[2:22] Good evening and welcome to the Special Council meeting of
[2:25] Monday, August 24th, 2026 versus a motion to call the
[2:29] meeting to order. Council, please. Sumoved. Holes in favor and
[2:34] carried. Thank you. Next is the land acknowledgement. Thank you.
[2:37] Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that this
[2:39] meeting is taking place on the shared traditional ancestral and
[2:43] unseated territories of the Swasan, home musculum and other co
[2:46] - sales peoples. We extend our appreciation of these First
[2:48] Nations for the opportunity to hold this meeting here today.
[2:51] Madam Kirk, please. Thank you. Next, that brings us to
[2:55] number three, the Agenda Endorsement and the Motion recommendation before
[2:59] Council is that the agenda for the August 24th, 2026
[3:02] Special Council meeting B endorsed. So moved. All those in
[3:06] favor. And carried. Thank you and brings us to part
[3:10] four bylaws for final adoption. We have item 4. 1
[3:13] final consideration, an adoption of bylaw number 8511 at 11129
[3:18] 80th Avenue and the Delta Zoning bylaw number 76 amendment
[3:26] bylaw number 8511 2025. We finally considered an adopted. Any
[3:31] discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor. And carried. Thank
[3:35] you. That brings us to item 4. 2, final consideration
[3:38] and adoption of bylaw number 8597 at 5002 56 Street.
[3:43] Council. Move that Delta zoning bylaw number 2750 1977 amendment
[3:49] bylaw number 8597 2026. We finally considered and adopted. Second,
[3:55] any discussion, seeing none, all those in favor. Any opposed
[3:58] and carried. Thank you. That brings us to part five
[4:02] Administrative Reports. We have item 5. 1 development variance permit
[4:05] for a basement access depression at 6632 Lambert Crescent and
[4:09] the recommendation is that the application for Development Variance Permit
[4:12] LU0 10057 be denied. So I moved that to a
[4:18] development from variance permit to LU010057 be issued. In SD
[4:24] alternate option mentioned. Is there a secondary. Any discussion. Council
[4:31] Guys. Thank you, sorry. Thank you Mayor Harvey. Just a
[4:36] quick question through to staff, Miss Berry. Can you just
[4:40] go over what the Bylaw currently is for the Depression
[4:46] that we do allow and why this is coming to
[4:48] Council at this moment. Thanks. Thank you. It was very
[4:55] pleased. Thank you through Mayor Harvey. Certainly. So the bylaw
[4:59] currently allows a 12 square meter basement access depression and
[5:03] the applicants here are requesting an increase from 12 square
[5:06] meters to 21. 6 square meters for the size of
[5:09] the basement access depression. Thank you. Thank you for that.
[5:15] And I did read the report with interest, of course,
[5:18] and staff outlined a few risks involved with precedent, you
[5:23] know, letting this type of variance go when normally there
[5:26] is a bylawship forth. I think if there's, you know,
[5:32] I think I feel a little bit more comfortable if
[5:34] we're going to see this a little more. I know
[5:37] we sort of saw something on our last agenda. The
[5:39] next item on the agenda also has this basement access
[5:43] depression. Um, if we wanted to relook at the bylaw,
[5:46] that's one thing. But I think doing these one -
[5:48] off approvals, um, with the risks that staff of outlined
[5:53] is just, um, maybe getting ahead of ourselves. I think
[5:56] too, with the report, you know, I think it's kind
[5:59] of asking for too much. Staff don't really see the
[6:02] need to double the size of the depression. And I'm
[6:05] just not sure if it's more than what they need
[6:06] for access to two dwellings. So those are my comments.
[6:10] Thanks. Any further comments. Councillor Hall. Thank you. Um, I
[6:18] just want to say I appreciate the concerns around, um,
[6:21] uh, in the, in the report and with regards to
[6:24] precedent. And I don't take those lightly. Um, but this
[6:26] property does have some unique circumstances. The lot slopes upward
[6:31] resulting in a deeper basement axis and the need for
[6:35] larger staircase. Um, the larger basement axis does provide a
[6:41] safer, more functional space, um, also independent access, making things,
[6:46] um, practical like moving furniture, uh, in and out and
[6:50] creates a brighter, more, sorry, a brighter, more open living
[6:53] environment for the secondary suite, which in my opinion, I
[6:57] think is a big draw. Um, for me, this comes
[6:59] down to the specific site conditions, um, for this property.
[7:04] And I believe that with a significant slope, um, and
[7:07] functional benefits, it does justify a little bit of flexibility
[7:11] here. And therefore I am comfortable supporting the variance. Thank
[7:16] you. Any further discussion. Councillor Kruger, please. Uh, yeah, thanks.
[7:20] I think the picture on attachment E really illustrates the
[7:26] problem here and what the applicant's trying to do. It's,
[7:29] it's cheaper to not go for the variance. It's going
[7:31] to be more expensive for them because it's going to
[7:32] be increased excavation cost, but you've got to think about
[7:34] the fact there'd be people living in these units. The
[7:38] secondary suite is going to get built no matter what.
[7:40] It's about the quality of life for the tenants that
[7:41] are going to be living in here. You know, the,
[7:44] the, the, the issues that have incited with regards to,
[7:46] to access the ability to move furniture in and out
[7:49] of the suite, uh, light the ability to actually have
[7:52] natural light coming into the suite. So I'm fine with
[7:55] this. We've got a variance process for a reason. And,
[7:58] uh, in this particular case, and as Councillor Joel noted,
[8:01] uh, the slope of the site, uh, I'm very comfortable
[8:04] with it. But, uh, again, we've got to be thinking
[8:05] about when we're approving these units, that people are going
[8:08] to be living in here. These are going to be
[8:09] people's homes. We're going to be raising their families. Um,
[8:12] and so the quality of life considerations as well. Uh,
[8:14] so without mine, I'm fine with it in this case.
[8:17] Thank you. Any further discussion. Ms. Spence, quite a bit
[8:21] of time today going over this. And this extra space
[8:25] isn't about making the health speaker. It specifically needed to
[8:29] fit a wheelchair accessible ramp instead of just stairs. Since
[8:33] ramps need much more room to make us safe, gentle
[8:36] slope. In looking at the rest of the numbers, the
[8:38] house is still well under the size in lock coverage
[8:41] limits allowed for this property. So this isn't a pattern
[8:44] of the owner's trying to build more than they're permitted.
[8:46] It's really a one - off need specifically tied to
[8:49] accessibility. And as other Councillor just mentioned with regards to
[8:54] it is more expensive to do. But it's for a
[8:56] good reason to provide accessibility for the use of that
[9:00] suite in the future. I'll call the question. All those
[9:04] in favor. Any opposed and carried. Madam Kirk.
[9:14] One more. Thank you. Your worship that brings us to
[9:17] item 5. 2. In a late to move a motion
[9:20] with regards to the development. That development variance permit, LU010010,
[9:26] the issue. And is there any discussion. Councillor Binder, please?
[9:31] Yeah, just very briefly. I similarly did review, uh, this.
[9:37] And it has a similar circumstance relative to the stairwell.
[9:41] But the other, uh, issue with this is the option
[9:44] of, um, not allowing for the, uh, sanitary, uh, to
[9:49] remain on the current gravity feed. And, um, the City
[9:53] of Delta has generally approved gravity feed for the sanitary
[9:59] in situations where it is not appropriate or accessible. In
[10:03] this case, that's very unique. And I really understand, uh,
[10:06] where staff was coming from because of the accessibility is
[10:09] on the right of way. But the right way is
[10:10] there it's established. Um, the other homes that are here
[10:14] have been there for, uh, a significant amount of time
[10:17] as well. And the, uh, costs of maintenance and the
[10:22] risk of failure for a pump fed gravity, um, anti
[10:28] - gravity, uh, does actually put the home and others
[10:32] at risk. So gravity feet has worked. It's our preference.
[10:36] And it circumstances where it doesn't work. I think it
[10:38] should not be allowed. But in this particular case in
[10:41] spite of its slight uniqueness, I think the gravity feed
[10:44] that is there makes sense. And I think it should
[10:46] be, uh, retained. So I will be, uh, I will
[10:51] not be supporting this staff recommendation. I would like to
[10:53] move forward with the, uh, the variance. Alternate motion. Thank
[10:59] you. Andy for the discussion. I couldn't imagine having a
[11:02] single family home where you rely on, uh, pump for
[11:05] the sanitary sewage. We do do that for storm stories
[11:08] in certain conditions, especially up in North Delta, but I
[11:12] understand correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Weber, uh, that
[11:16] this sanitary sewer is already helps connections from houses close
[11:20] by. To the proposed lot. Mayor Harvey. Yes. So there
[11:27] is a line at the rear of the property where
[11:30] the right of way, um, is in place. And then
[11:32] there's also a line along the property frontage in the
[11:36] road on cable two. But that's just correct. That's for
[11:40] a pump system. Uh, Jameer Harvey. Pump would be required
[11:47] to connect to the cable due sanitary sewer line. Yes.
[11:50] What would happen when the power went off. Is there
[11:53] storage? Do they have to have a storage tank? Or
[11:55] I've never heard of a single family home, as I
[11:58] mentioned before. Actually having to pump sewage. I know there's
[12:02] collections where I can say like toast and springs. There's
[12:05] a big pompost there that collects all the sewage and
[12:07] pumps it under pressure, of course, into the big, uh,
[12:09] the main sanitary transfer lines over town. This is Ireland.
[12:12] But not a single family home. Yeah, I think this
[12:15] is really one of, but since there is an available
[12:17] sewer, paid for by taxes, people should have the ability
[12:21] to, uh, to use that line. So thank you. Anything
[12:25] further Councillor Gisha. Thank you, Mayor Harvey. And thanks I'm
[12:31] getting some information here that I think overall, um, both
[12:35] of these applications, um, I'm, I'm referring to the staff's
[12:39] expertise here. And both, both have come forward as to
[12:42] be denied. Very rarely. I feel like to our staff
[12:45] bring things forward and request to deny them. And I
[12:49] think without more information, perhaps that we just started to
[12:51] get into. This isn't my area of expertise. And I
[12:54] am relying on staff's expertise that, you know, they're the
[12:57] ones doing this a lot and working with, with applicants
[13:00] and working with the right of ways and working with
[13:02] the systems, uh, I'm just going to go with the
[13:05] recommendation on the table of to be denied and just
[13:08] follow staff's expertise on something that I don't see very
[13:11] often. So thanks. Anything further. On the motion. I'll call
[13:18] the question. All those in favor. Any opposed. Councillor Gational
[13:23] Post. Thank you. And carried. Thank you. That brings us
[13:27] to item 5. 3 food processing in the agricultural land
[13:31] reserve. I do want to draw council's attention to one
[13:34] piece of correspondence that's been provided on table as well
[13:36] as the public binder copy outside chambers. Uh, the recommendation
[13:41] before council is A that staff be directed to send
[13:43] a letter generally as provided in attachment A to the
[13:46] Ministry of Agriculture and Food with commons and concerns regarding
[13:49] the impact of permitting more processing facilities on lands within
[13:52] the agricultural land reserve. And B, that a copy of
[13:55] the letter and this report be sent to delta's MLAs
[13:58] and Payton and Ravi Kalon and the Delta Farmers Institute.
[14:03] The adoption of the recommendation. Second. Any discussion Kruger. Thank
[14:08] you. Thank you to staff for bringing this forward. I'm
[14:10] in support of the recommendation. Um, Council knows my day
[14:15] job I work with the BC dairy farmers. So the
[14:17] dairy farmers are talking about this as well. I've unfortunate
[14:20] to attend a few meetings with the BC Agriculture Council.
[14:23] I think the vast majority of agricultural commodities that I
[14:26] have heard from have some significant concerns about the proposal.
[14:30] And what problem it's trying to solve. If it's trying
[14:34] to solve improving the ability to grow and process food
[14:38] and BC, well, let's look at the facts under the
[14:41] existing 50 - 50 rule, every farm has the ability
[14:43] to apply to the ALC. If they're not in compliance
[14:46] with that rule. Uh, there is a process and there
[14:50] have been examples that can be pointed to across the
[14:53] Fraser Valley and, uh, and lore mainland where farms have
[14:56] been successful in getting on farm processing. Outside of that
[15:00] rule. But removing, bringing this all the way down to
[15:04] five percent, the issues. Number one, the limited direct benefit
[15:07] to agriculture. Number two, the risk of serious speculation when
[15:13] it comes to the cost of farmland. We're going to
[15:16] start to see, like again, I'm looking at the folks
[15:19] who are championing this. It's not the agricultural commodity groups.
[15:22] It's the food and beverage groups. It's the chambers of
[15:24] commerce. It's members of industry. Um. It's going to be
[15:28] really difficult to grow food if the cost of farmland
[15:29] becomes prohibitive to farm it. And the third piece is
[15:33] enforcement. I don't know how you fit enforce that the
[15:42] ALC has what six bylaw officers for all the BC.
[15:48] They're in serious. Staffing shortage. We just received on table
[15:50] a, uh, very comprehensive 17 page letter from the ALC.
[15:56] And I just want to read one paragraph quickly where
[15:57] they say, um, on page one, the proposal raises serious
[16:02] concerns regarding the long - term protection of the agricultural
[16:04] land base, the viability of farming, agricultural land affordability, and
[16:09] the continuability of the ALR to fulfill its statutory purposes.
[16:12] And the commission's view, the proposed represents a significant policy
[16:16] shift that has not been supported by evidence, demonstrating the
[16:19] need for change or showing that the proposed change would
[16:22] increase agricultural production, improve farm viability, or enhanced food security
[16:26] with NBC. Uh, in addition to all that, as the
[16:30] staff report notes, um, our staff need more time to
[16:33] review what the implications would be for Delta. So for
[16:36] all those reasons, yeah, I've got a number of series
[16:38] concerns. And I'm glad that we're hopefully going to be
[16:40] sending this letter today. Thank you. Anything further. Councillor Guishong.
[16:49] Thank you Mayor Harvey. And thank you Councillor Kruger. Completely
[16:51] agree. Um, with everything you said, um, this seemed very,
[16:57] very odd to me to come forward. But I feel
[17:00] like with my expertise and those that you share with
[17:04] even the dairy farmers, it will have a very adverse
[17:07] effect on local farms and how, uh, we, we get
[17:11] food production today. Lots of speculation. Land prices will soar.
[17:15] It'll make it, as you said, so much harder for
[17:18] just everyday farmers to get a crop on the ground
[17:21] if we are proposing something, um, of this magnitude on
[17:25] potentially 50 percent of delta, which is in the ALR.
[17:30] I am absolutely here. Like there is a place for
[17:33] food processing, especially processing very local commodities. I was just
[17:40] not, not completely missing the mark. Also very glad to
[17:42] see the LC give that report very much concerns, very
[17:46] much in line with staff staff. Thank you for the
[17:47] report. Um, it was bang on. It's, it's exactly, uh,
[17:51] what I was thinking too. So thank you and very
[17:54] happy to send those concerns off. Thank you. Thank you
[17:57] for your discussion. Hey, we all just received this, uh,
[18:01] appreciate Councillor Krug has the insight to have more information
[18:05] at this time as we've had, um, appreciated his comments.
[18:10] And Councillor Guichons comments also. I just want to, I
[18:13] just shaking my head here. This discussion paper does not
[18:16] explain who will review agriculture capability assessments when or whether
[18:20] those assessments will be reviewed, how conflicting professional opinions would
[18:24] result, how ongoing compliance with the five percent sourcing threshold
[18:27] feed monitored, help cumulative impacts will be tracked. What resources
[18:30] will be dicated enforcement. And we know right now there's
[18:33] no resources to enforce it. What occurs when a facility
[18:36] fails to meet eligibility requirements after construction. Sounds like it
[18:40] was written for delta in a way. So, uh, appreciate
[18:44] all the comments. And I'll call the question, all those
[18:47] in favor. And carried. Thank you. That brings us to
[18:52] part six correspondence. The next item is 6. 1 correspondence
[18:56] from Metro Vancouver data July 27, 2026 regarding Metro 2050
[19:00] Type 3 proposed amendments, City of Vancouver, the Molson site,
[19:04] and the recommendation is that the correspondence from Metro Vancouver
[19:07] dated July 27th regarding Metro 50 Type 3 proposed amendment
[19:11] be received into the record. Move it option to the
[19:13] recommendation. Second for the comment, all those in favor and
[19:18] Carrie, Madam Clerk. Thank you. And that brings us to
[19:20] a German yourship. Council, please. Motion to adjourn. All those
[19:24] in favor and Carrie. Thank you everybody.