,
where staff was coming from because of the accessibility is
on the right of way. But the right way is
there it's established. Um, the other homes that are here
have been there for, uh, a significant amount of time
as well. And the, uh, costs of maintenance and the
risk of failure for a pump fed gravity, um, anti
- gravity, uh, does actually put the home and others
at risk. So gravity feet has worked. It's our preference.
And it circumstances where it doesn't work. I think it
should not be allowed. But in this particular case in
spite of its slight uniqueness, I think the gravity feed
that is there makes sense. And I think it should
be, uh, retained. So I will be, uh, I will
not be supporting this staff recommendation. I would like to
move forward with the, uh, the variance. Alternate motion. Thank
you. Andy for the discussion. I couldn't imagine having a
single family home where you rely on, uh, pump for
the sanitary sewage. We do do that for storm stories
in certain conditions, especially up in North Delta, but I
understand correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Weber, uh, that
this sanitary sewer is already helps connections from houses close
by. To the proposed lot. Mayor Harvey. Yes. So there
is a line at the rear of the property where
the right of way, um, is in place. And then
there's also a line along the property frontage in the
road on cable two. But that's just correct. That's for
a pump system. Uh, Jameer Harvey. Pump would be required
to connect to the cable due sanitary sewer line. Yes.
What would happen when the power went off. Is there
storage? Do they have to have a storage tank? Or
I've never heard of a single family home, as I
mentioned before. Actually having to pump sewage. I know there's
collections where I can say like toast and springs. There's
a big pompost there that collects all the sewage and
pumps it under pressure, of course, into the big, uh,
the main sanitary transfer lines over town. This is Ireland.
But not a single family home. Yeah, I think this
is really one of, but since there is an available
sewer, paid for by taxes, people should have the ability
to, uh, to use that line. So thank you. Anything
further Councillor Gisha. Thank you, Mayor Harvey. And thanks I'm
getting some information here that I think overall, um, both
of these applications, um, I'm, I'm referring to the staff's
expertise here. And both, both have come forward as to
be denied. Very rarely. I feel like to our staff
bring things forward and request to deny them. And I
think without more information, perhaps that we just started to
get into. This isn't my area of expertise. And I
am relying on staff's expertise that, you know, they're the
ones doing this a lot and working with, with applicants
and working with the right of ways and working with
the systems, uh, I'm just going to go with the
recommendation on the table of to be denied and just
follow staff's expertise on something that I don't see very
often. So thanks. Anything further. On the motion. I'll call
the question. All those in favor. Any opposed. Councillor Gational
Post. Thank you. And carried. Thank you. That brings us
to item 5. 3 food processing in the agricultural land
reserve. I do want to draw council's attention to one
piece of correspondence that's been provided on table as well
as the public binder copy outside chambers. Uh, the recommendation
before council is A that staff be directed to send
a letter generally as provided in attachment A to the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food with commons and concerns regarding
the impact of permitting more processing facilities on lands within
the agricultural land reserve. And B, that a copy of
the letter and this report be sent to delta's MLAs
and Payton and Ravi Kalon and the Delta Farmers Institute.
The adoption of the recommendation. Second. Any discussion Kruger. Thank
you. Thank you to staff for bringing this forward. I'm
in support of the recommendation. Um, Council knows my day
job I work with the BC dairy farmers. So the
dairy farmers are talking about this as well. I've unfortunate
to attend a few meetings with the BC Agriculture Council.
I think the vast majority of agricultural commodities that I
have heard from have some significant concerns about the proposal.
And what problem it's trying to solve. If it's trying
to solve improving the ability to grow and process food
and BC, well, let's look at the facts under the
existing 50 - 50 rule, every farm has the ability
to apply to the ALC. If they're not in compliance
with that rule. Uh, there is a process and there
have been examples that can be pointed to across the
Fraser Valley and, uh, and lore mainland where farms have
been successful in getting on farm processing. Outside of that
rule. But removing, bringing this all the way down to
five percent, the issues. Number one, the limited direct benefit
to agriculture. Number two, the risk of serious speculation when
it comes to the cost of farmland. We're going to
start to see, like again, I'm looking at the folks
who are championing this. It's not the agricultural commodity groups.
It's the food and beverage groups. It's the chambers of
commerce. It's members of industry. Um. It's going to be
really difficult to grow food if the cost of farmland
becomes prohibitive to farm it. And the third piece is
enforcement. I don't know how you fit enforce that the
ALC has what six bylaw officers for all the BC.
They're in serious. Staffing shortage. We just received on table
a, uh, very comprehensive 17 page letter from the ALC.
And I just want to read one paragraph quickly where
they say, um, on page one, the proposal raises serious
concerns regarding the long - term protection of the agricultural
land base, the viability of farming, agricultural land affordability, and
the continuability of the ALR to fulfill its statutory purposes.
And the commission's view, the proposed represents a significant policy
shift that has not been supported by evidence, demonstrating the
need for change or showing that the proposed change would
increase agricultural production, improve farm viability, or enhanced food security
with NBC. Uh, in addition to all that, as the
staff report notes, um, our staff need more time to
review what the implications would be for Delta. So for
all those reasons, yeah, I've got a number of series
concerns. And I'm glad that we're hopefully going to be
sending this letter today. Thank you. Anything further. Councillor Guishong.
Thank you Mayor Harvey. And thank you Councillor Kruger. Completely
agree. Um, with everything you said, um, this seemed very,
very odd to me to come forward. But I feel
like with my expertise and those that you share with
even the dairy farmers, it will have a very adverse
effect on local farms and how, uh, we, we get
food production today. Lots of speculation. Land prices will soar.
It'll make it, as you said, so much harder for
just everyday farmers to get a crop on the ground
if we are proposing something, um, of this magnitude on
potentially 50 percent of delta, which is in the ALR.
I am absolutely here. Like there is a place for
food processing, especially processing very local commodities. I was just
not, not completely missing the mark. Also very glad to
see the LC give that report very much concerns, very
much in line with staff staff. Thank you for the
report. Um, it was bang on. It's, it's exactly, uh,
what I was thinking too. So thank you and very
happy to send those concerns off. Thank you. Thank you
for your discussion. Hey, we all just received this, uh,
appreciate Councillor Krug has the insight to have more information
at this time as we've had, um, appreciated his comments.
And Councillor Guichons comments also. I just want to, I
just shaking my head here. This discussion paper does not
explain who will review agriculture capability assessments when or whether
those assessments will be reviewed, how conflicting professional opinions would
result, how ongoing compliance with the five percent sourcing threshold
feed monitored, help cumulative impacts will be tracked. What resources
will be dicated enforcement. And we know right now there's
no resources to enforce it. What occurs when a facility
fails to meet eligibility requirements after construction. Sounds like it
was written for delta in a way. So, uh, appreciate
all the comments. And I'll call the question, all those
in favor. And carried. Thank you. That brings us to
part six correspondence. The next item is 6. 1 correspondence
from Metro Vancouver data July 27, 2026 regarding Metro 2050
Type 3 proposed amendments, City of Vancouver, the Molson site,
and the recommendation is that the correspondence from Metro Vancouver
dated July 27th regarding Metro 50 Type 3 proposed amendment
be received into the record. Move it option to the
recommendation. Second for the comment, all those in favor and
Carrie, Madam Clerk. Thank you. And that brings us to
a German yourship. Council, please. Motion to adjourn. All those
in favor and Carrie. Thank you everybody.