[6:59] Mr. Mayor, you are now live. I like to begin
[7:02] by acknowledging we're gathered here today. On the nutritional lands,
[7:05] the quest and people with the corn being present, I'd
[7:08] like to call this? Public and statutory hearing meeting to
[7:15] order at 07:00 p.m. Our first item at business is
[7:20] approval of the agenda. Do I have a mover moved
[7:23] by? Councilor stash. Seconded by councilor Finley. Any discussion? All
[7:26] in favor and opposed? None. Opposed. Motion carries. We have
[7:31] two public hearings scheduled for today, and the explanation being
[7:34] provided applies to both public hearings. All attendees are advised
[7:39] that the hearing is being live streamed and recorded with
[7:41] a copy of the recording to be posted to North
[7:44] Couch and's website following the hearing. Any written submissions received
[7:49] during the public hearing will perform part of the public
[7:52] hearing record and at the conclusion of the hearing, all
[7:54] submissions will be retained in the vault. At the municipal
[7:58] hall for permanent retention. The public are invited to examine
[8:01] the public hearing binder located outside council chambers, or they
[8:04] can examine it in electronic form on North Couchen's website.
[8:07] Triple W Northcoach, ca publicherings. I'll also note that the
[8:12] public hearing procedures in council policy states that no further
[8:15] verbal or written presentations will be received by any member
[8:18] of council following the adjournment of a public hearing. And
[8:23] the council may receive technical information from its own staff.
[8:27] The order of business for this public hearing shall be
[8:29] conducted as follows. Staff may present an introduction. And overview
[8:33] of the proposal. Council. Glen asked questions to staff. The
[8:40] applicant will be invited to speak and following this, the
[8:42] corporate officer will provide a summary of the correspondence received
[8:45] and published in tonight's agenda. We'll then invite members from.
[8:50] Invite comments from members of the public. And once there
[8:53] are no further comments from the public, I'll ask three
[8:55] times if anyone else wishes to speak. If no one
[8:58] else speaks, I'll provide staff and the applicant an opportunity
[9:01] to respond to new information or factual matters raised. Following
[9:06] this, I'll close the public hearing and we will return
[9:09] to the regular council meeting. To consider third reading and
[9:12] possible adoption of the bylaw. I'll now call the first
[9:16] public hearing to order for zoning amendment bylaw number 4037-3925.
[9:22] Couch and Lake Road at. I'll now invite Pablo Gola,
[9:28] manager, development planning, to introduce the proposal. Good
[9:38] evening, mayor and council. This presentation outlines zoning bylaw amendment
[9:42] application number ZB. Two. And the associated Zoning amendment, bylaw
[9:50] number 4037 for 3925 Calvinchen Lake Road. The subject property
[9:58] is 0.8 ha or two acres in area and currently
[10:01] contains a single family home in several agricultural buildings. The
[10:05] property is located within the agricultural land reserve. In this
[10:14] 2024 satellite image of the property we see depicted the
[10:19] building in the south end. Of the property as a
[10:21] single family dwelling, and the white building in the center
[10:24] is currently existing. Barn. The property is zoned as rural
[10:31] zone a two, which supports agricultural. Sorry, agricultural. Agricultural storage
[10:36] and greenhouse uses, among others. The rezoning application proposes a
[10:43] site specific amendment to the rural zone by permitting a
[10:46] non soil based cannabis production facility with a maximum gross
[10:50] floor area of 200, couch and lake road should the
[10:55] application not be supported by council? The applicant would be
[11:00] permitted to construct a soil based cannabis production facility on
[11:03] the property. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, council may
[11:08] consider third reading of zoning amendment by law number 4037.
[11:12] Thank you. Thank you, council. Any questions for staff? Sir.
[11:20] Councilor Kalio. Your hands up. Did you have a question
[11:23] for Steph? Sorry, mira. I forgot to take it down.
[11:29] Yeah, no problem. So I'll now invite the applicants, Megan
[11:33] Tenpenny and Shay Donald, the opportunity to present their proposal
[11:36] and to respond any questions from council.
[11:56] I think that Mike might not be on. Okay. Hello,
[12:01] mayor and council. My name is Megan Tripenning, and I'm
[12:04] the owner. Of 3925 couch and Lake Road, along with
[12:06] my husband, Shay Donald. Tonight I'm going to summarize the
[12:10] neighborhood engagement that we undertook what we heard and return
[12:13] back to the matter at hand. Land use. Since our
[12:18] first and second reading, we became aware of organized opposition
[12:21] to our proposal in the neighborhood. Despite our neighbor's suggestions
[12:24] that this group meet with us, that did not occur.
[12:27] Even so, we undertook our engagement as planned, first and
[12:31] foremost. Our objective was relationship building. We want people to
[12:35] know who we are, how to reach us, and to
[12:38] be accountable if issues arise now or in the future.
[12:41] If this was to be approved, we doorknocked. There we
[12:46] go. We door knock to every property within 300 meters
[12:49] of our site. We provided written information on the zoning
[12:53] amendment, how to reach us. Supplemental information on a website,
[12:58] including the site plans, an invitation to an open house,
[13:02] and information on this public hearing as well. When people
[13:05] were available, we stayed, we talked, we answered questions, and
[13:09] when they were not available. We left information. We hosted
[13:13] an open house at Vimmie hall on January 13 from
[13:16] five to eight. People attended. Which represented five households. Our
[13:22] immediate neighbors were in attendance. What we heard fell into
[13:26] three broad buckets. Folks who were supportive, neither supportive or
[13:29] unsupportive or unsupportive of our proposal. Folks who were supportive,
[13:34] regularly categorized this as farm use, and they expressed appreciation
[13:38] for local agricultural businesses. Those who. Are neither supportive or
[13:46] unsupportive, had questions that we could answer and address or
[13:50] they were very unconcerned with what we do on our
[13:51] own property. Folks who were unsupportive tended to have two
[13:56] main types of concerns. The first related to potential nuisances
[14:00] sound. Light. Smell and traffic. These we discussed in our
[14:07] first and second reading, and we shared our plans with
[14:09] our neighbors to mitigate these concerns. Also to be compliant
[14:14] with Health Canada, we have to ameliorate smell. Traffic is
[14:19] not expected to increase as a result of this project
[14:21] because this is going to be a business to business
[14:23] farm operation and not retail. The second bucket of concerns
[14:29] has to do with the unknown. Things like. Pressures of
[14:34] development in the area, things like property values. And what
[14:38] would happen if Shay and I were to leave. I
[14:41] know that change is uncomfortable, and I appreciate that. But
[14:45] that turns us back to the matter. At hand today.
[14:49] Land use and what materially changes with this zoning amendment.
[14:53] At its core, this amendment doesn't add any new land
[14:56] use to our property. Under the Agricultural Land Reserve Use
[15:05] Regulations, cannabis production is recognized as farm use. And soil
[15:11] based cannabis production may not be prohibited by municipalities by
[15:15] the ALC act as the staff report points out, without
[15:19] any zoning amendment. A soil based cannabis facility is allowable
[15:25] on the property today, along with any associated impacts. Separately.
[15:31] The property is a two zoned, which allows greenhouses as
[15:34] it is a permitted use. The staff report. That if
[15:38] we are growing a different crop, we could build the
[15:40] structure that we've proposed. Without any amendment. What we're requesting
[15:45] is a more constrained and more regulated version of what's
[15:49] already permitted by allowing these two existing permissions combined in
[15:54] a way that allows greater environmental control. It allows for
[16:00] improved mitigation of odor, light, sound, and site management. As
[16:05] noted in the staff report, this is a gothic arch
[16:08] style greenhouse. It's going to replace an existing barn. It
[16:11] adheres with a two zoning regulations. It's crop agnostic and
[16:16] it fits with the rural agricultural character of the area.
[16:20] Councils not being asked to approve a new activity. Council
[16:24] is being asked to regulate form and not function for
[16:27] agricultural use. That's already permitted on this site. In summary,
[16:33] this is an agricultural project. First. As noted in the
[16:39] staff report, given our soil capability, a structure such as
[16:43] a greenhouse is needed. To support a viable farm operation.
[16:47] This aligns with the intent of a two zoning and
[16:50] the official community plan. The risks and impacts associated with
[16:55] this project and the impacts and risks you'll hear about.
[16:58] Today. Already exist on our property. This amendment does not
[17:03] materially change the underlying land use. It allows better managed
[17:07] and more predictable use of our property. And finally, Shay
[17:13] and I live here. We're members of this community, and
[17:16] we value positive. Relationships with our neighbors. This area has
[17:20] gone through a lot of change in a short period
[17:22] of time, and we're committed to listening, adapting and managing
[17:27] responsibly with the mitigation measures that we've already budgeted and.
[17:32] Planned for. We believe that we can have a viable
[17:36] agricultural operation and maintain the rural character that brought many
[17:40] of us to this area in the first place. I
[17:43] ask you to please pass the third reading of this
[17:46] bylaw. And many things from myself and Shay and potato.
[17:52] We weren't sure how this worked, so I just have
[17:54] a separate thing that I'm. Speaking to, basically. Good evening,
[17:57] mayor and council. My name is Shay Donald, along with
[18:00] Megan Terpenning. I'm the owner and applicant and 3925 couch
[18:03] in Lake Road. And I'm here tonight to speak in
[18:05] support of our agricultural project. When we purchase this property,
[18:11] we did so with the intent of pursuing our dreams
[18:14] of developing the agricultural capacity of the land we are
[18:17] stewards on. The staff report concludes the proposal aligns with
[18:21] the OCP policies for this area. It has been reviewed
[18:25] through several agricultural channels. The agricultural advisory committee identified no
[18:29] concerns. The Agricultural Land Commission approved our NOI for the
[18:34] soil and concrete work, an explicitly noted cannabis in that
[18:38] approval. Finally, the Cowich and Agricultural society found the proposal,
[18:42] quote, generally consistent with local agricultural practices and not likely
[18:46] to be detrimental to farming in the kawachian valley. Our
[18:51] greenhouse structure is a standard design that is seen across
[18:54] the valley on many farms growing a wide variety of
[18:56] crops. Provincially. The ALC has stated that cannabis is an
[19:01] allowable farm use since 2019. I attended a cannabis conference
[19:05] this week where the BC Minister of Agriculture, Honorable Lena
[19:09] Popham, had a fireside chat in front of a room
[19:12] full of cannabis producers from BC, where she repeatedly stated
[19:16] that the provincial government views cannabis production as agriculture. Around
[19:21] the same time, the province expanded eligibility under its agriculture
[19:25] and food export program so that cannabis producers, processors and
[19:28] associations can apply for subsidies and grants from the Ministry
[19:31] of Agriculture. I'd like to summarize this with three words.
[19:36] Cannabis is agriculture. Experts across multiple fields, including municipal staff,
[19:42] have confirmed that in the information package, the core question
[19:46] before council is straightforward. Does this zoning amendment introduce a
[19:51] new land use, or does it regulate an existing agricultural
[19:54] use in a more controlled way. We believe it's the
[19:57] latter. The staff report highlights that under the current zoning
[20:01] as a soil based cannabis facility could be built on
[20:04] this property without this amendment. It also states that the
[20:08] exact greenhouse structure we're proposing could be built for another
[20:10] crop without this amendment. So what is actually changing? It's
[20:14] not. The land use, and it's not the agricultural nature
[20:17] of the site. The amendment allows a non soil base
[20:21] for a limited, site specific greenhouse. That's it. Some of
[20:26] what we heard, both in engagement and in the written
[20:28] submissions, isn't really about setbacks or sighting or policy. It's
[20:33] a broader discomfort with the crop itself. Council isn't being
[20:38] asked to make a value judgment about cannabis. Cannabis is
[20:42] a legal, highly regulated agricultural crop. Recognized in law and
[20:46] policy. Some neighbors have argued that this area is too
[20:49] residential for this kind of greenhouse. With respect, this is
[20:53] farmland. The surrounding parcels are a two and we are
[20:57] all quite firmly in the Alr homes and farms coexist
[21:01] here by design. And on top of this, many of
[21:04] our neighbors currently enjoy the privileges of farm status from
[21:07] BC assessment. So ask mayor and council. Why should they
[21:11] get to have it both ways? If the standard becomes
[21:14] agriculture, it's fine until someone nearby doesn't like the crop.
[21:17] Or building, it becomes very hard to protect the agricultural
[21:21] land base in any meaningful way. Many of the concerns
[21:25] you've heard go beyond the specifics of this application. They
[21:29] touch on broader worries about change, trust, and how different
[21:32] forms of agriculture can coexist. Those concerns are real and
[21:36] we don't dismiss them. Megan has already outlined the engagement
[21:39] work we did. Part of this process included having a
[21:42] four foot by eight foot sign at the front of
[21:44] our property with a phone number and email on it.
[21:46] For months. Despite that, we received exactly one inbound phone
[21:50] call, and it was not from the group that we
[21:52] found out later had organized opposition. Most of the conversations
[21:56] we had happened because we reached out directly. In those
[22:01] conversations, the majority of people were either supportive or neutral.
[22:04] A small group chose to organize privately and work through
[22:07] concerns without ever contacting us. But I'd like to guide
[22:12] us back and finish with the key point. This amendment
[22:16] isn't about us. It's about land use on agricultural land,
[22:21] cannabis production. Is unequivocally farm use, and this is alr
[22:25] farmland. A two zoning permits. Greenhouses, including the one we've
[22:29] proposed. The decision tonight combines those two uses in a
[22:33] responsible way that complies with council's. Policies. We respectfully ask
[22:37] that you support this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. I'm
[22:40] going to turn to council. Any questions for the proponents
[22:45] councilor Finley? Just a simple question. So the only reason
[22:50] that you're really before us is because the soil might
[22:52] not be very good, and you need to. Basically do
[22:56] non soil. And I can direct you to an agrologist
[23:00] report that we had conducted to that effect. As well.
[23:04] Yeah. Thank you. Any additional questions from council. So I
[23:08] do have a couple of questions based on some of
[23:10] the feedback we've heard. From the residents to date. So
[23:13] two of them that did stand out for me were,
[23:15] with regards to the noise and the odors. So with
[23:19] the noise, we have heard concerns about the ventilation. System
[23:23] and the odor controlling fans, it would be in a
[23:25] facility like this and then also. The odor, which I
[23:29] think a lot of folks who live on alr properties,
[23:31] they do expect a certain level of odor associated that
[23:35] whether it's animal manure or the smell of diesel from
[23:38] farm equipment. But with cannabis, there is that pungent odor,
[23:42] which I don't think is entirely. Subjective. There are chemical
[23:46] components of it that explain why it has that very
[23:49] strong odor, that many find offensive. And my understanding is
[23:53] that even with the Health Canada regulations, It can be
[23:57] challenging to control the odor and. Wonder if you could
[24:00] comment on both of those issues and what steps you've
[24:03] taken to address it with the proposed facility. Yeah, when
[24:06] we were speaking with our neighbors. We've been working for
[24:09] the sound. There's a very long report that I've downloaded.
[24:14] It's like 20 pages long. Because this comes up not
[24:16] only for greenhouses, but also for things like chicken barns
[24:20] and cow barns, where you have big ventilation fans, which
[24:24] can be grading and so there's a number of things
[24:27] from sound perspective, including actual physical barriers. But oversizing the
[24:34] fans. For example, I've reached out to the manufacturer of
[24:37] this greenhouse. That we're hoping to build, and I've asked
[24:40] them about the CFM that we need and so that
[24:44] we can oversize the fans, because essentially, if you have
[24:47] a bigger fan running slower. It's a lot quieter on
[24:51] top of that. We would also have their variable frequency
[24:56] drives. It's called. So essentially, the fans wouldn't be running.
[25:00] On full bore. Click off. Full bore off. They would
[25:05] be very tapered and only respond to the demands of
[25:09] the cooling in the greenhouse. From the odor perspective. I've
[25:12] been reaching out to several different companies. This is a
[25:14] known thing that's happened or it's a known issue that
[25:18] comes up with cannabis production. Of any form. And so
[25:22] they do exist. Commercial options to help reduce that smell.
[25:26] The one that we're investigating most seriously. That fits. Our
[25:28] budget is essentially some sort of machine that. It treats
[25:33] the air with uv light. It kills microbes and also
[25:36] gets rid of the volatile. Organic compounds, they're called. This
[25:39] company is based down in California because obviously there's a
[25:41] lot of this down in California. So that one has
[25:44] been budgeted in. And we also have. Other options for
[25:49] the exhaust, including the one we had mentioned at the
[25:51] last meeting, which is the activated carbon, which is the
[25:55] most common one used. Thank you, Councilor Hogg. One quick
[26:02] question about the odor. So even if this did not
[26:05] go through, you can still grow marijuana and you'd still
[26:08] have odor. And in that case, actually, If we were
[26:14] to go in a soil based then under the classifications
[26:17] of Health Canada, we'd, be considered outdoor, and there would
[26:19] be no recourse and we would be fully I would
[26:23] think under the Al. ALC protected by the right to
[26:26] Farm act, which they have had multiple complaints for. What's?
[26:29] Considered outdoor cannabis come up in the Kootenes and other
[26:32] areas, and they've routinely struck that down and said that
[26:35] that falls under right to farm protections. What we're proposing
[26:39] actually is the only version of this that has any
[26:41] sort of recourse that's. My understanding, so. You are able
[26:46] to control the order better than if you did a
[26:48] soil based that you are. Allowed to do right now.
[26:51] Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. See no further questions
[26:55] from council. Thanks for the overview of your application. Thank
[27:00] you, mayor. And council. Thank you. So now invite the
[27:03] corporate officer to provide a summary of the correspondence received
[27:06] and published in tonight's. Agenda. Thank you, mayor. So notice
[27:10] of this public hearing was posted to North Kawichin's. Notice
[27:13] board and website on the 2 January 2026, advertised on
[27:18] social media on 2 January 2026 and published in the
[27:22] couch. And Valley Citizen on the 14 January 2026. All
[27:27] correspondents received has been provided to council, circulated in an
[27:31] addendum and posted to North Couchen's website. Printed copies are
[27:35] available in the public hearing information package that is located
[27:38] in the binder outside of council chambers for anyone here
[27:41] today who hasn't seen them and would like to read.
[27:43] The full submissions. Total of 29 written submissions have been
[27:48] received. 17 were in support of the zoning amendment, eleven
[27:53] were opposed, and one contained comments. Just a second, mayor.
[27:58] There was one other thing. So there was one additional.
[28:13] Late piece of submission that was received after the 01:00
[28:15] p.m. cut off. Today. I'd like to read it into
[28:18] the record now, if that's okay with you. Mr. Mayor.
[28:21] It's fairly short. Thank you. Please do. So this email
[28:26] is from Leslie Daw, D a W. It's a follow
[28:30] up from her December 15 email, which she just learned
[28:34] that was not included in the town hall package. I
[28:38] wish to express our firm opposition to this proposed amendment.
[28:41] While we believe Shay and Meghan genuinely hope to alleviate.
[28:46] Our concerns around the noxious odor. Beacon strength, lighting and
[28:50] ventilation and heating needed for a sizable commercial enterprise. It
[28:55] is simply not possible. On a small acreage. With neighbors
[28:57] in such close proximity, we are very supportive of local
[29:00] farming. Operations. However, not all properties are suitable when there
[29:04] is no means to mitigate nuisance scenarios. Our home on
[29:08] couch. And Lake Road has been a small time farming
[29:11] oasis, and I would hope to be able to continue
[29:14] to enjoy it as such. Please don't let this become
[29:17] an intense industrial zone. Respectfully. Leslie daw, Paul Keller. Thank
[29:21] you, mayor. Thank you. I'll now invite the public to
[29:25] share their comments. Each speaker will have an initial three
[29:28] minute maximum to speak, followed by additional turns as needed.
[29:32] The public is asked to clearly state their name and
[29:34] address for the public record. So, would anyone like to
[29:38] step forward to the podium and speak on this application?
[29:42] Yes, sir. Please come to the podium state. Your name
[29:47] and address and you get three minutes. Oh, if you
[29:50] want to hit the button there for the mic. Apologies.
[29:57] Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Stephen Panicook.
[30:01] I and my wife live at 3935 Couch and Lake
[30:04] Road. My wife and I are direct neighbors, sharing a
[30:07] property line with the proposed site. I want to be
[30:10] clear. Our presence here isn't about opposing the property. Owners
[30:13] personally, we believe this is the case. Of the right
[30:16] people, but the wrong location. On this small two acre
[30:20] parcel. There are physical constraints that simply cannot be mitigated
[30:24] for an industrial scale greenhouse. I'll speak to policy violations.
[30:29] This amendment is for a non soil based production. Your
[30:32] own. Alr non soil based cannabis production policy states these
[30:36] facilities should be a minimum of 150 meters from public
[30:40] parkland or public use. However, the adjacent public trail and
[30:44] parkland are less than 100 meters from this site on
[30:47] a two acre lot. There is no room to move
[30:49] this building to fix this. Furthermore. OCP number 3900 focuses
[30:55] on protecting our rural character and dark skies. This facility
[30:59] requires high powered fans running twenty four seven and can
[31:02] require up to 18 hours of intense light. In our
[31:07] quiet rural setting. This creates a constant industrial and sky
[31:10] glow that disrupts the peace and local wildlife. I also
[31:14] speak to you tonight as a first responder, I'm regularly
[31:17] exposed to high stress environments. And my home is my
[31:20] only sanctuary to decompress and remain fit for duty. The
[31:24] introduction of 24/7 industrial noise and pungent odors on my
[31:28] property line directly threatens the peace and my ability to
[31:31] serve the community effectively. Finally. We must address public safety.
[31:36] This property is in development permit area number four interface
[31:40] while fire hazard. Non soil based production requires massive industrial
[31:44] electrical loads. Introducing that power into a high risk wildfire.
[31:48] Zone is an unnecessary gamble. A structure fire here involving
[31:52] pesticides and fertili. Fertilizers would pose a specialized toxic smoke
[31:56] risk to my family and trail users. In closing the
[32:01] a two zone already allows for soil based farming. This
[32:04] amendment asked to industrialize a small lot that has no
[32:07] room for the required buffers to protect public parkland or
[32:10] my home. I respectfully urge council to uphold its own
[32:13] policies and deny zoning amendment by law. Thank you. Thank
[32:19] you. Would anyone else like to step forward and speak
[32:22] this application? Yes. Please come up to the podium.
[32:33] My name is Naomi Paulula. I live at 1433 Thompson
[32:36] Terrace. I've known Shay. And Megan for quite a long
[32:39] time, and I know that they bought land on the
[32:40] airlr. Specifically to farm, and this proposal is in service
[32:44] to that long term plan. It is an agricultural use
[32:46] of agricultural land. I have also seen firsthand the effort
[32:55] they have put into being open and communicative. With their
[32:57] neighbors and the community. And the commitment that they have
[33:00] to their community. This proposal has nothing to do with
[33:04] whether or not cannabis can be grown on this property
[33:06] as part of the ALR. A soil based operation is
[33:09] already permitted, as we have noted, as is a large
[33:13] greenhouse. Facility. Farm uses of farmland come with farm impacts,
[33:20] fertilizers, animal sounds and smells and use of fur machinery
[33:23] are all a part of farming and include a lot
[33:25] of the same kinds of issues. As we've spoken about
[33:28] tonight, a nonsale based greenhouse, as proposed, offers greater ability
[33:33] for the mitigation of potential effects like smell and light.
[33:38] As well as greater control and productivity in a changing
[33:40] climate. This is a crop ambiguous structure that can be
[33:44] used to grow other plants, and you can see examples
[33:46] of the same kind of structure. At dinternursery. I have
[33:49] a single income family, and a small scale agricultural operation
[33:53] like this can offer opportunities for flexible, seasonal work that
[33:56] can help families like mine make ends meet. I am
[34:00] strongly in support of the proposed amendment. Thank you for
[34:02] your time. Thank you. Would anyone else like to come
[34:07] forward? Yes. If you come up the podium, state your
[34:08] name and. Address. Is this on? Yeah, it's
[34:18] on. Yeah. Afternoon. My name is Lou McKay. I live
[34:22] at 30 911 Lake Couch and road. I'm directly alongside.
[34:28] She and Megan. I say the same fence line. I
[34:30] share the same concerns that Steve has on the other
[34:33] side of him. They say this is their dream, but
[34:36] it's destroying ours. With the light and the noise. I
[34:42] know they're allowed to can of this forehead. It's not
[34:44] the council's. Fault, and it's a lr's fault. But. I'm
[34:50] just totally against. An industrial cannabis facility coming next door
[34:54] to me. If they put. It in. They're only 50
[35:00] meters. 100ft from our host. Well, actually, a little bit.
[35:03] Farther. And that is not going to be comfortable. Thank
[35:09] you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to come forward?
[35:15] Snipe, come to the podium. State your name and. Address.
[35:19] Hi. My name. Is. I'm deeply troubled. My name is
[35:28] Verna Bueller. And. I live across the road from Shay
[35:37] and Megan. Actually our driveways. Lou driveway and ours are
[35:46] directly opposite and therefore. They are just a few feet.
[35:51] To the west. Thank you. First of all, Mayor and
[35:58] council members for this opportunity to speak. About this issue.
[36:06] Of the bylaw. Normally, I vote for counsel and then
[36:11] trust. Wise decisions will be made. However. Although I have
[36:17] read through the official community plan. In the past. I.
[36:25] Slowly reread it several times during this week. I take
[36:29] to heart. That in this document, the municipality states and
[36:35] believes. Continual communication with the community. Will ensure that leadership
[36:43] understands the passions, contributions and happiness of the people living
[36:49] in this unique valley. Thereby. When members of the municipality
[36:55] speak, the council is enabled to make better decisions moving
[37:00] forward. Toward the actualization of the commendable mission statements in
[37:05] the document. Because of this. I'm addressing you this evening.
[37:12] I am Vernabuler. At the address previously stated of 390
[37:19] eight couch and Lake Road. And I have taken. To
[37:25] my address, the north couch and title as well, instead
[37:28] of Duncan. Thank you for that opportunity. The above property
[37:33] belonging to Shay and Megan is located at 39 25.
[37:37] As you've already heard several times. And we in the
[37:46] same light as the two previous speakers. Are direct neighbors.
[37:51] We're just across the road. We're intensely opposed to the
[37:58] rezoning amendment and ask that the Council of North Couch
[38:01] and rejects this proposal. This commercial business will change the
[38:07] rural neighborhood from a healthy, green community of families who
[38:13] value clean air and healthy food. Growing practices to one
[38:18] that produces a product well known to cause harm. We're
[38:24] at time, but once everyone else has had a chance
[38:25] to speak. I'm out of time. Yeah, but once everyone
[38:29] has had a chance to speak on it, you can
[38:31] come back and offer additional comments, but the idea, because
[38:34] I wasn't. You can come back after everyone's had a
[38:37] chance to speak. Everyone gets three minutes first time up.
[38:42] Would anyone else like to come forward? Yes. To come
[38:44] up to the podium, state your name and. Address. This
[38:51] is already on. Three minutes. We can go fast. All
[38:57] right. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for having me here.
[38:59] My name is Jacqueline Boyd. I am not a farmer.
[39:04] I don't know much about agriculture. I'm a leadership. Development
[39:06] consultant for a professional services firm. But I do know
[39:09] Megan and Shay very well. We bought our respective homes
[39:12] here around the same time. In the summer of 2021,
[39:18] we both moved here with dreams. My husband and I
[39:20] moved here to start and raise a family, which we
[39:22] were graciously allowed, permitted to do physically. September of 2024.
[39:27] We welcomed our first daughter, and Megan and Shane moved
[39:30] here with their dream to farm. To start a farm.
[39:34] That is why they thoughtfully. And carefully purchased their home
[39:37] on agriculturally zoned land. I'm going off script here because
[39:41] I'm just really driven right now to share. With you
[39:44] what I know about Megan Shah here. They are not
[39:47] only really good friends to us, they're family. And since
[39:51] we've met them. We have known. One thing about them,
[39:54] without a doubt in the mind, is that. They are
[39:57] passionate about farming and agriculture. They care for the land,
[40:00] they care for their neighbors and they are community members
[40:03] here. I want to emphasize how thoughtfully. Incredibly responsible. These
[40:10] people are with deep roots. Megan's parents recently even moved
[40:13] here and bought a home just to be closer to
[40:15] them because they believe in the life and future that
[40:17] this family is building here. Their whole life is woven
[40:21] into this community. They shop locally, they support local business,
[40:25] they show up. At pride and support in other parts
[40:27] of the community. Megan and I regularly volunteer together at
[40:30] the couch and basket society where she also donates food
[40:33] grown on her property. She makes Christmas cookies and delivers
[40:39] them to her neighbors. Every year she bakes pies with
[40:42] fruit grown from their property. I have no doubt in
[40:45] my mind that they care very much about. What is
[40:48] the impact that they are trying to do to their
[40:50] neighbors? And that is seen in how they've outlined their
[40:53] engagement. With the community. I'm also here to just strongly
[40:58] support this greenhouse project as a person who's moved here
[41:02] to start their family. I believe in what this community
[41:05] can achieve if we. Support projects like this that embody
[41:10] the ground level entrepreneurial spirit that helps small communities thrive.
[41:14] They represent the kind of innovation and resilience that keeps
[41:17] our agricultural sector alive. It's important to note that this
[41:21] proposal has been carefully designed to stay in line with
[41:24] the rural character of the area. It is not something
[41:28] that will dramatically change the agricultural landscape as the question
[41:32] outlined. They are completely permitted to be growing cannabis in
[41:37] an agricultural structure on soil based land here, so. The
[41:40] question of odor and sound is mute. If they're able
[41:44] to do that, regardless of the amendment. I'm excited at
[41:53] the potential that this project has to lift up our
[41:56] community, to bring new business and new opportunities for employment.
[41:59] As Naomi earlier mentioned, as their sources of income, you
[42:02] can come back up again if you like. Thank you
[42:05] so much. Thanks. Would anyone else like to come forward
[42:10] to the podium? And speak on this application. Mayor, just
[42:16] so you know, there is one person in the large
[42:18] committee room as well. So when you're ready, I can
[42:20] have them come over. Sure. After this gentleman, we'll bring.
[42:23] That person over, then. Thank you. If you can state
[42:25] your name and address. My name is Greg. Turpenning. I
[42:29] live at 4367 Baines Mill Road, North Kauchen. I'm Megan's.
[42:35] Father and Shay's father in law. And as Jacqueline mentioned
[42:39] a second ago, my wife and I actually moved to
[42:41] North Kawichan in order to support our our daughter and
[42:45] our son. In law. In running a farm. Because. The
[42:51] little experience I've had in that which I did have
[42:53] early in life. Says it's a lot of work. Listening
[42:58] tonight, listening to some of the statements that people have
[43:01] made expressing opposition, I really do appreciate that they plot
[43:04] this through, and I think they've really tried to ground
[43:07] it and that makes a lot of sense to me.
[43:11] But still, the fact remains that I think the application.
[43:16] Is very valid. Their proposal for what they're going to
[43:20] do. Is very realistic. And if you agree to this,
[43:25] then the question arises, then what happens? And what kind
[43:30] of people. Would they be if, in fact, they did
[43:33] receive complaints from their neighbors? What you've seen tonight was
[43:37] the two of them, the presentation and the support that
[43:39] they've had from friends. Is a pretty good indicator. Of
[43:43] the kind of response that they will give to those
[43:47] if there are odors, if there's noise issues if they
[43:49] can be mitigated in any way. Shay and Meghan understand
[43:54] how that can actually be done. They understand the mechanics
[43:56] of this, and they are committed to working with their
[44:00] neighbors and working in a community. In a community that
[44:03] they've deliberately chosen and that they very much love and
[44:06] so do we, and that will make this work. And
[44:12] I think it's a nature of their character more than
[44:15] anything else. That is once, hopefully, you, mayor and counsel.
[44:21] Pass this. Will make this actually work and function properly
[44:25] as time goes by. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[44:30] If you come up to the podium, state your name
[44:32] and address. Man from the back. I'm so sorry.
[44:42] Because you came from the large committee room. Yeah. You
[44:44] were next. Yeah. Okay. Hello. My name is Jane Wharton.
[44:49] I live at 3972 Satlam Road, our property. Also includes
[44:54] 3940 Satlam Road, which is directly behind. The Shane Megan's
[45:01] property. Our family was part. Connected. And was part of
[45:09] the conversations with community members who were concerned about this.
[45:14] Proposal, and we take our neighbor's concern seriously. And so
[45:18] we're listening and talking with them. And then when we
[45:22] met, she and Megan, we asked them about some other
[45:25] concerns, and in particular, Around light pollution. Was something that
[45:30] we were worried about. Even though it would be permitted,
[45:33] we wanted to know what their plans were. And also
[45:36] about the size of the operation, because. Larger industrial growth
[45:43] can have more of an odor. Two pieces that I
[45:47] think maybe haven't come out tonight in the presentation as
[45:51] much is that the size of this is actually significantly
[45:54] smaller than some of the industrial growth cannabis operations that
[45:58] we have in the valley where there is odor that
[46:00] extends longer. So that greatly reduced my concern. And their
[46:05] plans. To have shade, which will shave cloth, which will
[46:09] prevent light pollution through the night, which can have a
[46:12] real impact on the environment as well as on people's
[46:15] abilities to sleep. So those two concerns, as well as
[46:19] the extremely. Proactive way that they were engaging with community
[46:23] members really mitigated any concerns that we had. And I
[46:29] want to reinforce as we also are on Alr land,
[46:32] we farmed on our kind of crappy soil on and
[46:35] off for the last 18 years. Can't always maintain farm
[46:38] status, it is hard for young farmers to make a
[46:41] go of it. This is an agricultural community. It is
[46:44] really important that we support farmers to farm on agricultural
[46:47] land. And I believe that this kind of proposal is
[46:51] more likely to be viable than many other crops. Which
[46:54] could be grown. So I'm excited to see this kind
[46:56] of work happening in the community, and it's hard to
[46:58] stand up. And oppose my neighbor's concerns because. Relationships really
[47:05] matter in our community. But I also trust that Shane,
[47:09] Megan. Will mitigate any concerns that are brought to them.
[47:15] Thank you very much. Thank you. Come to the podium.
[47:19] State your name and address. Hello. My name is Brittany
[47:25] Foot. I actually didn't plan on speaking on this, but
[47:28] as someone who grew up on 3975 Kawichan Lake Road,
[47:32] as well as three nine five. Couch and Lake Road.
[47:35] I'm a third generation. My family is the foot family,
[47:42] third generation of living there on that property, and I
[47:45] just wanted to say that my parents reached out to
[47:48] me and they wanted me to offer their support to
[47:51] this. They had a thoughtful conversation with Shay and Megan,
[47:56] and they expressed. Any concerns to my parents that people
[48:01] may have, and they are very much in favor of
[48:04] this. To go through, so thank you, council. I hope
[48:06] you consider that. Thank you. Would anyone else like to
[48:11] step forward? See if you can see your name and
[48:15] address. My name is David Van Daventer. I live at
[48:23] 1727 Robert street in Crofton. I am the president of
[48:27] the Duncan Couch and Chamber of Commerce, and I appear
[48:29] before you tonight on their behalf and our 644 member
[48:33] businesses in the couch and valley. We are a business.
[48:38] Oriented organization. We will always support business. In all its
[48:43] many forms, agricultural business included. I did have a brief
[48:47] conversation with Shay last week. Found him to be a
[48:51] very intelligent young man. Really seems to know what they're
[48:54] doing. I would like to remind people. As they come
[49:01] up to make more comments. We're not here to debate
[49:04] cannabis. As a crop. We're not here to create, to
[49:09] debate the efficacy of cannabis. We're not here to debate
[49:12] whether or not you should be allowed to grow it.
[49:14] What we're. Here to debate is simply. The way in
[49:19] which it's going to be grown. I would remind you,
[49:22] and as has been reminded if. They decide to move
[49:27] ahead with a soil based cannabis operation and be outdoor.
[49:31] You're going to smell it, and there's not a thing
[49:34] you could do to stop it. So it makes sense
[49:37] to me if they're going to grow it anyways, they
[49:40] might. As well grow it in a greenhouse and be
[49:41] able to mitigate. The odors. I find it interesting that.
[49:50] The word being used to describe this greenhouse is industrial.
[49:55] It's a greenhouse. It's an agricultural production unit on agricultural
[50:00] land. If we don't support agriculture, then why are we
[50:04] here? So just in short, the Duncan couch and chamber
[50:12] and it's 644 member businesses strongly. Support. This rezoning application.
[50:17] Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments on this application?
[50:25] We go to second round now? Yeah. Please step up
[50:27] to the podium. Mayor, can I just remind you to
[50:36] perhaps put a call out to some online? There's about
[50:39] 22 people on there, too. After you. That's fine. I
[50:45] just want to remind you I will speak. Much more
[50:47] quickly. And I apologize for that. Okay. So I think
[50:55] I left off saying that. We were immediate neighbors. Of
[51:02] Shay and Megan's if across the road. Is considered immediate.
[51:08] I believe it is. The commercial business will change the
[51:13] rural neighborhood from a healthy green community. Of families who
[51:18] value clean air and healthy food growing practices to one
[51:22] that produces a product well known to cause harm to
[51:25] society. I know I'm not supposed to say that. Yeah.
[51:29] Okay. I know. The prevailing wind is from the direction
[51:34] of 39 25, couch and lake property. And the skunk
[51:38] lake stench will intensely and thoroughly invade our two acre
[51:43] gordon irrespective of the efforts. Of Meghan and Shay. It
[51:49] will settle heavily in the hollow, the lower level area
[51:53] in the back half of our property and also in
[51:55] that of our neighbors. It will smother our property. This
[52:00] unpleasant odor will destroy the work we have done over
[52:02] the period of 15 years to create a garden with
[52:05] pleasant, refreshing and soothing fragrances throughout the year. When guests
[52:10] arrive to a yard often to visit the gardens. One
[52:13] of the most frequent comments we hear is how fragrant
[52:15] the yard is and how wonderful and restorative. Those scents
[52:20] can be. Just this morning, though, and I've added this
[52:24] from the letter that I'd sent. I received information that
[52:27] might be interesting to the North Couch and council as
[52:29] well from April 21. To the 26th of this year
[52:34] in 2026, an international garden convention is taking place on
[52:39] the island, the couch and Valley Road. At Edmund society
[52:42] initiated the conversation. That the American Rotandron Society Spring Convention
[52:49] 26 should be held in the couch and valley however.
[52:53] Our valley does not have the facilities and accommodation to
[52:56] host such a large event. Nor does it have a
[53:00] public garden. So the base of this convention will be
[53:04] held in qualicum? Beach. However, as this valley is prime.
[53:11] Garden growing area. As part of the convention, the couch
[53:15] and valley is offering a garden tour of three private
[53:18] gardens lunch and several other stops on Thursday, April 23.
[53:24] This morning we were told that within three days of
[53:27] registration opening the couch and valley tour portion has almost
[53:31] reached its participation. Limit our garden at 39 eight Couch
[53:36] and Lake Road is a garden open to these international
[53:39] and local guests. It has also been open in the
[53:43] past for charitable fundraising efforts for nonprofit organizations. This year's
[53:49] public time again. But you know, you'll get another opportunity.
[53:52] Can I have. My next turn now. There's a gentleman
[53:55] behind you there, but there are some online participants, and
[53:58] I don't. See them with their hands up, but I
[54:01] should give them an opportunity to weigh in. So I'll
[54:04] ask you online participants, would anyone like. To speak on
[54:08] this application before us. Yeah, I don't see any hands
[54:13] raised. All right, so go back to the gallery, ma'am,
[54:19] if you want to come up for. A third round.
[54:23] I'll speak even faster. And now I see a timer.
[54:26] Here. Thank you. Oh, God. Where? Was I? Okay, I
[54:31] was talking about this convention that's coming up, right? Wasn't
[54:34] I. So I'm not ready to start, but I will.
[54:37] Oh, shoot. I have. Here. I'll start over again. You
[54:40] ready now? Okay. The couch, and valley is offering a
[54:47] garden tour of three private gardens, lunch and several other
[54:51] stops on Thursday, April 23. This morning we were told
[54:54] that. Oh, I did that, that. Was in the three
[54:58] days. Registration was almost full for this tour in our
[55:01] valley. These are international. Guests. They're coming. Recognized names from
[55:05] the other side of Canada. And the us as well.
[55:11] So this year's public tours in April and May of
[55:14] our garden may be the last. Available to the community
[55:17] as skunk is not what guests come to experience. We
[55:23] propagate, grow and care for rotodenins intended for the couch
[55:25] and Valley Roadodenza society. We knew no pesticides. Everything's organic.
[55:30] The variety of rotodendrons in our garden provide cuttings for
[55:34] the society. There are those that aren't available. In a
[55:39] commercial market, and there's no profit for my husband and
[55:43] myself in doing so. She see that he does not
[55:47] even like roadodendrance. But we know that the people in
[55:50] this community do at the CBRS plant. Plant sale at
[55:54] the hub last spring. Oh, God. In all, 120 rhododendrons
[55:59] were sold within 45 minutes of opening our gates. Furthermore.
[56:03] Furthermore, the order will be a minute by minute sad
[56:07] and depressing reminder to me of the ruin of. I
[56:10] know I'm not supposed to do this. Young people's lives.
[56:12] That I witnessed as a secondary schoolteacher. Scientific studies of
[56:16] the negative effects of cannabis. Are dwell on developing brains
[56:19] of young people under the age of 25 as well
[56:21] documented. Okay, I can go on in that. But should
[56:25] the municipality not actively encourage activ. Active crop production programs,
[56:31] should it not? Decrease, avoid and decrease the practices that
[56:35] distract from the health, from the mission statements. I think
[56:38] it does say that. How could you justify anything else?
[56:42] Sorry. Science direct explains the carbon footprint of indoor cannabis
[56:47] production. One. Oh, my goodness. Okay, I'm going to skip.
[56:50] You have all that done, all that research, I'm sure.
[56:53] Right. It's. Right up there. In terms of the carbon
[56:56] footprint. One average kilogram of final product. Oh, gosh. Indoor
[57:03] cannabis culturation requires eight times more. Energy per square foot
[57:06] than a typical commercial building, four times more than the
[57:08] hospital, 18 times more. Than average whole 3 million. Cores
[57:13] to maintain either. Then I'm talking about the HVAC equipment
[57:17] and. The constant noise. So waste. Intense artificial light. It
[57:25] will destroy the effects of blazing lights for 18 hours
[57:27] of 24 hours, days. Of 24 hours per day is
[57:30] frightening for the neighbors of the community. What were one's
[57:33] quiet, dark evenings or relaxation, as Steve mentioned. On the
[57:38] deck where we could sit in the dork and identify
[57:41] planets and stars in the sky is going to be
[57:44] completely. Right time again. I'm going to ask, ask if
[57:51] there are any other members the public want to step.
[57:53] Forward. Yes, sir. I think you're going to actually get
[57:56] an opportunity to respond to all the comments after we
[58:00] finish the public input portion. Die. Should have practiced speed
[58:06] talking. Pardon? Just finish your comments. I'm going to turn
[58:11] the timer off. I think you're the last member of
[58:14] the public wants to. I don't have much more, really,
[58:16] honestly, I pray. These lights, irrespective of their containment efforts.
[58:30] And, of course, you guys. You immediately promise to reduce
[58:37] taxes to everyone in this neighborhood because. Substantially decreased property
[58:44] values destroys the character and appeal of this rural community.
[58:49] Friends and neighbors haven't. Heard this. No, I hadn't either.
[58:52] But how many of you would rush to buy. These
[58:57] cheap properties to live there after this. Would you like
[59:01] to grow? Would you be able to? Live next to
[59:02] a grow up. Shane Reagan came to visit our home
[59:06] to assure they wish to have good relationship with the
[59:08] people. Of the community, the notes of her concerns. Do
[59:10] those concerns really matter to them, or were they there
[59:14] to discover how to prepare an argument. I know we've
[59:18] had character. Support. Or we've had support for the fine
[59:24] character of the people. No, I think these two people
[59:28] are choosing to willingly and knowingly destroy their neighbor's. Dreams.
[59:33] Theirs are taking priorities. If this goes through. We have
[59:37] slowly developed ours through hard work, dedication, and. Healthy, organic
[59:43] amendment to the soil. Once they have built their business,
[59:47] paid their mortgage, and already, as they say, to build
[59:50] their. Dream garden because they say they enjoy arts from
[59:57] across the road. Will they stay here? They can make
[1:00:01] even more money by selling their business and finding a
[1:00:03] nice green community to grow their vegetables, trees, fragrant shrubs
[1:00:07] and flowers. Megan doesn't smoke pot. At all. She only
[1:00:11] does approximately once a month. They know the product that
[1:00:14] they plan to distribute. To other families is unhealthy. However,
[1:00:17] they're willing to afford. Members of this community. The happiness
[1:00:23] and wellness to make money. This type of commercial business
[1:00:27] does not belong in a neighborhood where people live and
[1:00:30] sleep. If it must be. It belongs in an industrial
[1:00:33] area that people leave after work to go through their
[1:00:37] quieter greener, more peaceful and pleasant homes, please. Council members.
[1:00:45] Please do not pass this bylaw amendment and allow cannabis
[1:00:48] business to operate in our community, please. Try to actualize
[1:00:52] the mission statements that you made. They're very lofty mission
[1:00:57] statements that you've made in your official community plan. I
[1:01:02] thank you. I'm finally. Thank you. Thank you. Is there
[1:01:06] anyone else who would like to step forward? And speak
[1:01:10] to this application. Now I'll call the public a second
[1:01:14] time to share their comments. And I'll now call in
[1:01:18] the public a third and final time to share their
[1:01:20] comments. Lastly, I would like to provide staff and the
[1:01:25] applicant with an opportunity to respond to new information. Or
[1:01:28] factual matters that may have been raised during the public
[1:01:31] hearing. So I'll start with staff. And I'm going to
[1:01:35] invite the applicant to step up. Nothing from staff Mr.
[1:01:39] Donna, I think you were going to step up earlier
[1:01:40] if you want to come up to the podium.
[1:01:49] Hello again, mayor and council. Just a very quick technical
[1:01:54] note, because I did read Verna's. Letter that she'd written
[1:01:58] in. The information that she provided for the sustainability aspect
[1:02:04] was based on indoor production. And this is greenhouse production.
[1:02:09] And part of what we're actually leaning on from a
[1:02:12] business perspective is that we'd be able to produce it
[1:02:16] cheaper and more sustainably in a greenhouse compared to the
[1:02:18] more traditional industrial style that people are describing. And that's
[1:02:23] mostly a holdover from the days of the black market,
[1:02:25] where you have to hide it inside buildings. So that's
[1:02:28] my only technical comment. I think everything else has been
[1:02:30] said. Great. Thank you. So here, you know, further comments,
[1:02:35] the public hearing for bylaw number 40 37 2025 is
[1:02:39] now closed. No further verbal or written presentations will be
[1:02:44] received by any member of council. Whoever council may receive
[1:02:47] technical information from its own staff. I'll now reconvene the
[1:02:52] regular meeting of council at 07:56 p.m. the bylaw for
[1:02:57] consideration of third reading and adoption isoning amendment by all
[1:03:00] number 40 37 2025. We need to consider third reading
[1:03:05] and adoption separately. So I have a mover for third
[1:03:07] reading. Move by Council of Justice, seconded by Councilor Hogg.
[1:03:11] Mr. Mayor. Pardon me, and I'm sorry for interrupt, but
[1:03:13] the agenda was incorrect. We're, only going to give it
[1:03:15] third reading today. Because it is within the 800 meters
[1:03:21] of the highway, so it needs some Ministry of Transportation
[1:03:24] approval. So just third reading only, please. Just third reading.
[1:03:28] I think that's all we've moved. Seconded. All right. Sorry.
[1:03:33] That was Councilor justice, seconded by Councilor Hogg. Any discussion?
[1:03:38] Council justice? Yeah. Mr. mayor. I really sympathize with some
[1:03:44] of the neighbor's fears and objections. Around noise and smell
[1:03:49] and light, and I imagine all of us do. I
[1:03:54] also understand that there's important health related concerns about cannabis,
[1:03:59] regardless of its legal status. However, I really don't mean
[1:04:04] to oversimplify things, but as several people have said, this
[1:04:08] is really not a question of whether or not to
[1:04:09] allow cannabis growing, nor is it a question about whether
[1:04:13] to allow a noisy greenhouse or a light emitting greenhouse.
[1:04:19] Really, this is a question of whether to allow a
[1:04:22] concrete pad to go under. A greenhouse, as the applicant's
[1:04:27] already have. This has also been said several times. They
[1:04:31] already have the right to build a greenhouse. And grow
[1:04:34] cannabis in a soil based system. So the objections are
[1:04:39] valid, but none of them will go away if we
[1:04:42] don't allow. Them to grow on a concrete pad. In
[1:04:46] fact, I think we've also heard the argument that it
[1:04:48] could be a lot worse. If we don't allow. The
[1:04:53] operation to proceed on a concrete pad. I also would
[1:04:58] like to say that. I totally concur with the view
[1:05:01] that's been expressed. That it's vital that we support farming
[1:05:06] on agricultural land. So I'm in favor of this application.
[1:05:11] Moving ahead. Councilor Estach. Thanks, council justice, for that. I
[1:05:19] just wanted to share just the feedback we had heard.
[1:05:24] At the economic development standing. Our standing committee. Their feedback
[1:05:29] on. The real need, and we heard it from the
[1:05:31] speak, from public input was. The dire need for people
[1:05:36] to actually are doing true farming, that need. As much
[1:05:41] support as possible and allowing them to do their business
[1:05:43] operations. While those were different perspectives, shared on the type
[1:05:47] of. That was more on agritourism, which this isn't, but
[1:05:53] just more to that. We really need to support agriculture
[1:05:56] in the couch and valley and how hard it is
[1:05:59] to do agriculture. So, as I said, it wasn't the
[1:06:03] type of agriculture here. Isn't what's? Being discussed, and it's
[1:06:05] just about supporting that. Councilor Calio. Thank you, mayor. Yeah.
[1:06:16] Councilor justice hit all the targets that I was going
[1:06:18] to try and hit. I'm in total agreement with his
[1:06:22] comments. It just seems to me that. By actually passing
[1:06:29] this, we're going to mitigate a lot of the concerns
[1:06:32] of the neighbors, because if we don't pass this, Then
[1:06:37] there'll be an open air grow up going on there.
[1:06:42] And then. They'll have to deal with it completely without
[1:06:44] the air filtration or the light. Mitigation. And people have
[1:06:51] said they call us commercial operation, but. As. Dave van
[1:06:57] Dave enter said. It's not. It's an agricultural operation. I'm
[1:07:02] in support. Thanks, Councilor Kelly, Councilor Finley. Thanks. Mr. Mayor,
[1:07:11] I have zero interest in cannabis. It's not a product
[1:07:13] I use in any way. It's just not my thing.
[1:07:18] Regardless, as Mr. Van Davinder said, this isn't about cannabis.
[1:07:22] This is about an agricultural operation on a two zone
[1:07:25] land in Alr. And the only reason they're here is
[1:07:30] because they don't want to do it. In the soil.
[1:07:33] It's non soil based, so I'm in support. I agree
[1:07:37] with councilor justice. And how he's worded his words. I
[1:07:41] think they were fantastic, and I 100% in agreement. I
[1:07:45] completely understand the concerns of the neighbors. I live next
[1:07:48] door to a farm myself. The rooster wakes me up
[1:07:50] every single morning. Drives me nuts. But that's where I
[1:07:54] chose to live. I live right next to an a
[1:07:57] zoned. Property. So I'd like to see this move forward.
[1:08:01] I'm looking forward to it. I think this young family
[1:08:03] that has moved here for the dreams, I think it's
[1:08:06] fantastic. And I'm very happy to support them. So I'll
[1:08:09] be absolutely in favor of this councilor Hogg. Thank you,
[1:08:14] mayor. When. They were here for our first and second
[1:08:17] reading. I was really impressed with. The presentation they put
[1:08:22] forward. And the time and care they've taken into. What
[1:08:26] neighbors have said and mitigating. Any problems that have arisen
[1:08:32] or they feel might arise. And I truly feel that
[1:08:36] by not doing it, you could actually. Have more problems
[1:08:39] arise. This is not about whether you can grow cancer
[1:08:44] or not. It's about having it not. In soil. I
[1:08:50] used to live on Richard's trail, and there was a
[1:08:52] very similar greenhouse there, and. It had the big bright
[1:08:55] glow, and the sky would light up every single night.
[1:09:00] So to have the shades that mitigate the light as
[1:09:02] well is very good. To appease people's dark knights. And
[1:09:09] I just think it's a good proposal, and I'm absolutely
[1:09:12] in favor of it. Thanks. Scunter hog, perhaps? I can
[1:09:19] close our discussion around the table on this item. What
[1:09:22] I'd say is. We've heard different perspectives from the proponents
[1:09:28] and their supporters and some of the neighbors in the
[1:09:31] area, and I think we can all agree that the
[1:09:32] proponent has put a great deal of time and effort.
[1:09:37] And resources into bringing forward a well thought out proposal,
[1:09:40] and done so in a way that they've attempted to
[1:09:43] address some of the concerns with the surrounding neighbors. The
[1:09:48] challenge for me, I find with this application, though, is
[1:09:51] when you've got so many people. In close proximity to
[1:09:55] the subject property. That are opposed and, in my view,
[1:09:59] have raised legitimate concerns around noise and odor. And the
[1:10:05] encroachment of industrial uses and what's clearly a rural area.
[1:10:11] And I do recognize that. The discussion around cannabis was
[1:10:16] settled when the federal government. Decided to legalize cannabis production
[1:10:21] and distribution and use. And if you look at opinion
[1:10:23] polls across Canada. We overwhelmingly supported that decision, and I
[1:10:27] think it's up to us at this table. To rehash
[1:10:30] that debate. But I am sympathetic, though, to the concerns
[1:10:34] raised again by the residents around the encroachment of. Industrial
[1:10:39] uses in rural areas. If you look back a few
[1:10:42] years ago around this table, We'd become concerned, as many
[1:10:47] other communities across BC had at the time. With these
[1:10:50] industrial warehouse, bunker style cannabis production facilities that were popping
[1:10:54] up, and the ALR, particularly in areas like Richmond, other
[1:10:59] parts, lower mainland. So we decided as a council of
[1:11:02] that time to update our zoning by law to remove.
[1:11:06] The non soil based production facilities as an allowable use
[1:11:10] on agricultural properties. But we did create this separate policy
[1:11:14] to provide an opening for a site specific. Applications. And
[1:11:21] I would say with this particular application, it obviously is
[1:11:24] not that big industrial bunker style warehouse. Like we have
[1:11:28] seen in places in the lower mainland, but at the
[1:11:30] same time, we're not talking about. A small accessory building
[1:11:34] here we're talking about. A 2700 square foot facility in
[1:11:40] an area where. Even though the properties are in the
[1:11:43] ALR, they're definitely on the smaller scale in terms of
[1:11:47] size. With. I believe it's two and a half acres,
[1:11:50] the subject property, as are many in the surrounding area,
[1:11:54] and from my perspective. If this was a much bigger
[1:11:58] agricultural property. With a larger buffer to the adjoining lot.
[1:12:03] So we would probably see a much different reaction from
[1:12:07] the surrounding neighbors in close proximity to the subject property
[1:12:11] than we are here this evening. So again, proponents done
[1:12:16] a great job bringing this forward, but do want to
[1:12:18] acknowledge. The valid concerns raised by the neighbors and the
[1:12:23] surrounding area. And if there's no more comments from council.
[1:12:28] I'll call the question then on third reading. All in
[1:12:31] favor and opposed? Motion carries. I'll now recess the regular.
[1:12:42] Council meeting. At. Call the second public hearing to order
[1:12:50] for zoning amendment bylaw. 40 30. 263 80. Lakes Road
[1:12:57] at. I'll now invite Rachel Poukesh, development planning coordinator, to
[1:13:03] introduce the proposal.
[1:13:33] Good evening, mayor and council. Thank you very much for
[1:13:36] having me here. I'm here to introduce zoning bylaw amendment
[1:13:40] application said b two seven two for number 263, 80
[1:13:44] Lakes Road. The proponents are Randy Westlake and Masika Allen.
[1:13:53] Their company name is Oak and Vine Estate. I think
[1:14:02] I went too far. The subject property is located off
[1:14:07] of Lakes Road. It is located outside of the agricultural
[1:14:11] land reserve. The property itself is a building strata consisting
[1:14:15] of two stratalots, straddleot, number. Two is the subject of
[1:14:19] this application. The majority of the common property area is
[1:14:23] for the benefit of straddleot number two. At just over
[1:14:28] six acres in size. What am I missing?
[1:14:42] That's okay. It's touchy. Okay, so this is an ortho
[1:14:50] photograph from 2024 of the subject property I'll. Try to
[1:14:54] get back to it, I swear. It's the little goblin
[1:15:03] inside the mouse. See if I work there. So you
[1:15:07] can see the actual outline of strata. Lot number two
[1:15:10] is outlined in red. The straddlet number one. Their neighbor
[1:15:14] is that one puzzle piece cutout area on the southwest
[1:15:18] corner of the lot. The building that's labeled. Part of
[1:15:23] straddleot number two and labeled as barn on the property
[1:15:27] is the assembly. Use building that is the subject of
[1:15:31] this assembly use application. The property is zoned a two,
[1:15:41] which. Is our rural zone, which permits agricultural use, agricultural
[1:15:47] buildings. Low density, single family residential uses, as well as
[1:15:52] some forms of commercial use such as craft distilleries kennels
[1:15:58] and riding stables. The proposal before council here is to
[1:16:03] amend the zoning bylaw to permit commercial assembly use for
[1:16:07] a maximum of ten events on this property, with up
[1:16:10] to 80 attendees per event on an annual basis. At
[1:16:18] number 263 80 Lakes Road. Accompanying the site specific zoning
[1:16:22] amendment to permit commercial assembly use. Is the proposal to
[1:16:27] introduce a new definition of commercial assembly use in the
[1:16:30] zoning bylaw, along with associated off street parking requirements. So
[1:16:35] the proposal in front of council today, following close of
[1:16:39] the public hearing, is consideration of granting third reading of
[1:16:43] zoning amendment bylaw number 40 30. Thank you, council. Any
[1:16:50] questions for staff? Seeing none. We'll move on to the
[1:16:53] next part of this. We'll now invite the applicants, Masika
[1:17:00] Allen and Randy Westlake. The opportunity to present their proposal
[1:17:04] and respond to any questions from council.
[1:17:22] Okay, click the button. Right side. Okay. Good evening, mayor
[1:17:32] and council. My name is Masika Allen and I co
[1:17:34] own oak and bina. Estate at 263 80 lakes road
[1:17:37] with my partner, Randy West Lake. Randy will speak after
[1:17:40] me. And cover the business planning and technical side of
[1:17:43] our application. My role tonight is the event side. How
[1:17:47] this started, what this property was meant to be, and
[1:17:49] what the last ten years. Have actually looked like. Thank
[1:17:53] you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. In
[1:17:56] 2014, I intentionally set out to find a property in
[1:17:59] the couch and valley that could become a wedding venue.
[1:18:02] At that time, there were no properties in the valley
[1:18:05] zoned for commercial assembly. Youth. Not even in the ALR.
[1:18:09] The provincial regulation allowing farms to host up to ten
[1:18:12] weddings per year didn't come into place until 2016. So
[1:18:15] in 2004, 14 there was no clear pathway for this.
[1:18:19] I looked at over 30 properties and kept hitting the
[1:18:21] same wall. None of them had what a wedding needs
[1:18:24] to function properly. I've worked in weddings since I was
[1:18:27] 20 years old. And I'd been part of over 500
[1:18:31] of them across North America. I've seen everything that has
[1:18:34] to work. Parking, washrooms, accessibility, kit, kitchen, power, sound, ceremony,
[1:18:40] flow, rain, plants, fire. Safety, guest, movement, vendor, logistics, you
[1:18:44] name it. A wedding is not just a celebration. It's
[1:18:47] a complex moving operation. And nothing I saw in the
[1:18:50] valley could do it properly. Than for Galandius. I was
[1:18:54] starting to feel defeated. Beyond logistics. I want to see
[1:18:58] something personal. I do genuinely love weddings. This has never
[1:19:02] been just a business for me. I'm on site for
[1:19:05] every wedding held at Oakland Estate. Either photographing it myself
[1:19:09] or overseeing the entire day. There is never a wedding
[1:19:12] on our property that I am not personally present for.
[1:19:16] These couples are trusting me with one of the most
[1:19:18] important days of their lives, and I take that responsibility
[1:19:20] seriously.
[1:19:32] That's okay. After almost a year feeling defeated. A realtor
[1:19:37] called and said I have the perfect property for you.
[1:19:40] They took us to what? Was then 22 Oaks winery.
[1:19:44] It was exactly what I had been searching for. Beautiful
[1:19:46] grounds, an existing barn that could be converted into a
[1:19:49] reception space, a space for getting ready and existing parking
[1:19:53] lots. And most importantly, it had already operated as a
[1:19:57] winery, open to the public almost daily, and had already
[1:20:00] hosted events and even some weddings. What I wanted to
[1:20:03] do was actually less impactful than how it had previously
[1:20:07] operated. When we moved into the neighborhood, I wanted a
[1:20:10] way to connect with neighbors and get feedback about applying
[1:20:13] for an event permit. There was no neighborhood form at
[1:20:16] the time, so I created one on Facebook. It should
[1:20:20] go to it. That group now has over 1500 members.
[1:20:28] Try again. Here we go. It now has over 1500
[1:20:37] members. Where was I? Okay. And is used daily for
[1:20:44] neighborhood information and community updates by everyone in the neighborhood.
[1:20:50] I posted asking for feedback about applying for a temporary
[1:20:52] use permit for weddings, and I received a ton of
[1:20:55] support. Most neighbors were happy the property would be put
[1:20:58] back into use after the winery closed. Majority of my
[1:21:01] property line neighbors were also in support. In 2018, we
[1:21:05] applied for our first temporary use permit and were granted
[1:21:08] 14 events per year of up to 120 people. You
[1:21:13] have to do it twice. The first nine months were
[1:21:20] spent converting the barn into a legal assembly use occupancy.
[1:21:24] We work directly with the municipality every step of the
[1:21:26] way. There we go. We met fire code, assembly requirements
[1:21:36] and accessibility, and we extensively soundproof the barn. In July
[1:21:42] of 2019, we held our first wedding. You can see
[1:21:46] after the barn. Our first wedding was for my brother
[1:21:50] and his now wife. We used it to test operations.
[1:21:56] It went flawlessly with no neighbor complaints. In fact, I
[1:22:02] even left my own brother's wedding to drive around and
[1:22:05] knock on doors. Asking if anyone could hear anything. I
[1:22:08] also took a decibel reader with me to Woodland. Drive
[1:22:11] and could not hear the wedding. And this was a
[1:22:13] 90 person wedding. We held. 290 person weddings that summer,
[1:22:22] again with no complaints. The rest were scheduled for 2020.
[1:22:26] And we are excited after such a successful first season.
[1:22:30] Then in March of 2020, everything shut down. I had
[1:22:34] about 25 brides calling, crying because their weddings were canceled,
[1:22:37] postponed or reduced into something they never wanted. Between. Weddings
[1:22:41] at the estate. Canceling and weddings I was contracted to
[1:22:43] photograph. Canceling. I lost all of my income while also
[1:22:47] carrying the emotional weight of couples whose plans had collapsed
[1:22:50] at the same time, we were unsure if our permit
[1:22:52] would even be renewed, and whether all the work and
[1:22:55] investment we'd put into the property was about to be
[1:22:56] lost. It was the most stressful and emotionally exhausting period
[1:23:01] of my entire life. Some weddings did go ahead in
[1:23:05] 2020, but provincial health orders required for all events to
[1:23:08] be outdoors. Even though we had built a soundproof barn
[1:23:13] specifically to contain noise, we weren't even allowed to use
[1:23:17] it. In October of 2020. Our temporary youth permit was
[1:23:23] renewed. There we go. The same thing happened again in
[1:23:32] 2021. We had to have open air weddings, outdoor music.
[1:23:39] With no sound containment. That's the one we're supposed to
[1:23:42] be on. Yeah. Despite explaining to neighbors that this
[1:23:52] was not how we intended to operate, some neighbors were
[1:23:56] understandably not happy. My hands were tied as we were
[1:24:00] required to follow provincial regulations. You could see here. The
[1:24:03] posts that I put up explaining. I did not want
[1:24:06] tables and dancing to be outdoors. Covid financially drained us
[1:24:12] and ruined our business. We had to refund most couples.
[1:24:15] We did. Not come close to recovering our investment like
[1:24:17] the 14 full weddings would have done if the pandemic
[1:24:21] hadn't taken place and they had been able to go
[1:24:23] forward from my original permit. And I share this not
[1:24:26] for sympathy, but to show you how long we have
[1:24:29] worked. Through the hardest possible conditions to reach this point.
[1:24:34] After our temporary permit ended, we made a clear decision.
[1:24:39] And for the past four summers, we have not hosted
[1:24:42] a single wedding here, even though we receive hundreds of
[1:24:46] inquiries. We said no to every single one because we
[1:24:50] feel the rules matter. We would not operate without permission.
[1:24:53] And that choice has cost us enormously, but it reflects
[1:24:57] who we are. And how seriously we take comp. Compliance.
[1:25:00] On the next one. Here is what a real wedding
[1:25:03] day. It'll combine estate looks like on Friday at 03:00.
[1:25:06] P.m. the couple checks into our bed and breakfast. Which
[1:25:11] will come up eventually. Next one. You can see the
[1:25:19] bed and breakfast there. I apologize. That's okay. So they
[1:25:29] do check in at three. And then that evening, the
[1:25:34] bridal party will come, show up and rehearse the ceremony.
[1:25:37] Timing on our ceremony space, which is the next slide.
[1:25:43] Saturday morning. So the couple then stay overnight and Saturday
[1:25:52] boarding, hair and makeup begins. And the bed of breakfast.
[1:25:57] Florists and planners then arrive to decorate. The ceremony is
[1:26:00] at 03:00 p.m. with guests arriving around 230. Next slide.
[1:26:06] The ceremony will last about 25 minutes, and then the
[1:26:10] guests move from the ceremony space up until to the
[1:26:12] cocktail area. That's good. The cocktail hour runs until about
[1:26:22] 530. Dinner and speeches run from six to eight. Music
[1:26:26] starts after that at 09:00 p.m. the barn door is
[1:26:29] closed at 11:00 p.m. music ends by 1130. All guests
[1:26:33] are shuttled home. We take neighbor. Concerns seriously. We have
[1:26:37] built a fully soundproof barn. Doors close at 09:00 p.m.
[1:26:40] subwoofers are not allowed. We enforce strict decibel limits with
[1:26:43] real time decibel monitoring, and our operations are regulated, too.
[1:26:48] We require every couple to hire a professional wedding planner.
[1:26:53] The last slide showed. The timeline that. They are the
[1:26:59] wedding planners will put together. We require the same caterer
[1:27:02] for every wedding. Every couple signs illegally binding agreement. Special
[1:27:06] event. Liquor licenses and insurance are required. Serving it right
[1:27:10] is enforced. And because of this, there have been no
[1:27:13] noise, bylaw, infractions from our past. Operations. We currently have
[1:27:17] a community petition with 1750 signatures in support of this
[1:27:22] application. The next slide. Notably. Nine of these signatures are
[1:27:29] from our direct property line neighbors. These neighbors are the
[1:27:33] closest residences to the event venue, with three of the
[1:27:36] homes located approximately 60 meters from the reception space. Our
[1:27:40] strata neighbors share our driveway and their home is surrounded
[1:27:43] by our property. All have expressed full support for our
[1:27:46] business operating permanently. Based on their direct lived experience of
[1:27:50] events taking place on the property, even during the open
[1:27:54] air weddings. They have indicated that we have put appropriate
[1:27:57] procedures in place for sound mitigation and that events did
[1:28:00] not negatively impact their enjoyment of their properties or cause
[1:28:03] disturbance. There are also full support from neighbors who aren't
[1:28:07] just direct but live. Two or three homes away. But
[1:28:10] I do want to mention that these are all large
[1:28:12] acreages. So we don't actually really have very many close
[1:28:17] neighbors in proximity to the right and. Left because they
[1:28:19] are so large, but. They are also in support, and
[1:28:23] all of that really matters. During the last meeting, our
[1:28:27] venue was compared to others in the valley, and I'd
[1:28:29] like to address that birds I cove Farm is 300
[1:28:32] acres and is permitted 30 events per year with up
[1:28:35] to 150 people. Maple Grove guest House is 20 acres
[1:28:39] and is permitted 14 events per year. With up to
[1:28:41] 125 people with overnight camping, and it is an open
[1:28:45] air venue. We are on a smaller parcel of land,
[1:28:48] which is why our request is much more modest. We
[1:28:50] are asking for only ten events a year. Only 80
[1:28:53] guests. Our music is contained inside a soundproof. Barn. We
[1:28:56] have strict end times. The closest comparison for a venue
[1:29:00] is actually right here. In our own neighborhood. And that's
[1:29:04] the Duncan Community Lodge on Moose Road. It's only 2
[1:29:06] km from our home. It operates on eight acres. We
[1:29:09] are six in a more densely populated area than we
[1:29:12] are in an older building that is not soundproofed. They
[1:29:16] are permitted unlimited events per year with up to 125
[1:29:20] guests. I have photographed many weddings there my best friend
[1:29:24] and my sister were married there. I've witnessed doors open
[1:29:27] with loud music. Until midnight, and I did speak to
[1:29:30] the residents in that area, and all of them have
[1:29:33] no complaints. Their only complaints were that sometimes when there's
[1:29:36] big, big events, cars can go out onto the street
[1:29:39] because they don't have full appropriate parking, and we do
[1:29:41] not have that problem. All of our parking is on
[1:29:43] site, so treating our small, tightly regulated venue as disruptive
[1:29:48] feels inconsistent compared to what already exists peacefully in our
[1:29:51] own neighborhood. I've also. Heard the suggestion that weddings don't
[1:29:56] belong in rural areas. If not rural areas, then where?
[1:30:00] Because couples today are not looking for windowless halls or
[1:30:03] industrial parks. They want beauty, landscape and an experience. Since
[1:30:07] Covid weddings are smaller, more intentional and more calm. And
[1:30:12] that is exactly what our property was built for way
[1:30:15] back. In 2007, when it was being built for a
[1:30:19] winery. Oak and estate is not a nightclub. It is
[1:30:23] the vineyard, hosting a very limited number of carefully managed
[1:30:26] gatherings. Next slide. This is the examples of the rural
[1:30:30] beauty of our property that you can see. When I
[1:30:38] look back at this journey from 2014 to building this
[1:30:41] properly, to losing everything during Covid to turning away couples
[1:30:45] for four straight summers because the rules matter. What stands
[1:30:49] out is that we have stayed committed to doing this
[1:30:51] the right way the whole time. We have listened, we
[1:30:55] have adapted, we have invested, we have complied, and we
[1:30:58] have. Waited. We are not asking to change the character
[1:31:02] of this area. We are not asking for anything. Excessive.
[1:31:05] We are asking for permission to operate a small, carefully
[1:31:08] regulated, sound contained and community supported venue. The one that
[1:31:13] we set out to build ten years ago. And one
[1:31:16] that we have already proven that we can run responsibly
[1:31:18] in normal times. This property has always been meant to
[1:31:22] be a place where people come together for something meaningful
[1:31:25] and all we are asking for now is a fair
[1:31:26] and reasonable path forward to finally let it be. That
[1:31:29] place again. Thank you so much for listening, for your
[1:31:32] time, your consideration, and for hearing our story, and I'll
[1:31:35] pass the rest over to Randy. Thanks, Masika.
[1:31:59] I'll be quick, guys. We'll try.
[1:32:13] Mayor, I wanted to apologize to council for the problem
[1:32:17] and for the applicant with the mouse we tried changing
[1:32:21] the clicker out because. We were having issues with it,
[1:32:27] so we tried the mouse, and now, obviously, this is
[1:32:29] being a problem, so I apologize to everyone. So you're
[1:32:33] saying one click. Okay. All right. Good evening, Mr. Mayor.
[1:32:39] Council, council staff and neighbors. My name is Randy Weslake.
[1:32:43] I'm the other half. Vulcan vine estate. As you have
[1:32:46] heard, Masika's years of wedding industry. Experience, and I have
[1:32:50] been a small town business person for a decade and
[1:32:51] a half. My first topic is economic benefit. Oak and
[1:32:56] vine has the potential to bring in over a million.
[1:32:58] Dollars in economic spinoff with just ten events. The above
[1:33:02] chart shows a typical wedding would support local landscapers, irrigation
[1:33:06] experts, viticulturists, wedding planners, equipment rentals photo videographers DJ. Barr
[1:33:14] florist decor, catering, food services, transportation, accommodation and spinoff grape
[1:33:20] and lavender products. If you look around, quite a few
[1:33:23] of these people are in the audience tonight. The approval
[1:33:26] of the zoning amendment could bring some much needed positive
[1:33:29] impact to the local economy. When we do have real
[1:33:31] world. Detractors like Croft and mill closing down at this
[1:33:35] very moment. I would like to share a few slides
[1:33:39] that will give you visual of the measures we have.
[1:33:41] Taken to help respect our direct neighbor's privacy and concerns.
[1:33:48] In our front ceremony area. We have 130 foot mature
[1:33:51] cedar hedges that adjoin the property. Line to help give
[1:33:54] the neighboring vineyard privacy during their busy farm season. Next
[1:33:59] is a frontal view that shows the binds and surround
[1:34:02] greenery. Do fill in quite nicely and do a great
[1:34:07] job at helping stop any direct line of sights. To
[1:34:10] adjoining neighbors properties if it would just go ahead. Okay.
[1:34:22] It was said in one of our letters of opposition
[1:34:24] that patrons could be seen smoking in the back, and
[1:34:26] it was a fire hazard. We do have a designated
[1:34:29] smoking area that is concrete, but. Also mature hedges in
[1:34:32] the back that are 14ft tall, very thick and give
[1:34:34] our direct property line neighbors visual privacy. It would be
[1:34:38] very difficult for a neighbor to see anyone through these
[1:34:41] hedges. Oh, boy. Next up is our main parking lot.
[1:34:50] We re graveled as the parking lot was constructed back
[1:34:52] in the 22 oak days. The previous fence was poorly
[1:34:55] constructed and rotted. We installed new concrete bases recreated roughly
[1:34:59] 200ft of privacy fence to stop anything in the parking
[1:35:02] lot to be a distraction from the vehicles traveling on
[1:35:05] Lakes Road. Just note, we did not remove any vines
[1:35:11] and upkeep of this lot, only transplanted vines from the
[1:35:14] back to help fill in for the year. Our overflow
[1:35:18] parking lot has another 200ft of newly installed privacy fence.
[1:35:21] As our neighbor said, activity in this area was real
[1:35:24] disruption to them. We tried to take into account. There
[1:35:30] will also be 400 additional lavender plants going in here
[1:35:33] as well. A few of the opposed neighbors expressed concerns
[1:35:36] over event administration. We have a solid process to control.
[1:35:44] The following concerns. Video proof of start, end of the
[1:35:47] events. Digital decibel readers with event
[1:35:57] data logging and real time monitoring. All monitors are connected
[1:36:00] to Wifi and give us real time data to work
[1:36:02] through any issues if they happen to arise. Photo proof
[1:36:05] that no parking took place on Lakes Road in standope
[1:36:08] and hard events shut down at 11:00 p.m. goal is
[1:36:11] to have vendors gone by 1130. Going to go through
[1:36:16] that. This is my favorite slide. We have a local
[1:36:19] resident, Gordon the Rooster. He's a great example that all
[1:36:22] neighbors should try and make concessions to work together when
[1:36:25] living in close proximity. Gordon lets us know he is
[1:36:28] there all day, every day. And his friend? We are
[1:36:32] asking. For the same reasonable tolerances for a handful of
[1:36:38] events each year. We understand that we moved beside an
[1:36:41] active hobby farm, but we need our neighbors to see
[1:36:44] that they moved beside a property. That had a valid
[1:36:46] tup to host weddings the day they moved in. In
[1:36:49] 2019, it's. Just about finding balance. Okay.
[1:37:02] I want to share our parking plan. Yes. That's proof
[1:37:05] we do own a four person. Golf cart, and you
[1:37:07] can see their slinky, the dashbound out for a ride
[1:37:09] with me. We figure most guests will arrive between 215
[1:37:13] and 245. We have had multiple parking attendants on site.
[1:37:17] Keep vehicles flowing. So turning queues or minim. Minimize clear
[1:37:23] direction and signage and use of golf carts to transport
[1:37:25] people to and from the parking lot to the venue
[1:37:27] on a hot day. I'm sure they're welcomed, but the
[1:37:29] way this is going, I'm going, I'm going to skip
[1:37:30] all this stuff and. I'd like to just go to
[1:37:33] the road widening. Sorry.
[1:37:47] One of the asks was north Couchin asked about us
[1:37:50] to do a road widening with addition. Of a bypass
[1:37:52] lane for people turning left into the venue. We hired
[1:37:55] Macaleni as our independent engineer. They came up with some
[1:37:58] key findings that I would share throughout the presentation. North
[1:38:06] Couch and Zenzie engineer did their study based on 80
[1:38:08] attendees on an occupancy factor. Of 2.0 in a vehicle,
[1:38:14] resulting in approximately 40 vehicles impound. Where we disagree is
[1:38:19] we do not believe 80% of the traffic will come
[1:38:21] from the south. Because the Duncan corridor is busy during
[1:38:24] the summer months, most travelers will avoid this if possible,
[1:38:27] and is quicker and more scenic to arrive from Herd
[1:38:29] Road in the best western. Yeah. This is terrible.
[1:38:40] Onto traffic math. Okay. We feel there were some key
[1:38:44] items overlooked in both studies regarding the traffic math we
[1:38:47] agree on an 80 person wedding should realistically generate 40
[1:38:50] vehicles. But an average wedding party size of twelve people
[1:38:54] would then leave us 32 vehicles arriving because the wedding
[1:38:57] party would arrive. Early at staggered times. The traffic engineers
[1:39:02] did not do the calculations. At a less peak time
[1:39:04] of 215 to 245, when the guests arrive. That would
[1:39:08] cut the northbound and southbound traffic in half, according to
[1:39:12] the traffic study. That North Couchen supplied. This would also
[1:39:16] have drastically changed the plots on the Mahdi left turn
[1:39:20] warrant graft and then the left turn wouldn't be warranted.
[1:39:25] And in the kelk we fill 50% to 60% would
[1:39:28] arrive from the north, not. Turning left, giving us a
[1:39:31] realistic left turn vehicle count of 13 to 16. Vehicles
[1:39:35] turning within a 30 minutes period. That is zero zero.
[1:39:39] Three of the daily 500 vehicles that travel the road
[1:39:42] currently. Macklehaney and MMC both use synchro software to evaluate
[1:39:47] situations like this. McElaney published in the report. With 80
[1:39:51] vehicles arriving, not the realistic 13 to 16 northbound delays
[1:39:55] would be only a few seconds. And cues would be
[1:39:59] less than one vehicle. This alone should give us enough
[1:40:02] room to grow to MMC's 2040 transportation target in their
[1:40:05] memo. There's the study. Much busier. Places like Trillium Terrace
[1:40:14] and couch and rugby club are good examples that do
[1:40:16] not have left turning lanes at this time. The last
[1:40:18] two points I have on traffic. Are the site where
[1:40:23] MMC would like to widen does have mature Gary Oaks
[1:40:27] currently bordering the road shoulder. And the 2024 master traffic
[1:40:32] Plan states Lake Road is slated to have multi use
[1:40:35] pathway. Constructed in the coming years. Does it make sense
[1:40:38] to widen the road now with all this coming? In
[1:40:41] the near future and negligible weight cues. Macklehaney gave us
[1:40:45] cost analysis to do the road widening at $30,000. In
[1:40:49] professional services and approximately 70 to 90,000 in construction costs.
[1:40:56] Their reports suggest minimal northbound delays and queues without the
[1:40:59] addition of a left turn Lane, suggesting that the existing
[1:41:02] configuration is sufficient, especially considering the study was done conservatively
[1:41:06] with the full 80 vehicles at the event and peak
[1:41:09] traffic times. I think this is going to be painful
[1:41:13] for everybody, so I'm just going to go. To my
[1:41:14] last slide, Mr. West, if you need a bit more
[1:41:16] time to. If you miss any. Slides? Oh, there's a
[1:41:19] ton, but there's. This doesn't work. Apologies for that. Yeah,
[1:41:28] it's okay. But before concluding all this, I'd like to
[1:41:33] sincerely thank staff for their time, care and professionalism they
[1:41:37] brought to this application. The report before council is thorough,
[1:41:41] well reasoned, clearly reflects a significant amount of work you
[1:41:46] would almost think that this was an application for 100
[1:41:48] unit development. Staff went over and above and responding to
[1:41:53] last minute questions and issues. They did this in a
[1:41:55] thorough and professional manner. We generally appreciate the effort that
[1:41:59] went into preparing the file report. And I just have
[1:42:02] one last thing to say. I want to say, for
[1:42:05] me, rural character does not mean silence. Instead, my experience
[1:42:09] moving here two years ago is included daily use of
[1:42:12] leap blowers, farm tractors. Gordon the rooster wake up calls.
[1:42:15] Float play in practicing 20 takeoffs and landings a day.
[1:42:18] Dirt bikes, wood chippers, traffic. Noise the Forest Discovery center
[1:42:26] train background lawn mowing late into the summer days. But
[1:42:30] more importantly it's people using their properties as they intended
[1:42:33] and enjoying the beautiful place we call home. That's all
[1:42:36] it got. If you need a moment to go over
[1:42:40] any other slides, just recognize in the problem from outside.
[1:42:45] This just doesn't work for this. My presentation is slide
[1:42:48] based. That's all I have. Thank you. Thanks. So we
[1:42:57] will turn to public input, but similar. To the last
[1:43:00] applicant. You will have a chance to come up to
[1:43:02] respond. Any comments that's? Okay. Thanks. All right, so I'll
[1:43:09] now invite the corporate officer to provide a summary of
[1:43:12] the correspondence. Received and published in tonight's agenda. Oh, of
[1:43:20] course. Yeah. Mr. Westlake and Miss Allen have come back
[1:43:27] up to the podium. Sounds. Accountant. I have some questions
[1:43:31] for you. Councilor Finley or Sash. Did you have any
[1:43:35] questions? Clarification from staff at this time as well, correct?
[1:43:41] Yeah, I believe so, yeah. That was one of the
[1:43:45] slides we missed, and I saw it scanned in there,
[1:43:47] of course. Counsel. Those attending weren't privy to the slideshow,
[1:43:52] but some of the things that went by council has
[1:43:54] been privy to a lot of emails and documents going
[1:43:56] back and forth. I just wanted some clarity from staff
[1:44:01] and then from yourselves. On. I understand. You're speaking against
[1:44:07] the widening but not the turn lanes. I just clarity
[1:44:10] from what staff. Was requesting. And from what you were
[1:44:13] explaining as well, The turn lanes directly in front of
[1:44:17] your property. Like the shoulder widening, the approaches. You're not
[1:44:21] against that for just. We're against. Both. So our traffic
[1:44:24] study showed that there was no warrant for any type
[1:44:28] of traffic improvements. Okay, thanks for that clarification. And then
[1:44:33] my second would be. To in your scheduling of the
[1:44:38] ten events. Did you have any provisions? Because it didn't
[1:44:42] show in the report on the ten events. Would there
[1:44:47] be breakups through the summer months? Because. Just would you
[1:44:51] be expecting to have eight events in a row for
[1:44:53] no break for any of the neighbors? No, because it's
[1:44:56] too much work. I can appreciate that. Yeah. No. So
[1:45:02] wedding season generally is May through October. So that's six
[1:45:07] months of the year. It is a long time. So
[1:45:09] it's. Not like weddings are just June, July, August and
[1:45:12] September. They do get spread out when I am booking
[1:45:15] weddings, I typically want to give us a week in
[1:45:18] between, like a weekend in between, so. It's every second
[1:45:21] weekend. But also. We don't know how it goes, but
[1:45:26] I don't. Typically, just because of the work for ourselves,
[1:45:28] and also because I still photograph weddings, so I do
[1:45:31] need to have weekends in between that are rest so
[1:45:33] that I can go off site to shoot weddings. So.
[1:45:37] No. There could be a time here or there that
[1:45:40] they might be just because of date. Conflicts with other
[1:45:43] vendors that it could maybe be one after another, but
[1:45:47] that's not our intent or what we want to do.
[1:45:51] And follow up to that. I don't know if it's
[1:45:53] the staff or again. The proponent's response needed here is.
[1:45:58] Would that be something that you'd be open? To wording.
[1:46:02] In the good neighbor agreement, if that. Of course, these
[1:46:03] are all subject to the will of counsel. That'd be
[1:46:07] something you'd be working towards. If it goes that way,
[1:46:11] that you'd be open to that. Yeah, as long as
[1:46:14] we're. Able to June, July, August and September have some
[1:46:18] weekends. Because typically people do want it to be nice
[1:46:22] out, and I don't want it to. Be every weekend.
[1:46:26] But I don't want to be stifled, that I can't
[1:46:29] at any point, right? Thank you, mayor. Thank you. Mr.
[1:46:34] Wrightsman, did you want to comment on. The staff's position.
[1:46:40] On the suggested traffic improvements. Thank you, mayor. Yeah. Maybe
[1:46:47] a point of clarification. More than anything I saw in
[1:46:49] the presentation that it talked. About. $115,000 cost. And. We
[1:46:58] believe that is for a full left turn lane, which
[1:47:00] is not what. The. Senior engineers report. Is suggesting is
[1:47:07] required. It's a simple laden widening, which is consistent with
[1:47:12] what you see south of. This project site. There's several
[1:47:17] intersections. I think one of them is even in the
[1:47:19] presentation. Where? There is a shoulder that cars can pull
[1:47:25] out on to pass. And so basically we're trying to
[1:47:29] maintain some consistency there. And the intent really here is
[1:47:31] just. To ultimately provide some safety when vehicles are queued
[1:47:36] up. Turning into the venue, we just don't want people.
[1:47:39] We want a place for people to go, to get
[1:47:41] around cars, because there is some speeding on that road.
[1:47:44] The 85th percentile speed is 78 km an hour. Interesting.
[1:47:48] Line analysis was done at a much lower speed. Related
[1:47:53] to the posted speed limit, so. There was some assumptions
[1:47:57] made at our analysis where arguably, we could probably use
[1:48:00] the higher speed, but the senior engineer determined that Mr.
[1:48:03] Hasan determined that. The road widening should be sufficient to
[1:48:08] address the safety concerns we had. That's the primary reason
[1:48:11] for that pull up. The cost of that, as I
[1:48:13] said, is more like a lane widening. Full lane widening,
[1:48:17] to put a full turn lane in. We estimated the
[1:48:21] cost to do a shoulder widening to just give folks
[1:48:24] a place to go to duck around traffic if need
[1:48:27] be, as around $12,000. So just a point of clarification.
[1:48:33] Sorry. My mic was on you, Mr. Wesley. No, it's
[1:48:35] okay. The reason they came up. With such an expensive
[1:48:37] quote is because there's the power lines that need to
[1:48:39] be moved. And the Gary Oaks. And it's close to
[1:48:47] the fence, but also the drainage. I understand that they're
[1:48:51] trying to give us option C. That was the most
[1:48:52] cost effective. But it's really tight. And as everything's been
[1:48:57] done in this. Anyways. I don't want to create a
[1:49:04] back forth between the applicants and staff, but I do.
[1:49:06] See Mr. Eisemitted to have his hand up again. So
[1:49:08] if you want to weigh in one more time. Duly
[1:49:11] noted. Yeah, we believe that. And the reason why this
[1:49:14] option was selected was because we believe. That it could
[1:49:17] actually be done without dealing with having to deal with
[1:49:20] trees and power poles and such. That's why we selected
[1:49:22] that option. Councilor Finley, then councilor Hogg. So, just a
[1:49:31] question. You said in the presentation. That the majority of
[1:49:36] the actually joining properties. I think it was nine. You
[1:49:38] said in the presentation. Are in favor of this, including
[1:49:42] the other stratahome on the property. To my understanding, they'd
[1:49:47] be the most affected. Our strata neighbor is here tonight,
[1:49:51] and we'll be speaking on that. She's there in full
[1:49:54] support and. Yes, so. For our property line neighbors. 75%
[1:50:00] of them are in full support. They did want to
[1:50:03] come. And speak tonight. Actually, one of our property line
[1:50:06] neighbors was very, very opposed at the very beginning. Of
[1:50:09] this in 2018. They were afraid of change and they
[1:50:13] were afraid of what could possibly take place. They are
[1:50:16] in full support. Now, after witnessing the weddings, even the
[1:50:19] open air ones, they did want to come speak. Tonight.
[1:50:23] But they do feel very intimidated to come and speak
[1:50:26] because a lot of the opposed neighbors have tried to
[1:50:29] get them to change their stance. And have come to
[1:50:34] their door multiple times, and she called us in tears
[1:50:37] and said that she didn't feel comfortable coming to speak,
[1:50:40] so. We do have a lot of support that you
[1:50:43] won't see in the room tonight because of that. Councilor
[1:50:47] Hogg. Thank you, mayor. This is for Theresa. With the
[1:50:54] road widening. What does that look like for pedestrians using.
[1:50:59] The side of the whether it be bike or walking
[1:51:02] or would any have cars going around? Is that putting,
[1:51:07] is there room for pedestrians to go by and is
[1:51:09] there a risk there? Mr. Reitsma. Maybe I'll pass that
[1:51:13] question on to senior engineer, transportation. Good evening, Marin Council.
[1:51:21] So at this location on Lakes Road, currently there is
[1:51:23] a pave shoulder only on the west. Side of the
[1:51:26] road. And on the east side. We're recommending that a
[1:51:32] similar shoulder be added. And if anything, it will enhance.
[1:51:38] That. Of course, in the future we'll have to. Extend
[1:51:42] it beyond to the south and north, but. What this
[1:51:46] recommendation is to create a shoulder on the east side.
[1:51:50] That keeps the west side existing, shoulder in place. It
[1:51:55] just widens the road. So that. A similar shoulder is
[1:51:58] created on the side. Hope that answers your question. And
[1:52:02] you have additional questions from council. Seeing none. I think
[1:52:09] we can move on to the next part of the
[1:52:11] meeting. Thank you. Councilor Calio, did you have a question?
[1:52:19] Yeah, I took my hand down. But now that you've
[1:52:22] asked me, I'm just. Wondering. The bypass. Is this going
[1:52:31] to squeeze the lanes in? Is that how this is
[1:52:33] going to work? It seems to me that I've been
[1:52:38] there many times. I grow down Lakes road, not daily,
[1:52:43] but almost every day going out, hiking. And so I'm
[1:52:45] just looking at how narrow the road is there myself.
[1:52:48] And I'm not any expert, obviously. But I'm not quite
[1:52:52] sure that it's obviously the lanes are going to have
[1:52:54] to be narrowed. There. Is that a question for staff
[1:52:59] or the applicant or both? Yes, please. Mr. Acme, you
[1:53:05] want to stir? Yeah. I mean, we have looked at
[1:53:09] this, and I do believe that. It's definitely tight. I
[1:53:15] mean, we had to take a really close look at
[1:53:17] this when we were. Trying to take the bite out
[1:53:20] of this left hand turn issue. And as I repeated
[1:53:23] earlier, that's why we came up with this option. And
[1:53:26] we did look at ortho photos. And take a look
[1:53:29] at the site. And we believe that. We can fit
[1:53:33] it in, deal with. This safety concern we have and
[1:53:38] address the problem. And that's how we ended up with
[1:53:41] this option. Or do the applicants have any.
[1:53:57] You just want to hit the button for the mic
[1:53:58] there. I'd like to agree with Mike on this. It's
[1:54:03] really tight down there, and I drive a dually, and
[1:54:06] I think you guys. Want to widen the road in
[1:54:09] one spot. 2.2 meters. I think that's 8ft. In change
[1:54:12] that's barely the size of my duly, so I just
[1:54:15] can't. Imagine we're going to have a dooley and another
[1:54:17] vehicle driving by it and call that we're helping with
[1:54:21] safety. So that's my concern with trying to condense. This
[1:54:24] all in here. And if my slides that I went
[1:54:27] through, we could have went through the. Traffic study a
[1:54:28] little more. So this is a. Moti. I think. This
[1:54:35] would be the chart you guys used. For your analysis,
[1:54:38] and if they did the calculations at the proper times
[1:54:41] instead of just taking the peak values and the most
[1:54:44] amount of people. Instead of applying it real world, it
[1:54:47] would have turned the analysis. Much different is what I
[1:54:50] was trying to say. So it would have put everything
[1:54:52] into a no left turn lane required. We have 13
[1:54:55] to 16 vehicles, actually. Turning in in a half an
[1:54:58] hour period. It just seems crazy to me that you
[1:55:02] guys would want me to do all of this work
[1:55:04] for 13 to 16 vehicles, even with traffic getting to
[1:55:08] 2040. Numbers. It still doesn't make sense at 13 to
[1:55:12] 16 vehicles, but I understand safety, but. I also see
[1:55:16] the way people drive on Lakes Road and they're going
[1:55:18] to just keep on going by at a fast speed,
[1:55:21] so I think we got to look at something different.
[1:55:24] Thank you. All right. Any further questions from council? I'll
[1:55:32] now invite the corporate officer to provide a summary of
[1:55:34] the correspondence received and published. In tonight's agenda. Thank you,
[1:55:40] mayor. So notice of this public hearing was posted to
[1:55:42] North Couch and's notice. Board and the website on the
[1:55:45] 2 January 2026 advertised on social media on the 2
[1:55:50] January 2026 and published. In the couch and Valley Citizen
[1:55:54] on the 14 January 2026. All correspondence received has been
[1:56:00] provided to council, circulated in addendums and posted to north
[1:56:04] Couchen's. Website. Printed copies are available in the public hearing
[1:56:08] information package located in the binder outside of council chambers
[1:56:12] for anyone here today who hasn't seen them and would
[1:56:15] like to read the full submissions. So two petitions in
[1:56:20] support of the zoning amendment have been received, one with
[1:56:23] 60 signatures and one electronic petition. With sorry, 1733 names
[1:56:30] as of January the 14th, 2026. One petition in opposition
[1:56:36] of the zoning amendment has been received with 39 signatures,
[1:56:40] a total of 94 written submissions have been received. 56
[1:56:44] were in support of the zoning amendment and 38 were
[1:56:48] opposed. In addition, one late submission was received after today's
[1:56:53] 01:00 p.m. cutoff that I'd like to read into the
[1:56:56] record now, Mr. Mayor, if that's. Okay with you? Thank
[1:57:00] you. This email is from Chandra Unguran. I am writing
[1:57:06] to formally submit my opposition to the Oak and vine
[1:57:09] rezoning application. While the applicants have presented a proposal focused
[1:57:13] on small scale benefits. We have recently discovered that they
[1:57:16] are misrepresenting their intent. The applicants have highlighted that they
[1:57:22] have reduced the size of their events to 80 people.
[1:57:26] To minimize impact on the neighborhood. However, upon a quick
[1:57:29] search of the Internet, we discover two places where they
[1:57:33] are advertising the space for a capacity more than that.
[1:57:38] Attached you will find screenshots with one advertising 85 person
[1:57:42] capacity and the other 120. These were live as of
[1:57:46] Friday, though they may have been taken down since. Also
[1:57:51] attached as a post advertising the new building as a
[1:57:54] lounge space, showing a clear statement of intent to expand
[1:57:58] operations further. A copy of all of that is outside
[1:58:02] in the binder if anybody wants to look at. That.
[1:58:06] And this is from Chandra Hungerin, 63 92 Lakes Road.
[1:58:12] We'll now invite the public to share their comments. Each
[1:58:15] speaker will have an initial three minute maximum to speak,
[1:58:18] followed by additional turns as needed. The public is asked
[1:58:21] to clearly state their name and address for the public
[1:58:24] record. But some like to step forward to the podium?
[1:58:30] Yes, please.
[1:58:44] Good evening, Marin council. My name is Leanne Marshall. My
[1:58:48] husband, Craig Mackai, is currently away. From work. So we
[1:58:50] prepared these notes together before he left. Craig and I
[1:58:55] live in the strata. Property, one which is on the
[1:58:58] same property as Matika and Randy. We move. Moved to
[1:59:04] this home in May 2024 with the full knowledge that
[1:59:07] we were moving next to a wedding venue that held
[1:59:10] ten weddings a year. Actually, we found the idea quite
[1:59:13] charming. It's a beautiful property with a barn, a pond,
[1:59:16] a vineyard and views of Mount Zuhalam. And Kwameton Lake.
[1:59:21] If the weddings were to create a disturbance of the
[1:59:23] piece, it would affect us more than anybody. Else. So
[1:59:27] far, Randy and Mastika have been completely transparent regarding their
[1:59:30] future plans for the wedding. Venue and the property. Overall,
[1:59:34] they have made significant upgrades to the fencing and the
[1:59:36] entranceway to the vineyard. They've replaced the old wastewol irrigation
[1:59:41] systems. With an efficient new system, and they've improved the
[1:59:44] vineyard through transplanting and propagation of new vines. They have
[1:59:48] also created beautiful new lavender fields. And in the areas
[1:59:51] where the vines were not thriving, we have regular strata
[1:59:55] meetings where we are kept fully informed of any construction
[1:59:58] or changes to the property. We see these updates as
[2:00:01] enhancing the beauty and overall appeal of the north couch
[2:00:04] and valley. As seen from Lakes Road. Massika has always
[2:00:07] provided us with advanced notification prior to any open houses
[2:00:11] or family gatherings other than a small increase in traffic
[2:00:14] on our shared driveway. We've heard absolutely nothing. For instance,
[2:00:18] there was a realtor gathering this past Christmas, and that
[2:00:22] evening we sat out on our open deck and we
[2:00:25] heard no noise at all. The only evidence of a
[2:00:27] gathering was the divisible lights from the venue if we
[2:00:30] actually looked at the venue. We are fully aware that
[2:00:34] during wedding events there will be an increase to vehicle
[2:00:37] traffic and more. People on the acreage. Well, this might
[2:00:40] be a slight inconvenience. We understood this. When we purchased
[2:00:43] our home and that this was part and parcel of
[2:00:46] buying into this specific strata. Greg and I enjoy a
[2:00:50] very peaceful. And positive relationship with all of our neighbors
[2:00:55] we trust. That the weddings will not create a significant
[2:00:57] disturbance for us, and that should an incident occur, that
[2:01:01] will be swiftly arrested and mitigated. Thank you. Someone else
[2:01:05] like to come up to the podium? So there's a
[2:01:11] lot of hands going up. If you want to speak,
[2:01:13] just walk up. There. Hi, everyone.
[2:01:25] Before I start this, I just want to say how
[2:01:27] proud I am of Randy and Masika. In their presentation
[2:01:30] and how excellent. I think that. They are handling this
[2:01:35] very high stress. Situation. I also know a lot of
[2:01:39] stress. So I'm very happy to be here to support
[2:01:42] them. I've personally showed up here tonight to show my
[2:01:45] friend the support she deeply deserves to. Speak directly to
[2:01:48] you all about her great character and how it is
[2:01:50] a big mistake to take away this opportunity from her.
[2:01:54] I have known Masika for almost 40 years. That's four
[2:01:57] decades of knowing how good of a person. She is.
[2:02:00] She is kind, reliable, caring, and has the utmost integrity
[2:02:04] for following the rules. Trust me. Our whole life, she
[2:02:07] never got in trouble. As she has done all that
[2:02:11] she has been asked for her venue application. It boggles
[2:02:13] my mind that she's even in this heartbreaking situation. Masika
[2:02:19] has spent the last 16 years raising her children, and
[2:02:22] for a lot of that time, she was alone until
[2:02:24] she met Randy, a stand up man that always goes
[2:02:27] above and beyond for people in his life. Randy is
[2:02:30] the highest integrity for professionalism and is the textbook description
[2:02:33] of a hardworking man, constantly doing things for his family.
[2:02:38] The two of them will make the perfect team to
[2:02:40] run a legitimate business. Masika worked very hard for everything
[2:02:45] she has accomplished and never stepping on anyone to get
[2:02:47] it. She has poured her heart, blood, sweat and tears
[2:02:51] into this wedding venue, not only to support her. Family,
[2:02:54] but to support other local businesses. She gives back. She
[2:02:58] cares about people and their well being. She even does
[2:03:02] down to the smallest detail. She helps her community on
[2:03:05] her own time. She goes to local vendors, raves about
[2:03:07] their products and posts on social media so that everyone
[2:03:10] feels that promotion. She really values small businesses. She wants
[2:03:16] to bring joy and happiness and beautiful memories to couples
[2:03:19] at her venue. It's outrageous at her venue is even
[2:03:21] having to be considered with not moving forward. She is
[2:03:25] literally asking for ten days. That is 355 days in
[2:03:29] a calendar year where there's. No weddings. No interruptions. She
[2:03:35] knows the guidelines and has followed them to a t.
[2:03:37] It's hard to wrap my head around that ten days
[2:03:40] a year. Are causing such an issue. I cannot impress
[2:03:44] on you all any harder how Masika will completely put
[2:03:47] her life on hold. To others. I don't need to
[2:03:51] share this information, but I'm happy to share it when
[2:03:53] my daughter was diagnosed with an incurable terminal illness. Masika
[2:03:56] was one of my first friends. To step up. She
[2:03:59] immediately rallied friends, family and community to help, and always
[2:04:02] possible, she still continues to be that friend for me.
[2:04:05] Years later, I'm very disappointed that she wants to. Provide
[2:04:10] something to this community that will greatly benefit, and she
[2:04:14] has to fight this hard. My hope is the wedding
[2:04:17] venue permit will be granted. And to let this beautiful
[2:04:20] family go back. To living their lives and not live
[2:04:22] in constant stress. Thank you for listening, sir. Ma'am. I
[2:04:25] think we got your name or address. My name is
[2:04:28] Jori Fails, and I live at 8999 Wild Ridgeway. Great,
[2:04:32] thank you. Thank you. Would someone else like to step
[2:04:35] forward to the podium? So if you could state your
[2:04:43] name and address. Good evening. My own council. My name
[2:04:46] is Yan. Mudder, but I live at 6387 Lake Road,
[2:04:49] immediately across from the applicant. And I just want to
[2:04:58] see if we can get this back to just fact,
[2:05:00] just the basics. The journey to here. Versus some of
[2:05:03] the implied emotions and preferences we have. This amendment application
[2:05:09] is not about liking or disliking individuals. It's not about
[2:05:13] Alr land use as this property is not alr. And
[2:05:17] with respect, it's not about the significant skills, hopes and
[2:05:20] dreams that we may all have? I have many that
[2:05:23] didn't come to fruition, some of them limited by guidelines.
[2:05:26] Safety North Carolina council as I recently constructed on my
[2:05:29] property. I accept this as the guidelines pertaining to the
[2:05:33] property that I bought and I now live on. This
[2:05:37] Eid about amending land use. This is about allowing current
[2:05:41] neighbors to sustain the quality of life. Current zoning allows.
[2:05:46] As a reminder to council and those attending, as a
[2:05:49] short summary to the journey to this point, serves to
[2:05:52] consider. There was no regional application, as Missika pointed out.
[2:05:55] Temporary use permit August 2018 approved for 18 months commencing
[2:06:00] in May 2019 and in October of 2020. There was
[2:06:03] an application for a one year extension to. October 21.
[2:06:08] At the time, significant investments were underway at the property
[2:06:12] directly from the staff report, it was noted that these
[2:06:15] investments had occurred on the subject property to develop it
[2:06:18] as a wedding venue. This was on the basis of
[2:06:20] temporary use permit. The improvements were noted as being substantial.
[2:06:25] The owners were informed and reminded of the temporary spermat
[2:06:29] on the future use of the property for weddings could
[2:06:31] not be guaranteed. Stop at the time express concern that
[2:06:35] the investment made to that date was creating economic incentive
[2:06:39] or necessity for the owners to operate the business out
[2:06:42] of compliance with temporary going forward, investments continued nonetheless. And
[2:06:47] here we find ourselves facing an argument which I fully
[2:06:51] understand to say. We've put a blood sudden. You have.
[2:06:56] Absolutely have. And that I would have great difficulty. Backing
[2:07:00] away from that investment personally. But the investment was made
[2:07:04] with the knowledge that there is not a permanent zoning
[2:07:06] amendment allowing future use with security. That is the truth.
[2:07:12] Those are the facts. If commercial assembly uses allowed in
[2:07:16] perpetuity, concerns remain that a good, noble agreement is not
[2:07:18] enforceable. And I recognize the integrity of the people who
[2:07:23] are speaking of. But the truth is that mechanisms to
[2:07:26] protect others in the closed neighborhood are absent as relates
[2:07:29] to dispute resolution in the future. It is a somewhat
[2:07:32] informal process, and I don't know of any mechanisms that
[2:07:35] can assist. I'm running out of time. I agree with
[2:07:38] Randy about their shoulder. My field is. Immediately on margin.
[2:07:41] There isn't two and a half meters there. And in
[2:07:44] closing, if I please, could finish like 4 seconds. North
[2:07:48] couch and stuff. I would like you to clarify. Previously
[2:07:52] stating that. Temporary use permit cannot. Extend to permission. We've
[2:07:57] got a few seconds over. I hate to cut you
[2:07:58] off, you'll have another chance to come out of trouble.
[2:08:00] Thank you. Will someone else take a step forward?
[2:08:10] State your name and address. Kelly Olsen 25 21 town
[2:08:16] end off of Lakes Road. I'm here for Masika. I
[2:08:23] don't know Masika. I don't. Know, Randy. Actually, I joined
[2:08:27] her little forum on Facebook about what was going on
[2:08:29] with her farm. I own one of the largest farms
[2:08:32] in the hearted, Duncan. I, too, have gone through kind
[2:08:36] of what she's going through with neighbors, thinking that they
[2:08:39] can look in your yard if you're having a cigarette
[2:08:43] or sitting out by a fire. Or causing problems. So
[2:08:46] I just wanted to do a quick speech. The mills
[2:08:50] closed down as one. Of the contractors at the mill
[2:08:52] that lost their business when the mill shut down. This
[2:08:55] business here is about to bring probably a million, million
[2:08:59] one into the community. I think that's tax dollars that
[2:09:02] we could use in this community right now. It's a
[2:09:06] shame that it's come down to neighbor versus neighbor, but
[2:09:10] people have to realize, and it was said earlier on,
[2:09:12] that place was a business before she ever bought it.
[2:09:16] The road was used as a business, and with the
[2:09:18] mill closing down, what would be the big problem with
[2:09:21] traffic now when about 50% of the road traffic is
[2:09:24] going to be nil. When that mill shuts down. On
[2:09:26] February the 10th. So just looking at what she's done.
[2:09:31] I stopped at her place. I seen her venue. I
[2:09:33] listened. I do fact finding. I do investigating for a
[2:09:37] living. And she's got sound. Barriers there. She's gone way
[2:09:41] above and beyond what anybody would ask. She is abiding.
[2:09:45] By the rules, and she's getting kind of a crappy
[2:09:48] end of the deal. Here. It's surprising that it's come
[2:09:51] to this. I think somebody that's barely run a business.
[2:09:54] It was shut down because of Covid, and now the
[2:09:56] neighbors are complaining. About it. They bought a property or
[2:09:59] live on a property they knew was a business, just
[2:10:01] like mine is my property is a business. I could
[2:10:05] point at 100 businesses in Duncan that live by an
[2:10:08] acreage. They're lucky. She's not a pig farmer if she
[2:10:11] doesn't get ten weddings a day or. Ten weddings a
[2:10:14] year. Pardon me. Maybe she should be raising animals. Would
[2:10:17] her neighbors like that? Having a bunch of pigs or
[2:10:20] peacocks or roosters in your backyard. I mean, pick your
[2:10:23] poison. Here. Ten weddings a year. That's nothing. Beautiful. Facility
[2:10:29] that they've gone way out of their way to make
[2:10:31] perfect, gone out of their way to go to every
[2:10:34] single neighbor, let them know what's going on, and it's.
[2:10:36] Still not good enough. I think she needs to catch
[2:10:39] a break. I think Granny needs to catch a break.
[2:10:41] Like I said they've done a beautiful job on their
[2:10:43] yard. I'm very picky. I'm very picky about when I
[2:10:46] come out and speak for people. Like I said, I
[2:10:48] don't know. Masika. We're not friends. Other than joining a
[2:10:52] forum to see what was going on with a property
[2:10:54] that's zoned. For that. That was a business. That's the
[2:10:56] only reason I've even come. Here to speak. Like I
[2:10:59] said, she's a good person. Met her like I said
[2:11:03] it. Doesn't get any better than that. We've got Lewis
[2:11:06] street, we've got. Everything else going on. You think the
[2:11:08] neighbors like what's going on there, but those businesses. Got
[2:11:11] a permit to operate. They're in business. Like I said,
[2:11:14] we pick our poison when. We live in an area
[2:11:17] where you have neighbors. You're going to have problems. You
[2:11:19] deal. With them. Move on. Enjoy your property. End a
[2:11:24] story. We're at time, ma'am. You can come up again
[2:11:26] for second. Round. If you have additional comments. All right,
[2:11:30] who'd like to step forward next? I'm going to have
[2:11:34] to leave you amongst yourselves to figure out who's coming.
[2:11:37] Up next. Every time I put a call out, I
[2:11:39] see about three or four people stand up. It's all
[2:11:41] good. Is my mic on? Okay, state your name and
[2:11:45] address. My name is. Tammy Markworth and I live at
[2:11:47] 3508 Honey Crisp. Avenue in langford. So I am ready
[2:11:57] to express my strong support from Asika Allen in Oakland
[2:12:00] Vine Estate as an essential and highly valued wedding and
[2:12:03] event venue in the couch and valley. I have worked
[2:12:05] personally with Masika through my company Boo Bouli event planning,
[2:12:09] and I can constantly speak to. The professionalism, structure and
[2:12:14] exceptional level of care in which she conducts her businesses.
[2:12:17] Since Covid-19 the wedding industry has shifted dramatically. Couples are
[2:12:21] now choosing smaller, more intentional gatherings that prioritize meaningful experiences
[2:12:26] over large, impersonal events. Okanvine is perfectly aligned with this.
[2:12:30] New direction, the venue. Offers an intimate, thoughtfully designed setting
[2:12:34] where families can celebrate in a way that feels personal
[2:12:37] and reflective of modern values while still. Contributing significantly to
[2:12:42] our local economy. Okonvine is an exceptionally well managed and
[2:12:48] responsibly structured mesiko operates with detailed contracts, clear policies and
[2:12:52] requirements such. As the involvement of professional wedding planners to
[2:12:57] ensure that every event is organized, compliant and respectful of
[2:13:00] the surrounding community. From my perspective as a planner, This
[2:13:04] level of oversight creates a smoother, safer event and upholds
[2:13:07] a high standard of our industry strives for. What truly
[2:13:12] sets them apart is the extraordinary level of care that
[2:13:14] has gone into minimizing any impact on neighboring properties while
[2:13:17] enhancing the experience for couples and their guests. As purposely
[2:13:21] mentioned, the venue has invested in soundproofing measures to ensure
[2:13:24] celebrations remain enjoyable without disturbing anyone. They have achieved a
[2:13:29] level of soundproofing that I have not seen in any
[2:13:31] other venue. Reflecting their general commitment to both their couples
[2:13:35] and their neighbors, they have strategically designed fencing and landscaping
[2:13:39] so that guest and vendor vehicles are never in sight
[2:13:42] of adjoining properties. They have thoughtful site planning and keeping
[2:13:45] events event activity. Actively contained and respectful of the rural
[2:13:50] setting. They have a curated list of approved and vended
[2:13:54] local vendors, not anyone can just work there. Professionals who
[2:13:58] have been in the industry for many years follow venue
[2:14:00] rules and provide a consistently high level of service. I
[2:14:04] have personally planned and executed over 600 weddings in my
[2:14:07] 16 years that have had my company. At many different
[2:14:10] venues on Vancouver island and beyond, and I can honestly
[2:14:13] say I have never. Seen such intentional care taken to
[2:14:17] protect neighbors while still creating a beautiful guest experience. Masika's.
[2:14:21] Approach is collaborative, respectful, and proactive in a way that
[2:14:25] should be recognized and valued. Randy already touched on it
[2:14:28] and I'm running out of time. But the economic benefit
[2:14:32] is substantial. A million dollars to our community is. Amazing.
[2:14:36] It goes far beyond the venue. Everyone down to local
[2:14:39] farmers and producers who supply food, flowers. And wine. This
[2:14:44] venue creates a ripple effect. My entire income and many
[2:14:48] of my colleagues rely on a healthy event sector. At
[2:14:51] present, there are not. Time, but we'll have another opportunity
[2:14:54] to come up, if you like. State your name and
[2:14:58] address. My name is Shelby Bucken. I live at nine.
[2:15:00] 70 McDonald street. Good evening, mayor and council. This is
[2:15:05] more just to speak on the character of Masika. I've
[2:15:08] known her for about twelve years now. First as one
[2:15:11] of her photography clients. Back when she worked out of
[2:15:18] her previous home, and then later she was a customer
[2:15:21] of mine. Through my former plumbing company. Our kids also
[2:15:25] attend school together, so. Our relationship has been both professional
[2:15:29] and personal for many years. I remember back when Masika
[2:15:33] told me about the house that she bought on Lakes
[2:15:35] Road and she was so genuinely excited about the possibilities,
[2:15:39] not just about the beauty of the property, but its
[2:15:42] potential. It offered more space for her family room to
[2:15:46] grow creatively as a photographer and the opportunity to create
[2:15:50] a unique event space that could serve. The community. While
[2:15:53] supporting her family. And that's the biggest thing, is she
[2:15:55] just wants to support her. Family. Anyone who's worked with
[2:15:58] Masika knows that she does far more than just take
[2:16:01] photos she creates experiences. Her ability to design sets, props.
[2:16:07] And atmosphere tailored to each client is beyond exceptional. Her
[2:16:12] attention to detail is obvious in her work. Just look
[2:16:14] at all the hundreds of photos that she's uploaded and
[2:16:17] shared with the world over the years. And that same
[2:16:20] attention to detail has carried through to the renovations on
[2:16:23] her property, including the barn. And I've worked with many
[2:16:27] of the trades and companies that have been involved with
[2:16:29] that. And everything has been done thoughtfully, professionally and with
[2:16:33] care from the very beginning. Masika had a very clear
[2:16:36] vision of what she wanted to build, and she's always
[2:16:40] been very. Transparent about it. She's listened to concerns from
[2:16:43] neighbors, she's worked diligently. To meet every requirement placed in
[2:16:47] front of her, every request. Every adjustment, every condition has
[2:16:51] been addressed. The level of grace that she has shown
[2:16:54] throughout this process, despite roadblocks and public accusations it speaks
[2:16:58] volumes about her character. She's consistently chosen cooperation over conflict.
[2:17:04] At the end of the day, Masika's goal has never
[2:17:06] changed. She's simply trying to care for her family while
[2:17:09] doing meaningful work that she's deeply passionate about. Together, Masika
[2:17:14] and Randy have invested countless hours of resources into the
[2:17:18] beautification of their property, not just the house and the
[2:17:21] barn, but the lavender fields and the vineyard as well,
[2:17:24] creating a space that enhances the surrounding area and reflects
[2:17:27] the kind of care that this community values. I'm here
[2:17:31] today because I believe she has acted in good faith
[2:17:33] at every step. And because I believe this venue can
[2:17:36] continue to exist in a way that benefits both her
[2:17:38] family. And the broader community. I respectfully ask council to
[2:17:42] consider her efforts, her integrity, and the positive impact of
[2:17:46] allowing this venue to remain open. Thank you for your
[2:17:48] time. Who would like to step forward next? Come up
[2:17:54] to the podium, state your name and address. Hi. Good
[2:18:00] evening. Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Keanu
[2:18:02] woods and I'm 15. Years old. I'm here as a
[2:18:05] daughter of Masika and Randy and as someone who has
[2:18:07] grown up with Okan vin estate being a part of
[2:18:09] my life for more than half of it. For as
[2:18:12] long as I can remember, this property has been more
[2:18:14] than just our home. It's something I've watched my parents
[2:18:16] work incredibly hard to build. I've watched them. Plant vines,
[2:18:20] build barns, and spend countless hours planning and improving this
[2:18:23] space, which shows even in my own house closest to
[2:18:27] the menu. I cannot hear anything while a wedding is
[2:18:29] going on. I've also had the chance to work here
[2:18:32] at weddings. Not only is it my parents. Being involved.
[2:18:36] Has taught me responsibility and pride in getting to create
[2:18:38] something like this. I get the chance to help prep
[2:18:41] greek guests, move tables and chairs, garden, clean up and
[2:18:44] be a part of the day. And I truly love
[2:18:46] it and appreciate the experience. What I want you to
[2:18:49] know is that this is not just a business to
[2:18:51] my parents. They genuinely care about doing things the right
[2:18:55] way and about catering to neighbors and to the community.
[2:19:00] No one is affected in any negative ways. I see
[2:19:04] firsthand how much how they want this to be a
[2:19:05] positive place that benefits everyone. This challenge, this process has
[2:19:10] been challenging for our family, but I'm incredibly proud of
[2:19:13] how hard my parents have worked and how much they
[2:19:15] believe in this vision. I hope you will give our
[2:19:19] family the chance to continue building something special here. Thank
[2:19:22] you very much for listening. Coming to the podium. State
[2:19:31] your name and address. Mayor and council, my name is
[2:19:33] Peter Culligan. I live at 6367 Woodland Drive. I am
[2:19:38] opposed to the zoning amendment for the oak and vine
[2:19:41] property. I do not believe the wedding and event center
[2:19:44] is a compatible use for this property. In a residential
[2:19:48] neighborhood. My opinion is based on the noise created at
[2:19:52] such events and the applicant's inability to follow bylaw regulations
[2:19:56] in the past when there was a temporary use permit
[2:19:59] in place. Equally important is the risk to traffic safety
[2:20:04] in north Couch and due to the increased congestion along
[2:20:07] Lakes Road, although. This posted speed limit along Lakes Road
[2:20:12] is 60 km an hour. 85% of the traffic travels
[2:20:15] at 78 km/hour. The combination of increased traffic volume, speeding
[2:20:21] alcohol consumption at the wedding events. No left turn lane
[2:20:25] onto the oak and vine property increase the possibility of
[2:20:29] traffic accidents. The municipal engineers have recommended a left turning
[2:20:34] lane be completed prior to granting of the zoning application.
[2:20:39] The engineering reports are based on traffic speeds of 60
[2:20:42] and 70 km/hour not the actual traffic speed of closer
[2:20:47] to 78 km an hour, thereby making a left turn
[2:20:50] laying even more important. Simply minor shoulder widening as per
[2:20:57] option c in the municipal engineers report. Or no roadwork
[2:21:03] of any kind, as outlined in the private traffic report
[2:21:07] commissioned by the applicants. Require ongoing monitoring of conditions and
[2:21:12] installation of a turning lane if safety concerns arise. The
[2:21:17] traffic safety concerns will become evident when accidents occur. We.
[2:21:23] As a community should be more proactive. Thank you. Yes,
[2:21:27] sir. Please call it the podium. State your name and
[2:21:30] address.
[2:21:41] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, councilors. My name is Rick Taylor.
[2:21:45] I live at 6325 Lakes Road. I am opposed to
[2:21:49] the application. And proposed bylaw, which, if implemented, will seriously
[2:21:59] affect the quiet enjoyment in ownership rights of many neighbors.
[2:22:04] And it is not in keeping with the existing rural
[2:22:07] residential designation. An existing a two zoning which excludes commercial
[2:22:14] assembly. Also, the Local Government act requires zoning bylaws to
[2:22:19] be consistent with the official community plan. I believe this
[2:22:24] proposed land use spot zoning is not consistent with the
[2:22:28] OCP. And undermines the essence of the OCP land use.
[2:22:35] In that commercial assembly. Buildings, parking spaces, infrastructure, et cetera.
[2:22:41] Reduces the land base for agriculture, does not enhance food
[2:22:46] security. And does not support agricultural output. Additionally, as an
[2:22:51] ancillary point, properties in the ALR are allowed to have
[2:22:56] this type of. Commercial assembly as long as the primary
[2:23:00] purpose. And business is farm operations. However, this proposed spot
[2:23:07] zoning. If implemented, is. Not appropriate. It's backwards rather than
[2:23:17] primary being land use farming. Its commercial assembly. The land
[2:23:23] use primarily commercial assembly and not agricultural. I submit the
[2:23:28] agricultural use will be de minimis in relation to the
[2:23:31] commercial assembly. Loose use. In other words, it's backwards. The
[2:23:37] end result if the application is approved and the proposed
[2:23:40] bylaw enacted will result in spot commerce in the middle
[2:23:45] of rural residential designation. An a two zoning with agriculture
[2:23:50] not enhanced, but. Probably reduced. I submit this would be
[2:23:55] a bad precedent. And the thin edge of the wedge
[2:23:58] for more commerce to come. However, if council approves the
[2:24:03] application, And passes the bylaw, then I submit there should
[2:24:08] be more oversight, including but not limited to, the following.
[2:24:12] For safety reasons, the municipal engineers should finalize their roadwork
[2:24:18] report. Provide an estimate for the cost. Do the work,
[2:24:22] which the applicant should either pay for upfront or provide
[2:24:27] security for the cost. To the municipality prior to conducting
[2:24:31] any commercial assembly operations, there should be an appropriate covenant
[2:24:35] registered against the land. There should only be a temporary
[2:24:40] use permit to see how things go as there is
[2:24:43] in the cut you off mid sentence, but you're at
[2:24:46] time. You can come up again to finish. Off your
[2:24:48] comments. Okay, thank you. Who'd like to step forward next?
[2:24:59] Sir, if you could state your name and address. My
[2:25:04] name is Zach Brown. I live at 1751 Stamps Road.
[2:25:09] Good evening, everybody. I would like to thank mayor and
[2:25:11] council for giving me the opportunity to speak. Tonight. I'm
[2:25:15] a winemaker and grape farmer here in north Couch, and
[2:25:18] I'm also the co owner of the closest combined vineyard
[2:25:21] and winery to the oak and vine properly. I have
[2:25:24] grape supply contracts with two additional lakes road vineyards, one
[2:25:28] of which is immediately next door to the oak and
[2:25:31] vine proposed wedding menu I'm here as. A professional grape
[2:25:35] grower from the couch and valley. I'm the immediate past
[2:25:39] president of the Wine Islands Growers Association, Wigga and current
[2:25:42] Wigga board member. I am also the island's representative on
[2:25:46] the British Columbia wine Industry Task Force, specifically working on
[2:25:50] the province's. Plan for the long term economic survival of
[2:25:53] the BC grape and wine. Industry. And I'm also a
[2:25:56] past member of the North Couch in Agriculture advisory committee.
[2:26:02] My wife is president of the Couch and Winery Society,
[2:26:05] the group working to promote the economic success. Of the
[2:26:07] couch and wine industry, which holds the Cowichan Valley's number
[2:26:11] one agricultural tourism event, the couch and Valley wine festival.
[2:26:15] I've read all of the available documents. The letter of
[2:26:19] rationale, the engineers report. Reports. I'm also regulating on the
[2:26:24] adjacent property, assisting with and advising on the vineyard farming
[2:26:28] and. Have been able to see the condition of the
[2:26:30] vines at the oak and vine property for several years.
[2:26:34] As they are not active members of the couch and
[2:26:36] grape farming community. I have never met the proponents. I
[2:26:40] bring the following perspective here tonight. I am here to
[2:26:43] voiced council concerns we have with the proposed zoning amendment
[2:26:46] to allow ten events, essentially. Most weekends throughout the summer,
[2:26:52] and the impact this will have on our industry, business
[2:26:54] and community. This will take longer than three minutes, so
[2:26:57] I will keep coming back up. In the proponent's letter
[2:27:02] of rationale, the primary justification for the zoning variance is
[2:27:05] the lack of wedding venues in the couch and valley.
[2:27:10] I was surprised by this assumption as there are currently
[2:27:12] several wineries capable of hosting weddings in the couch and
[2:27:15] valley. I'm also aware that another winery has just made
[2:27:18] substantial capital investment in their. Grounds and facilities to do
[2:27:22] just that. They plan to start hosting weddings for the
[2:27:25] 2026 season. There are other wineries in a cider in
[2:27:29] the south valley capable of hosting weddings. Two other wineries
[2:27:33] have recently sold, and the new owners are working on
[2:27:35] their plans for the future, which may include events such
[2:27:38] as weddings. Additionally, there are three wineries currently for sale
[2:27:41] in north couch. And another which has a commercial kitchen,
[2:27:44] an event bistro for sale in the CVRD. I got
[2:27:48] 15 seconds left. I'll come back 10 seconds and come
[2:27:55] back again. So, any other first time speakers? Yes, ma'am.
[2:27:59] If you want to step forward, state your. Name and
[2:28:00] address. Hi. Good evening, Mary and council. I'm Tasha. 3065
[2:28:08] Mountain Road. I am here to express my strong support
[2:28:13] for oak and vine as a wedding and event value.
[2:28:16] Venue in the couch and valley. I am a makeup
[2:28:18] artist who's worked throughout the Calichen Valley for many years.
[2:28:22] Worked with Masika many, many times, many years. Of all
[2:28:25] the venues I've experienced, oak and vine stands out as
[2:28:28] one of my absolute favorites. The most professional spaces to
[2:28:31] work in. I've been on site many times over the
[2:28:34] years. And. It consistently provides an exceptional environment for creativity,
[2:28:38] collaboration and connection with clients. The bookings and photo shoots
[2:28:42] I complete at Oak and Vine directly contribute to my
[2:28:45] livelihood and help support my family. As do many of
[2:28:49] the other vendors here. It supports them as well. Through
[2:28:52] my work, I have had the opportunity to see a
[2:28:54] wide range of venues and work alongside many venue owners.
[2:28:58] I can confidently say that Masika's dedication to oak and
[2:29:02] vine is unmatched. She has put extraordinary care and attention
[2:29:06] into every detail. Along with following all the rules and
[2:29:09] puggling all the permits. Into every detail, and I'm sure
[2:29:12] weddings run smoothly and guests have an exceptional experience from
[2:29:16] the moment you arrive through the gates. The atmosphere is
[2:29:18] welcoming, elegant and thoughtfully designed. The property is perfectly set
[2:29:22] up for events and highly sought after by future couples.
[2:29:25] The Kawachan Valley is widely recognized as a wedding destination,
[2:29:29] couples are drawn here by the natural. Beauty, charm and
[2:29:32] sense of community. However, in recent years, several wedding venues
[2:29:35] have closed, sadly, which has been a significant loss to
[2:29:39] our local wedding and hospitality industry. We are in need
[2:29:42] of more venues. Not fewer. Many weddings hosted in the
[2:29:45] Valley bring guests from out of town, which directly supports
[2:29:49] local hotels, guest houses, restaurant. Restaurants, shops, cafes and service
[2:29:53] providers like myself. Weddings are a meaningful economic driver for
[2:29:57] our region and turning them away means turning away vital
[2:30:00] revenue for local businesses. Okenvine is exactly the kind of
[2:30:04] venue that the couch and valley needs a stunning professionally
[2:30:08] run space that attracts couples and their guests while contributing
[2:30:11] positive. Deeply to the local economy. I strongly encourage North
[2:30:15] Couch and council to support this venue and allow it
[2:30:18] to continue hosting weddings. And events. And I just like
[2:30:22] to say on the noise, I've been there many times.
[2:30:26] I've heard all the noise blocking that they've taken to
[2:30:28] the structure and stuff. And I don't know if any
[2:30:30] of you guys have ever walked through. The venue. It's
[2:30:35] a classy place. It's a big barn. That's. Going to
[2:30:38] hold small events. 80 people is a small wedding, but
[2:30:42] it's not going to be a bunch of hillbillies partying
[2:30:44] all weekend in a barn. It's a nice place that
[2:30:46] attracts classy people. Respectful people, and I'm fully in support
[2:30:52] of it, as I'm sure that most of the other
[2:30:55] local vendors would be because. We need more weddings here,
[2:30:58] not less. Thank you. All right, who would like to
[2:31:01] step forward next? State your name and address. Good evening,
[2:31:10] mayor and council. My name is Garninder Sandu. I live
[2:31:13] at 6350. Woodland Drive, 260 meters from Oregon wine. I
[2:31:19] am close enough that I can see the new barn,
[2:31:21] the new lounge space they're advertising for my front yard.
[2:31:30] I have laid in the couch and valley for over
[2:31:31] 58 years and over 37 years on woodland since it
[2:31:35] was first developed. It's a great place to live. I
[2:31:40] lived here in the winery operated and it was not
[2:31:41] an issue. They did not hold events. I'm not opposed
[2:31:44] to having a winery again, but I am opposed to
[2:31:47] the zoning amendment. A commercial event center is not suitable
[2:31:51] in our quiet residential area. I am speaking today to
[2:31:55] address the record of sport for this application. Which I
[2:31:59] believe is misleading. The written submission. Realist. Start, divide. S
[2:32:07] at 01:00 p.m. today. The majority of our letter sport
[2:32:09] come from individuals who do not live anywhere near the
[2:32:12] property. Only four are within 350 meters. 17 of those
[2:32:17] letters came from outside of north Couch and entirely or
[2:32:21] don't include a location at all, including professional from as
[2:32:25] far away as Campbell river, comarks and even Calgary. These
[2:32:30] individuals are stakeholders in the business industry and not stakeholders
[2:32:34] in our neighborhoods daily quality of life. In contrast, the
[2:32:38] opposition is entirely. Comprised of those with the immediate 350
[2:32:44] meters radius, 16 letters representing people who will actually hear
[2:32:49] the noise, navigate that traffic surgeon narrow, scenic road and
[2:32:54] where the impact of their property values. One of the
[2:32:58] only two letters from outside north Couch is from a
[2:33:01] former neighbor with Greg and ralbut experience. With this location.
[2:33:06] The remaining 19 are from within Couchin. Furthermore, the lattice
[2:33:11] of sport rely on the personal goodwill of the current
[2:33:15] operator. This is a critical oversight. Zoning is not a
[2:33:19] personal license. It is a permanent right that carries with
[2:33:23] the land. If this amendment is passed, it remains in
[2:33:27] place regardless of who owns the property. You're being asked
[2:33:31] to approve permanent commercial assembly used in a residential zone
[2:33:36] where the municipal emits. It lacks specific noise and even
[2:33:39] regulation to ensure enforcement. While sporters believe that current owners
[2:33:45] are responsible, there is no guarantee that the next owners
[2:33:49] will be without reinforceable rules. We are effectively handing a
[2:33:53] blank check to any future operator to run. A commercial
[2:33:56] venue in the heart of a quiet, rural neighborhood. We
[2:34:00] must not prioritize the convenience of an industry. And the
[2:34:04] opinion of those who live kilometers away over the right
[2:34:07] of the neighbors who live right. Next door. I urge
[2:34:10] council to reject this permanent amendment in favor of the
[2:34:13] established planning framework and protect. You for listening. State your
[2:34:21] name and address. I will. Kind of trick me.
[2:34:35] Hi. Good evening, Mary and council. I'm Aaron Brownlee, and
[2:34:38] I live at 2261. Woodland Drive 150 meters from oak
[2:34:42] and vine. Party to barn. I am opposed to allowing
[2:34:46] oconbine commercial events center to operate in our nearby neighborhood.
[2:34:50] I've lived in this neighborhood for 15 and a half
[2:34:52] years and I've enjoyed this beautiful, quiet. Area. The applicant
[2:34:56] moved here about ten years ago, knowing that the zoning
[2:34:59] did not allow for an event center, but has been
[2:35:03] trying to change that ever since. She's well aware of
[2:35:06] the majority of the nearby neighbors that are strongly opposed.
[2:35:10] There have been three separate petitions of nearby neighbors completed
[2:35:14] over the last eight years. That are proof. Yet she
[2:35:17] continues to try and promote her personal goals, despite the
[2:35:20] obvious neighborhood opposition. In all these years, she has never
[2:35:25] once knocked on any door in our very nearby street
[2:35:29] to discuss this issue. She claims to care about the
[2:35:32] neighborhood, but her actions speak differently. Their property is very
[2:35:37] small for this type of activity, and it's surrounded by
[2:35:40] residential homes. On all sides. It is unfair for one
[2:35:45] property owner to negatively affect the rights of so many
[2:35:48] others to enjoy the use of their homes and backyards.
[2:35:52] Those homes, including mine, are going to be disrupted for
[2:35:55] full weekends all summer as their advertising events. They go
[2:35:59] from Friday afternoon to Sunday. The weekend package includes two
[2:36:03] parties. Within 48 hours. This will required two liquor licenses
[2:36:08] and should be counted as two events. Claims that the
[2:36:12] soundproof barn will solve all the noise issue are unreasonable
[2:36:16] on a warm spring or summer evening. People will want
[2:36:18] to gravitate outdoors. I was recently at my own daughter's.
[2:36:22] Wedding, and it was impossible to talk above the music,
[2:36:25] so a lot of folks were outside visiting. You cannot
[2:36:29] lock people inside the barn, especially. If you want good
[2:36:32] reviews. Their letter of rationale offloads all the responsibility onto
[2:36:37] the bride and grim the idea. That the bride and
[2:36:40] groom are going to keep people in check instead of
[2:36:42] enjoying their party. That they've paid for is ridiculous. This
[2:36:47] is also a land use issue. I believe that if
[2:36:50] the zoning amendment is approved, then the applicants decide not
[2:36:53] to farm to produce crops. This will result in the
[2:36:57] vines and the lavender being solely used for photo ops,
[2:37:01] there are no mechanisms in place to ensure the land
[2:37:04] is used as intended for farming, therefore. They would still
[2:37:08] get the tax breaks and keep their farm status without
[2:37:11] putting in the strenuous farming. It seems like they're being
[2:37:15] handed a golden ticket that no other hardworking farmers are.
[2:37:20] Why is that? This is not an appropriate location for
[2:37:23] this type of commercial venue. If this was your neighborhood,
[2:37:27] I have no doubt you would find this unacceptable as
[2:37:30] well. Council should protect the rights of our neighborhood. And
[2:37:34] our local farmers and reject this permanent zoning. Thank you.
[2:37:39] Who would like to step forward next? State your name
[2:37:43] and address. Good evening, Mary and council. My name is
[2:37:48] Susie Jorgensen, and I live at 6367. Woodland Drive. I
[2:37:53] moved to north Couch and specifically to escape a situation
[2:37:56] where a nearby wedding venue in north Sanith grew from
[2:38:00] a few quiet events into a major operation that impacted
[2:38:04] our neighborhood. To the point where people. Actually moved. We
[2:38:08] understand firsthand how quickly well intended use can become permanent
[2:38:12] disruptions if not properly managed. I'm speaking tonight to oppose
[2:38:17] the rezoning. While the staff report suggests a temporary use
[2:38:21] permit is no longer appropriate. We believe this conclusion relies
[2:38:26] on a narrow and incomplete interpretation of our official community
[2:38:31] plan. The previous. Tup for this site occurred during the
[2:38:35] Covid-19 pandemic. Even the applicants have acknowledged that those were
[2:38:40] not normal operations. We have yet to see that this
[2:38:43] business truly impacts the neighborhood under full capacity post pandemic
[2:38:48] conditions. The OCP on page 148 explicitly states that the
[2:38:55] tups are a good way of authorizing a new use
[2:38:59] to allow the municipality to access potential impact before considering
[2:39:03] any permanent changes. It is premature to grant a permanent
[2:39:08] rezoning with the only testing done so far happen. During
[2:39:11] a global lockdown. We must see how it functions under
[2:39:15] normal conditions before we make it. Permanent page two of
[2:39:19] the staff report. Limit the definition of tips to use
[2:39:24] that are temporary, occasional. And seasonal. However, Disregards the final
[2:39:30] clause of the OCP section 11.2, which states tops may
[2:39:34] be issued for any other temporary use not otherwise permitted
[2:39:39] by the zoning bylaw. Leaving out that specific clause changes
[2:39:43] the entire context of the decision before you. At the
[2:39:47] December 17 meeting, it was clear that this information influenced
[2:39:50] the table where a counselor here interpreted expressed interest in
[2:39:56] the top, but appeared to change their mind based on
[2:39:59] the incomplete information. In reality, the OCP provides you with
[2:40:04] the exact tools needed to manage this situation without jumping
[2:40:08] into a permanent rezoning. Finally, the logic that building upgrades
[2:40:13] precluded the top is flawed. The building was preexisting and
[2:40:19] has hosted other uses, like a home based photography business.
[2:40:23] Staff previously warned in 2020 that substantial investment might entrench
[2:40:29] the use. However, the owners made those investments knowing the
[2:40:32] risk. We should not be forced into a permanent rezoning
[2:40:36] simply because. An owner chose to invest in a temporary
[2:40:40] venture. A tep remains the correct tool to keep this
[2:40:44] use on probation. I urge council to reject this rezoning,
[2:40:48] let us use a top for its intended time. Thank
[2:40:51] you. Thank you. Thank you. We'd like to step forward
[2:40:55] next.
[2:41:09] You can state your name and address. Yes. Hello. My
[2:41:13] name is Brittany Foot. I live at 43 Lois Lane
[2:41:16] in Duncan. I'm here as a member of this community,
[2:41:22] born and raised in the Kawachan. Valley and also a
[2:41:25] close friend of Masika and Randy. I can speak endlessly
[2:41:29] about the character of Masika. As someone who has known
[2:41:31] her for almost two decades. She is thoughtful, creative, caring,
[2:41:35] and puts her whole heart and soul into everything that
[2:41:37] she does. Getting to know Randy, I can say he
[2:41:39] is one of the kindest, most genuine and hardworking men
[2:41:42] that I know. Every time I go over to my
[2:41:45] Sikh and Randy's place, they have been hard at work.
[2:41:47] Weeding, planting, raking, until the light goes down. I've watched
[2:41:52] Masika and Randy build oak and vine estate with intention
[2:41:55] care, and so much heart. This is about creating a
[2:41:58] place that feels welcoming, thoughtful and genuinely special. A place
[2:42:02] where people can come together to celebrate moments that matter.
[2:42:09] I'll admit I'm a hopeless romantic, so I love the
[2:42:12] idea of people falling. In love, getting married and beginning
[2:42:15] their lives together right here in the valley. These moments
[2:42:19] are about family. They're about bringing generations together, creating memories
[2:42:22] that stay with people. For years. Oak and vine offers
[2:42:25] a setting that feels elegant, calm, deeply meaningful for those
[2:42:29] kinds of celebrations. It's the kind of place families return
[2:42:32] to in photos, stories long after the celebration. Itself. Mazika
[2:42:38] and Randy have put an incredible amount of thought into
[2:42:41] this vision. Into how this vision would move forward. They
[2:42:44] care deeply about building something they can stand behind and
[2:42:47] something that adds value. Our community and council should be
[2:42:51] proud to champion small businesses and family run places that
[2:42:55] support local vendors, create job opportunities close to home and
[2:42:59] bring life and joy into our Valley. We should be
[2:43:03] encouraging people who want to build beautiful spaces where families
[2:43:06] come together and milestones. Are celebrated. I've seen how personal
[2:43:10] this is for them. This isn't just a project. It's
[2:43:12] something they believe in deeply and have worked toward with
[2:43:15] patience and care. Supporting oak and vine estate means supporting
[2:43:19] local people, local families and moments that strengthen the fabric.
[2:43:22] Of our community. I strongly encourage council will support this
[2:43:26] application and allow this vision to move forward. Thank you
[2:43:29] for your time. Thank you. We'd like to set forward
[2:43:34] next. State your name and address. All right. Good evening,
[2:43:42] mayor and council. My name is Kerri Nungren, and I
[2:43:44] live at 6392 Lakes road. I want to thank staff
[2:43:48] for providing the additional legal analysis for this hearing. In
[2:43:52] an effort to be reasonable, we as neighbors spent considerable
[2:43:56] time and money exploring the legal complex. Complexities and options
[2:44:00] for compromise, and we appreciate it being considered. The additional
[2:44:04] report answers some questions but it also raises new and
[2:44:07] serious concerns, particularly around liquor service, which is one of
[2:44:11] the highest impact factors for neighborhood disturbance. If this property
[2:44:16] were a winery, a permanent liquor license would be required.
[2:44:19] We tried to find something. That would be similarly tied
[2:44:22] to the establishment. But staff have confirmed that isn't possible,
[2:44:25] which leaves us with the special event permit system, which
[2:44:28] provides no continuity or accountability. Each step is taken out
[2:44:33] by the event host, often an out of town wedding
[2:44:36] party. That leaves after the event. Each host is new
[2:44:39] and the venue operators bear no responsibility for the liquor
[2:44:42] service. That happens on their property. This creates inconsistent oversight
[2:44:47] and a higher risk of alcohol related disturbances. Compounding this,
[2:44:51] the report confirms that the municipality has no authority to
[2:44:55] review. Comment on or refuse these steps. This means there
[2:44:59] are no proactive tools to prevent problems. No way to
[2:45:03] respond to patterns of concerning activity and no ability to
[2:45:07] integrate liquor oversight into the business. License. Liquor service also
[2:45:12] complicates the definition of a 24 hours event. Staff reference
[2:45:16] the rehearsal and people walking around as ancillary. But the
[2:45:19] advertised wedding package includes the cocktail party, the night before,
[2:45:23] which is not an equivalent activity. We believe anything requiring
[2:45:27] its own liquor permits should be. Counted as a second
[2:45:30] event. Not an ancillary use for the 24 hours period.
[2:45:34] Beyond liquor. The report also shows that a good neighbor
[2:45:38] agreement is a weak enforcement mechanism. A GNA binds only
[2:45:43] the signing operator. And this is really important because this
[2:45:47] is not about this operator. It's about all the future
[2:45:50] owners as well. We are being asked to trust. That
[2:45:54] a GNa will address impacts without even knowing what terms
[2:45:57] it's going to contain. If council is inclined to use
[2:46:01] this. The staff report suggests more permanent tools are necessary
[2:46:05] to bridge these gaps. The business license bylaw needs specific
[2:46:09] amendments to give the inspector clear authority. And to ensure
[2:46:13] protections like music, cut off times and the limit of
[2:46:16] ten events per year permanent it must be registered on
[2:46:19] property title using a covenant. All of these issues point
[2:46:22] to a broader concern if a land use requires this
[2:46:25] level of legal complexity, uncertainty, and enforcement difficulty just to
[2:46:30] function it is a strong indication that. The use is
[2:46:33] not appropriate for this location. For these reasons, I respectfully
[2:46:37] ask council to reject the application or at least consider
[2:46:40] a temporary use permit to allow time to figure this
[2:46:43] out. Thank you. Man. If you come to the podium,
[2:46:46] state your name and address. Good evening, mayor council. My
[2:46:52] name is Brenda Schneider. I live at 2258 Woodland Drive.
[2:47:01] And a 240 meters from the property in question, and
[2:47:05] I've lived there for over 20 years. I'm opposed to
[2:47:08] the permanent zoning amendment application that would allow wedding. And
[2:47:14] events. Business to operate. In our rural residential neighborhood. This
[2:47:21] type of business is not suited to this area, with
[2:47:23] its large numbers of people creating noise. And traffic issues
[2:47:28] on an already very busy road. Please consider the many
[2:47:32] close neighbors who will be negatively impacted by changing the
[2:47:37] zoning with no bylaws to control future problems. I ask
[2:47:41] that you deny the application. Allow us to continue to
[2:47:44] live in our quiet, peaceful neighborhood. Thank you very much.
[2:47:49] Who'd like to step forward next? Sir, if you could
[2:47:54] state your name and address. My name is Andrew Boudrow,
[2:47:58] and I live at 2265 Woodland Drive, about 180 meters.
[2:48:02] From the subject property, roughly the width of our Walmart
[2:48:05] parking lot, or about 1.8 american football fields away. Walt
[2:48:10] may appear from Lakes Road that there is a considerable,
[2:48:13] considerable distance between. The. Property narrows and angles toward my
[2:48:18] home. At the point where the venue sits. The property
[2:48:21] is only about 77 meters wide and is very close
[2:48:24] to the property line facing us. I'm here to oppose
[2:48:28] the rezoning application. For this event venue. As an example,
[2:48:32] I also hear Gordon the rooster very clearly as I'm
[2:48:35] sitting in my hot tub having my morning coffee. So
[2:48:37] that's a clear indication of how well sound travels between.
[2:48:40] That in the first slide showing the overlay of the
[2:48:43] properties you can see my backyard in. That slide. I
[2:48:48] support small businesses and shop local whenever possible. My wife
[2:48:52] has operated a small business in this community for 20
[2:48:55] years. I would agree that the applicant has a beautiful
[2:48:58] property that is suited for wedding ceremonies, and I don't
[2:49:02] think anyone would be opposed to wedding ceremonies being held
[2:49:05] on the subject property that ended late afternoon or early.
[2:49:08] Evening. My concern is with the receptions. This property is
[2:49:12] simply too small and too close to multiple homes to
[2:49:15] accommodate wedding receptions without impacting. Nearby residents right to peaceful
[2:49:20] enjoyment of their property. Other venues in the region are
[2:49:24] at least five times larger and provide meaningful buffer distances.
[2:49:28] This one does not. I. Toured the proposed reception space
[2:49:33] in November and was generally surprised at how small it
[2:49:36] is for 80 guests. It is unrealistic to believe that
[2:49:40] noise can be contained in such a setting. Noise? Will
[2:49:44] occur as guests arrive and leave from doors opening, from
[2:49:47] people socializing outside and movement to parking areas, especially during
[2:49:51] the summer. Evenings when people naturally want to be outdoors.
[2:49:55] During the visit, the applicant also acknowledged that noise could
[2:49:58] not be contained and even expressed concern on whether this
[2:50:02] would work for him while he was living. On the
[2:50:04] property during events. I'm also greatly concerned with the temporary
[2:50:08] liquor licensing being the responsibility of the hosts and not
[2:50:12] the property owner. There is no designated space for alcohol
[2:50:16] consumption and the links events would require multiple temporary permits
[2:50:20] that also require the permit holder to remain solder or
[2:50:24] soberth the whole time. Is it our expectation that the
[2:50:27] bride and goom are going to remain sober during their
[2:50:29] own wedding. It's very unlikely. This really presents a huge
[2:50:33] risk to our community. I'm asking the council to consider
[2:50:37] a temporary use permit, not as a second chance for.
[2:50:40] The applicant, but as a second chance for the community.
[2:50:44] To understand real world impacts, risk and enforcement before making
[2:50:47] a permanent change. I'm asking for a second change, a
[2:50:51] second chance myself under that tup to provide the necessary
[2:50:54] feedback to make sure that this works for our community.
[2:50:58] Thank you. Thank you. All right, who would like to
[2:51:02] set for next? Yeah. Okay.
[2:51:12] Is this already on? Yes. Hi. I'm going to try
[2:51:15] and do this without waking up. My baby here. I'm
[2:51:18] Sarah Davis. I love it. 2263 Rosewood Avenue. So I
[2:51:21] am. A couple of kilometers down the road from the
[2:51:23] venue there. I'm here to speak in support of the
[2:51:27] zoning amendment. As someone who has known Masika for over
[2:51:30] 30 years. I would like to first speak to her
[2:51:33] character as I understand that has been called into question.
[2:51:36] At previous meetings. And I'd like to say that Masika
[2:51:39] is someone who truly shows up for people. She shows
[2:51:43] up for her family and friends, for her clients and
[2:51:45] for this community. She can always be relied upon to
[2:51:49] do what she says she's going to do. She invests
[2:51:52] her time and energy volunteering on committees and contributing in
[2:51:56] meaningful ways to make the Kauchen valley a better place
[2:52:00] to live. Masika is an incredibly hard worker. She's an
[2:52:04] artist and a business person with 20 years of experience
[2:52:08] in the wedding industry. She's meticulous in her attention to
[2:52:12] detail, and she cares deeply about her client's. Experiences. She
[2:52:17] has applied that same care to every aspect of this
[2:52:20] wedding venue from how it looks and functions to how
[2:52:23] it fits within the surrounding community. Masika and Randy have
[2:52:27] done a huge amount of the physical labor on this
[2:52:30] property themselves. Their hands on involvement shows the pride, responsibility
[2:52:36] and long term commitment they have to doing things right.
[2:52:40] Masika and Randy have carefully responded to any neighbor concerns
[2:52:43] related to their venue. They have completed noise and traffic.
[2:52:47] Studies built fencing to ensure privacy and thoughtfully considered how
[2:52:51] to minimize disruption. They have also held open houses welcoming
[2:52:55] neighbors onto the property to see the venue for themselves
[2:52:58] and ask questions. That willingness to engage openly speaks volumes
[2:53:02] about their intentions. I have no doubt that Okanvine estate
[2:53:06] will be run respectfully. Professionally, with consideration for neighbors, and
[2:53:12] in alignment with community values. For all of these reasons,
[2:53:16] I strongly support the zoning amendment and encourage council to
[2:53:19] approve it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thanks.
[2:53:25] Would you like to step forward next? Maybe you can
[2:53:29] see your name and address. Good evening. My name is
[2:53:32] Suzanthur, and I'm speaking on behalf of my. Husband, Brian
[2:53:36] Porter, who is also here. We live at 6433 Tyler
[2:53:40] Place. We live within 200 meters of the oak and
[2:53:45] vine. We are. Opposed to the zoning amendment. Foremost. This
[2:53:52] zoning amendment. Is inappropriate. To the land use of the
[2:53:57] area. For their commercial benefit. The Oakland vine can significantly
[2:54:03] change the way we live in our residential properties. Forever.
[2:54:08] 39 neighbors signed. No neighbors who live within proximity of
[2:54:14] the oak and vine have voiced their concerns. And ten
[2:54:18] weddings venues consuming most summer weekends is hugely concerning. Increased
[2:54:25] traffic, slamming car doors, celebratory laughter, exuberant talk, or just
[2:54:31] few noise. Examples that can travel far. The event participants
[2:54:36] will not be inside at all times. And just like
[2:54:40] the oak and vine, we have lived. In our residence
[2:54:45] for 25 years. We have also spent a lifetime fixing
[2:54:50] up our property and fixing up our homes and now
[2:54:53] we are aging in place. That includes our property outside.
[2:54:58] And we live outside. From May right through to September.
[2:55:03] Outside is where we thrive. Outside is where we enjoy
[2:55:06] and outside is where we rest. It's more than ten
[2:55:10] weddings inherent with the parament. The oak and vine can
[2:55:14] also host. Five, plus extra charitable events. I'm not quite
[2:55:20] clear how that all applies, but it's. There and the
[2:55:23] size and the nature of those events are up to
[2:55:25] the discretion of the oak and vine. So more than
[2:55:29] ten weddings we potentially can be holding. Looking at 15
[2:55:33] plus events being hosted in our neighborhood. Good neighbor agreement
[2:55:38] is not enforceable. Most importantly, the suggested agreement is not
[2:55:42] a strong safeguard. It is voluntary. It focuses on the
[2:55:47] goodwill of the nate of the venue. This type of
[2:55:53] agreement gives the neighbors no legal voice, just a promise
[2:55:57] of good intentions. A temporary use permit is required.
[2:56:08] Documented here in North Kauwich and the Oakland vine has
[2:56:10] a recorded history of noncompliance. With negative impact on neighbors
[2:56:16] that was dated on. October. I think 21st, 2020. A
[2:56:24] top is a fair compromised if the zoning is to
[2:56:28] be amended. We need a top memorandum. I ran out
[2:56:33] of time. Thank you. We'd like to step forward next.
[2:56:39] Yes, sir. If we could state your name and address.
[2:56:41] Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Jamie Penny.
[2:56:44] I live at 6392 Lakes Road. Directly adjacent to the
[2:56:48] oak and vine estate. I'm here today to oppose the
[2:56:51] rezoning. Application for the proposed event. I would like to
[2:56:55] speak to venue regulations. I ask council. To carefully consider
[2:57:02] how the staff recommended good neighbor agreement would function in
[2:57:06] practice for both the current applicants and the future owners.
[2:57:11] Planning staff and legal counsel have advised that such agreements
[2:57:13] do not provide enforceable protection for neighboring properties until additional
[2:57:17] bylaws are amended and beyond that. There remains unanswered questions.
[2:57:22] How will compliance be monitored? What happens when terms of
[2:57:25] the agreement are not followed. Who is responsible for the
[2:57:28] enforcement? Without clear answers, the burden inevitably shifts to the
[2:57:32] neighboring residents. Alternatively, council could consider a tup. As many
[2:57:38] people have said. Which we believe is still a viable
[2:57:42] option. The applicants have stated that they weren't able to
[2:57:45] fully comply previously due to Covid, but that doesn't mean
[2:57:48] they would have. Complied if it wasn't for Covid. I
[2:57:54] urge councils to test property. With the top. Before considering
[2:57:57] permanent rezoning. I'd also like to speak to the potential
[2:58:00] impacts of a wedding venue operating immediately next to our
[2:58:05] working vineyard. We work full time and weekends are when
[2:58:09] we complete the majority of our vineyard maintenance. I ask
[2:58:11] council to consider what it will be expected of us
[2:58:14] on wedding danes on wedding days will be expected to
[2:58:17] limit farm noise, dust, equipment use to accommodate events. Is.
[2:58:22] The answer is no. How will conflicts be managed when
[2:58:25] our regular farming activities occur next to an 80 person
[2:58:27] event. I do not under. I do understand that this
[2:58:30] isn't council's. Responsibility. But where does that put us? These
[2:58:35] conflicts are not hypothetical. We did experience during weddings, during
[2:58:38] the tub. Ultimately, this is a land use decision. For
[2:58:43] council. It's not about financial investments or insurance assurances made
[2:58:48] to the neighbors. It's about whether a permanent rezoning for
[2:58:50] a wedding venue next to residential properties and an active
[2:58:54] vineyard. Is an applicable or appropriate land use. To counselors.
[2:59:00] I asked, would you want to live next to a
[2:59:03] wedding venue that affected your. Ability to enjoy your property
[2:59:06] for the nicest weekends of the year. Potentially every weekend
[2:59:10] from mid June to the end of August. And. I
[2:59:15] ask you this because I've asked the applicant this very
[2:59:17] question when we met to discuss his intentions to move
[2:59:20] into the vineyard, to move forward with the venue, and
[2:59:23] his response was? Null. But it's her dream. Respectively. If
[2:59:29] the applicant would not want to live next to a
[2:59:31] wedding venue. It raises the question as to why neighboring
[2:59:34] residents should be expected to do so. For that reason,
[2:59:37] I remain in opposition to his application. Thank you. We'd
[2:59:41] like to step forward next.
[2:59:51] State your name and address. Cynthia Montgomery. I live in
[2:59:56] Lakeview. Across the lake when I have friends living there,
[3:00:02] so that is my interest. So the owners of this
[3:00:08] party palace. Want to continue to operate. Their noisy venue,
[3:00:15] and people say, yes, it is noisy. In the middle
[3:00:20] of a quiet neighborhood. This is from staff reports of
[3:00:25] the time. Previous councils. Requested.
[3:00:36] They sought some restrictions. And the owners. Promised to comply,
[3:00:43] but according to the staff reports, they did not comply.
[3:00:47] Other councils or ensuing councils. Oh, it just disappeared.
[3:00:57] Other council. Councils. Repeated their request. They gave them more
[3:01:04] chances. They asked them to comply. They promised to comply.
[3:01:08] They did not comply. According to staff reports. They even
[3:01:13] built a building on. Their premises without a building permit.
[3:01:20] They welcomed guests into the building. Without occupancy permits. They
[3:01:27] had to decommission. They tore it down, then they rebuilt.
[3:01:33] Again without building permits. And this happened multiple times, apparently.
[3:01:39] So. Are these people really good corporate citizens? I'm questioning
[3:01:45] their integrity. Are they to be trusted? According to what
[3:01:49] I've been hearing from my friends that live there. They
[3:01:55] behave as though the rules don't apply to them. And
[3:01:59] the location. Is. So inappropriate that staff had. To invent
[3:02:08] a design. Designer zone. For them. To allow party place
[3:02:15] in a neighborhood. So this is.
[3:02:29] A zone just for this site. And as I understand
[3:02:33] it, from what I've read, From materials. There will be
[3:02:39] no rules. There will be no rules. On this party
[3:02:43] palace. So this is very strange to me here. We
[3:02:50] have. A venue that has consistently not been living up
[3:02:56] to their obligations. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Who
[3:03:01] would like to step forward next? You can see your
[3:03:05] name and address. Good evening, marin council. My name is
[3:03:14] Chandra Ungren, and I live at 6392 lakes. Road. I'm
[3:03:17] here tonight to speak in opposition to zoning amendment bylaw
[3:03:21] number 40 30. While the applicant has presented a petition
[3:03:26] of approximately 1700 names as evidence of broad support, a
[3:03:30] closer look. At the data reveals it to be procedurally
[3:03:35] invalid and geographically irrelevant. I want to direct council's attention
[3:03:41] to our own bylaw 7.16, section C. Which is very
[3:03:45] specific. It states that any petition being presented to council
[3:03:50] must include the names and addresses of the petitioners, all
[3:03:53] eligibly printed, and then a signature. The applicant subm. Submission
[3:03:59] fails this standard for several reasons. The petition was hosted
[3:04:02] on change, a platform that does not require real names
[3:04:07] or physical addresses. It only verifies an email. This is
[3:04:11] not just a technicality. It goes to the heart of
[3:04:13] whose voice matters in local governance. The petition only includes
[3:04:18] 16% of respondents were identified as being within North Kauchen.
[3:04:24] This council has seen the danger of skewed digital data
[3:04:27] before. To quote councilor Finley in an interview with a
[3:04:32] discourse. It was not limited to Norris Couch and residence,
[3:04:36] which I think is flawed since it is a north
[3:04:39] couch and asset. I don't really care what someone in
[3:04:42] Campbell river thinks about our forest. It has nothing to
[3:04:45] do with them. The same logic applies here. The rezoning
[3:04:49] for enormous couch and asset. Our land and our neighborhoods,
[3:04:53] we should not be consider. Considering the opinions of people
[3:04:55] in Peru, Netherlands, Mexico. All of which are included in
[3:04:59] the submitted petition or anywhere else outside our borders who
[3:05:03] will never have to live with the traffic and noise
[3:05:05] this venue will generate. Accepting a list of unverified email
[3:05:09] usernames as a petition, but bypasses the transparency required by
[3:05:14] our bylaws. It sets a precedent where click activism. Can
[3:05:19] drown out. The legitimate, verified concerns of the neighbors who
[3:05:23] are physically here tonight and who have put forward their
[3:05:27] names and addresses in the petition that has also been
[3:05:30] presented to you in full compliance of the bylaw. I
[3:05:34] urge council to follow its own procedural rules. Recognize that
[3:05:38] this digital list does not constitute a. Valid petition and
[3:05:41] focus on the significant input of the North Kauchen residents,
[3:05:44] who will be directly impacted. Thank you. Are there any
[3:05:51] other speakers would like to step forward? First time speakers,
[3:05:53] that is. This. Or if you come at the podium,
[3:05:58] see your name and address. Good evening, mayor and council.
[3:06:01] My name is David Van Aventer. I live at 1727.
[3:06:04] Robert. Street in Crofton, British Columbia. I appear before you
[3:06:12] this evening as the president of the Chamber of Commerce,
[3:06:15] Duncan County Chamber of Commerce is 644 member businesses. $1
[3:06:22] million. $1 million brought into our economy. At a
[3:06:31] time when. Money is leaving the valley. At an
[3:06:41] unprecedented rate. I would urge council to approve. This change.
[3:06:52] I would urge council to approve ten events a year
[3:06:57] on this property on Lakes Road. I live in Crofton.
[3:07:00] I work in Duncan. I drive Lakes Road every day,
[3:07:03] sometimes two, three. Four times a day. The, no offense
[3:07:07] to the engineering department, but the thought that there is
[3:07:10] going to be a traffic problem for 35 cars turning
[3:07:14] left in 40 minutes of time on a Saturday afternoon
[3:07:17] is absolutely ludicrous. It's just not going to happen. These
[3:07:25] folks. With their. Business venture have worked very, very hard.
[3:07:34] The chamber supports this 100%. On a personal note. I
[3:07:42] am appalled. By the character assassinations that I've heard. In
[3:07:48] the weeks and months leading up to this evening and
[3:07:51] in this very evening itself, from speakers at this very
[3:07:54] podium. To characterize. A beautiful wedding venue as a party
[3:08:00] palace is callous, insensitive and cruel. To question someone's integrity
[3:08:06] in a public forum like this when they're sitting right.
[3:08:09] Behind you. Shows a lot of intestinal fortitude. But it's
[3:08:15] very disappointing. This is not the way to run business.
[3:08:21] In the Calcium valley in the municipality of north council.
[3:08:25] These arguments, these decisions, these discussions can be had without
[3:08:29] lowering yourself to attack someone's personal character. Thank you. Thank
[3:08:35] you. So if you state your name and address.
[3:08:48] Mayor, council members, audience. I am abraham lee from one
[3:08:54] six five edward drive lake couching, and I'm a. Dj.
[3:09:00] So what we're talking about here is 35 hours for
[3:09:05] an entire year of playing music. Technically facts. When you
[3:09:10] look at a ceremony. A ceremony is decibel reading is
[3:09:16] less than ten. Because most of the time. At the
[3:09:21] 38 weddings I did last year, the 38 I did
[3:09:23] the year before and the 42 I have scheduled this
[3:09:26] year with two of them being at their venue. The
[3:09:33] work they've done to the barn, the decibel reading won't
[3:09:36] be. At 76 for the two weddings that I do.
[3:09:41] They don't allow subs. Your top end speakers do carry.
[3:09:45] But from a DJ's perspective, the amount of money that
[3:09:49] we could stand to make from that venue. It would
[3:09:53] be not injustice to me, but to turn down that
[3:09:56] volume when you think about lawnmowers. Kids playing. They're all
[3:10:01] louder than me. The farms that are on the road.
[3:10:04] They're louder than me, so thank you. Are you? Would
[3:10:08] anyone else take a step forward? Who hasn't spoken yet.
[3:10:16] Oh, yeah. We're going to go online now and ask.
[3:10:21] Yeah. All right. You can state your name and address.
[3:10:25] Good evening. My name is Jennifer Edwardson. I live in
[3:10:27] north college and I wasn't going to speak tonight. I
[3:10:30] did send a letter in of support. But I like
[3:10:35] the gentleman. Just two speakers ago, I'm sitting here and
[3:10:38] I'm. Listening to this. And no one. Everyone. We know
[3:10:44] how beautiful it is. We know the facts. Everyone's done
[3:10:46] their job. But at the end of the day, we're
[3:10:49] talking about a community. This is the couch and valley.
[3:10:53] I'm a local business owner. There's so many. Of us
[3:10:55] in this space. But good grief. Change. It's 2026. The
[3:11:01] world changes. We have a hospital that just. Hey, ma'am,
[3:11:05] if you could direct your comments, we have a hospital
[3:11:08] that just moved in. Around the corner. Change is going
[3:11:12] to happen. And you can't speak about who's the future
[3:11:15] who. The future owner of this venue is currently they
[3:11:19] are. Who's to say that they're? Not going to own
[3:11:21] it for the next 40 years. I think the facts
[3:11:25] are there. Everything's with the character. It's all been there.
[3:11:29] Everybody's said everything. I'm not going to talk about any
[3:11:30] of that, but change. Is going to happen. And change
[3:11:34] is good. It's good. And this valley needs this change.
[3:11:39] Take the facts, but let's stop with the absolute character
[3:11:42] assassinations. It's enough. Like it's enough these people are in
[3:11:46] this room. It's enough. Thank you for your time. You
[3:11:50] know what? We're going to turn to the virtual attendees.
[3:11:52] I don't see any with their hands raised. But if
[3:11:55] any of them are listening right now and you want
[3:11:57] to weigh in for public input, now is the time.
[3:12:09] Okay, so I still don't see any hands raised. I'm
[3:12:11] going to turn back. To. The gallery here. So is
[3:12:15] there any first time speakers want to step up to
[3:12:17] the podium? Is there anyone who's already spoken who would
[3:12:21] like to offer some additional comments?
[3:12:33] Perhaps we could start a line over there. Might make
[3:12:34] it easier. Hi. My name is Tammy. I do live
[3:12:39] in Langford, but I do want to say I was.
[3:12:41] Born and raised here. I only moved a little while
[3:12:43] ago. I do a lot of business here. I am
[3:12:48] the planner that does all of the weddings at Bird's
[3:12:50] Eye Co. Farm, so. I can speak to a lot
[3:12:54] of. Everyone's raising concerns about the bar and people getting
[3:12:57] out of hand and who's going to take care of
[3:12:59] it and all those kinds of things. Masika, you have
[3:13:02] to have a certified, like a proper planner, not your
[3:13:05] sister's cousin's. Neighbor who planned a birthday party on site.
[3:13:10] We are there to manage the event. The majority of
[3:13:13] venues. Unless you're a golf club, a bar, a restaurant,
[3:13:16] you have to have a special occasion permit. A special
[3:13:19] occasions permit does not grant you. A free for all.
[3:13:23] It's not a crazy thing. It's vetted by the RCMP.
[3:13:26] It has to be checked over. It's based on how
[3:13:30] many drinks per person by the hours of your event
[3:13:33] there are. Closing times. There are people who are proper
[3:13:35] bartenders, again, not your neighbors, who are serving the drinks,
[3:13:40] monitoring, making sure people are not overserved. The same thing
[3:13:43] a planner is on site, the special occasions permit does
[3:13:46] have to be taken out by someone who is attach.
[3:13:48] Attached to the event. It can't be me. It can't
[3:13:51] be Masika. It. Has to be someone who is attached.
[3:13:53] The person who has the special occasions permit is not
[3:13:57] allowed. To drink. That is why many family members God
[3:14:00] bless pregnant women. They are the people that take out
[3:14:03] the event, the event permit. We manage the event. We
[3:14:07] constantly watch the people we're like, hey. Girl in the
[3:14:10] green dress no more that kind of thing. It's very
[3:14:13] well managed once. Again. She can't have an event without
[3:14:17] a planner. Someone is always there, looking out, being responsible.
[3:14:22] And I would like to say about the character assassination
[3:14:25] is completely uncalled for. It does sicken me. These people
[3:14:28] are kind, responsible people who follow the rules. Masika is
[3:14:33] one of the biggest rule followers I have ever met.
[3:14:36] The hoops this woman has had to jump through. To
[3:14:38] get to this point. And all the things that she's
[3:14:41] gone through and over the years and. She still doesn't
[3:14:45] say anything bad about anybody. She follows the rules. She
[3:14:48] goes to the checkpoints, and she just wants to get
[3:14:50] it done. She just wants to have a venue where
[3:14:52] she could bring beautiful people together to have their families
[3:14:55] together and support her own family. So thank you very
[3:14:58] much. Hello again.
[3:15:08] Bruto. 2265 Woodland Drive. I just wanted to add, I
[3:15:12] didn't get to quite. Finish the first time there. I'd
[3:15:14] like to state again that I think I'm a reasonable
[3:15:16] person. However, my wife's not here tonight, so no one
[3:15:19] can really debate that. And it's that my last statement
[3:15:23] that I was drawing on the consideration of another temporary
[3:15:26] use permit. And again, not as a second chance for
[3:15:29] the applicant, but as a second chance for the community
[3:15:32] to understand real world impacts, risks and enforcement before making
[3:15:36] a permanent change. I am asking for a second chance
[3:15:39] myself so that I can give subjective feedback. I can
[3:15:43] work closely with the applicants as a neighbor in proximity,
[3:15:46] and we can understand what needs to be in place
[3:15:48] to make this work. I feel there's just too many
[3:15:51] unknowns. There's too many legal implications at this time to
[3:15:54] move to a permanent rezoning. Please consider the top. I
[3:15:58] would even invite the council to experiment from my backyard.
[3:16:03] And. We can all have an informed, shared understanding. You
[3:16:06] can stand in my backyard and say, Andrew, you're crazy.
[3:16:09] It's simply not noise enough. But let's afford that opportunity
[3:16:12] to the community to address that. Thank you. Again. I
[3:16:22] won't be long. So just on both sides of the
[3:16:27] fence to agree with the fact that character assassination, intimidation
[3:16:31] in any way, form or shape is not intended and
[3:16:33] shouldn't be happening, but also to point out that the
[3:16:36] community website, Facebook page that was started there was bi
[3:16:40] directional intimidation there. I'm sure it was unintended. But it
[3:16:45] happened. Those of us here who are public figures have
[3:16:48] small businesses are also sticking our necks out. It would
[3:16:51] be much more comfortable for me to not feel I'm
[3:16:54] opposing people. I know quite well people who I work
[3:16:57] with closely. But on the website recently, it was indicated
[3:17:03] that these pesky neighbors need to be named and shamed.
[3:17:06] These people should mind their own. Fb. And those comments
[3:17:12] were not moderated by the moderators of this website. It
[3:17:16] is intimidating as a community member to Europe that you
[3:17:19] should be named and shamed for participating in the democratic
[3:17:22] process all I'm trying to do here. Many of us,
[3:17:25] I hope. I think the issue of the temporary use
[3:17:28] permanent has come up repeatedly. I'm confused and I'm hoping
[3:17:31] to be educated by staff. I was confused after the
[3:17:34] last meeting to hear that. A more permanent, more impactful
[3:17:39] consideration should be given. Serious thought. While a temporary use
[3:17:46] permit is posed as something. Out of alignment, as if
[3:17:49] that is a threat in my mind. A temporary use
[3:17:52] permit to Andrew's. Point is a beautiful testing ground for
[3:17:55] this. We wish to get along. We wish to support
[3:17:58] our neighbors. Most of us just want to have our
[3:18:01] lives. Lived as peaceful as possible. That includes everyone in
[3:18:05] this room, I'm sure. But I do not fully comprehend,
[3:18:08] and I'm hoping staff can clarify for us why a
[3:18:11] temporary use permit is seen as such a massive obstacle.
[3:18:15] When a far greater decision is at hand. So I'm
[3:18:18] hoping to hear back from stuff. Tonight. I'll make it
[3:18:28] quick. I left my chat GPT. Speech at home. So
[3:18:34] just a couple of things about the party palace I
[3:18:36] wanted to clear up. Again and just deal in strictly
[3:18:38] facts. Number one, the alcohol comment about people leaving that
[3:18:42] venue being drunk and driving on the road. This is
[3:18:46] 2026. You think that the cops aren't going to be
[3:18:49] out or people. Are going to risk their lives, their
[3:18:51] homes. Everything to be checked in jail. If they run
[3:18:54] into somebody or kill somebody out on the road. Because
[3:18:56] they have one or two drinks, most of these venues
[3:18:59] are going to get a van brought. In where people
[3:19:01] are bust in and out to the hotels or wherever.
[3:19:05] So I think that eliminates, like, an alcohol problem on
[3:19:08] our roadside. Noise bylaws. I live right next to a
[3:19:12] school. You know what? I don't. Like the kids screaming
[3:19:14] all day. But you know what? I deal with it,
[3:19:16] because my granddaughter goes, to that school. And I'm sure
[3:19:18] that's her screaming during lunch, recess and after. School, so
[3:19:23] it's just something that we have to put up with.
[3:19:24] I can hear the exhibition grounds from Lakes Road off
[3:19:28] of town end all the way across. My property when
[3:19:30] they're playing music. You're going to get that the farm
[3:19:33] about? Doing farm work and worrying about dust during a
[3:19:37] wedding. If I got to hay my field, I'm going
[3:19:39] to hate it. You think I'm worried about the neighbor
[3:19:41] having a wedding? Venue. If I have hay to bring
[3:19:43] in. Life goes on. People can go and enjoy their
[3:19:46] stuff. And do their stuff without interrupting their lives. You
[3:19:49] just have to prepare for. It. And deal with it.
[3:19:53] The same thing with the road. I'm really complex about
[3:19:56] the road. We have 1000 contractors that would come in
[3:19:59] for a shutdown at the pulp mill. They would be
[3:20:02] housed in Duncan at every hotel that was available. So
[3:20:05] we're probably running. An easy 600 plus a day during
[3:20:10] a 14 day shutdown. Plus you have the two schools
[3:20:13] on that road. So why would that be a masika
[3:20:17] and a randy problem? To widen or. Put in a
[3:20:19] turning lane on the road. Has there been a municipal
[3:20:23] study done on that road for the mill traffic, the
[3:20:25] school traffic and everything else? Or did it just come
[3:20:28] about when they wanted to get the zoning redone? That's
[3:20:32] something that we got to take a look at, like
[3:20:34] I said, and good on the chamber of Commerce for
[3:20:37] speaking up because. It is an attack. It's an attack
[3:20:40] on this good couple and all the work that they
[3:20:42] put into that place, and I wish them the best
[3:20:44] of luck, and I hope you guys. Again. Do the
[3:20:47] right thing and allow that permit. They deserve it.
[3:20:58] Again. Zach brown, 1751 stamps road. And I'm here to
[3:21:03] speak about the impact on the community. And the business
[3:21:07] community in particular. And the farming. I've never met these
[3:21:13] people. I bear them knowing will, and I assure you
[3:21:16] I will. Not do any character assassination. On our property
[3:21:20] in our vineyard. We do not currently host weddings, but
[3:21:24] a potential future owner may wish to explore this on
[3:21:26] our site. One of the key attractions and inherent values
[3:21:30] of any winery. Offers to a potential buyer is the
[3:21:33] ability to host events such as weddings. It is allowed
[3:21:36] in the existing zoning and in the. ALR regulations, events
[3:21:41] are allowed as a secondary secondary economic activity of an
[3:21:46] agriculture primary business. The secondary revenue generation stream. Is specifically
[3:21:52] permitted to support the economic viability of a farm which.
[3:21:57] Is primarily engaged in the growing of crops and the
[3:21:58] production of agriculture products such as wine. This legal secondary
[3:22:03] economic activity is intrinsic to the value of the property
[3:22:06] and to the business and it is a key factor
[3:22:09] in the asking price and realized sale value of wineries
[3:22:12] in north couch. If council should decide to allow commercial
[3:22:16] competition from a non agricultural primary business to the north,
[3:22:20] couch and wine and vineyard industry. It. Will have a
[3:22:23] negative impact on the market value of all wineries in
[3:22:25] the north couch and. Constitute unfair competition in the market.
[3:22:31] And we're talking about an industry that brings a lot
[3:22:33] more than a million dollars into the couch and valley
[3:22:36] by several orders of magnitude. Reduce property value and income
[3:22:41] for wineries. Equates to less property tax revenue and economic
[3:22:47] activity for north couch and as a whole. I've had
[3:22:50] an opportunity to view the oak and vine vine vineyard
[3:22:52] over the fence and. As I walk past on the
[3:22:54] roadway, which I do regularly over the last number of
[3:22:56] years, I'm an expert grape grower and I'm the island's
[3:23:00] most nationally award. Winning winemaker. It does not require an
[3:23:05] expert. To observe that divines in that property have been
[3:23:09] allowed to atrophy to the point where? They cannot ripen
[3:23:13] the grapes enough to make wine or sell them for
[3:23:15] food. So it's. Obvious to anyone with even the most
[3:23:18] cursory knowledge of grape farming. That there is no intent
[3:23:22] to make the oak and vine property an agricultural primary
[3:23:25] business as is. Intended in the ALR regulations which should
[3:23:29] act as a guide to counsel in this matter. To
[3:23:33] reiterate, council granting event zoning variance. Would create an event
[3:23:39] primary business with none of the regulatory constraints or workload
[3:23:42] of an agricultural primary Venice. This represents unfair competition to
[3:23:47] the winery industry in the couch and valley. Is there
[3:23:51] anybody next or connected going. Yeah. You want to go?
[3:23:57] You want to let someone else? You can come back
[3:23:59] up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to apologize
[3:24:09] to anyone who characterized my remarks. As character assassination. I
[3:24:17] do apologize for that. But I was taking that from
[3:24:23] staff reports. Staff was reporting. That while they were operating
[3:24:30] under the Tups previously. There were a lot of non
[3:24:38] compliances, including. Building permits, et cetera. As I mentioned. And.
[3:24:47] My point. Actually, I was getting to. I'm concerned that
[3:24:50] this new zone. Correct me if I'm wrong, that this
[3:24:54] new zone being. Created. Has no rules, that there will
[3:25:00] be no bylaws, that the noise bylaw won't. Apply to
[3:25:04] them. Is this correct? Because if that's true, That's really
[3:25:12] not a good reward for previous non compliance, is what
[3:25:16] I'm saying. I don't understand.
[3:25:26] How that works. We have all this previous non compliance.
[3:25:33] And now. A personalized. A personal private zone. Without any
[3:25:39] rules. I find that confusing. I find that bizarre. I
[3:25:46] guess I'm asking for clarification, but never mind. Yeah. At
[3:25:53] this point, we're inviting comments from the public, but we
[3:25:56] have noted your questions. And when council debates. The application.
[3:26:02] Later in this meeting, we can hopefully address those questions.
[3:26:07] If you'd like to come back up to the podium.
[3:26:16] While we're talking about the unfair competitive advantage, granting this
[3:26:19] variance will forgive. I would note that in the lengthy
[3:26:24] social media campaign and a letter of rationale. Okinvine is
[3:26:27] undertaken the sale of a property to a craft distillery.
[3:26:31] If this variance is not allowed. Is not given. Has
[3:26:36] been threatened. A distillery is permitted under the a two
[3:26:39] zoning. But if this was actually done, the distillery would
[3:26:42] fall under a similar regulatory burden as the winery industry.
[3:26:47] It would become license inspected and subjected to regulatory enforcement
[3:26:50] by Viha, the BC liquor and cannabis branch revenue, Canada's
[3:26:54] customs and excise agents, and federal and provincial agricultural ministries.
[3:26:58] In addition to all of the municipal regulations. This would
[3:27:02] actually level the playing field to some extent. I mentioned
[3:27:06] this because in the letter of rationale, it states that
[3:27:08] the liquor permit of the event would be taken out
[3:27:10] by the couple getting married. This is a workaround that
[3:27:13] removes any of the legal responsibility for serving alcohol from
[3:27:16] the proposed venue. As anyone in the alcohol beverage industry
[3:27:20] can tell you a primary enforcement tool and penalty the
[3:27:23] inspectors use as the threat of or. Actual suspension of
[3:27:26] the liquor license, overserved customers, fighting, serving miners. All of
[3:27:32] these can result in fines and permit suspension that this
[3:27:35] proponent would avoid by making the guests take out the
[3:27:37] permit. This represents unfair competition and decreased accountability for the
[3:27:42] safe serving of alcohol. As of the winery that holds
[3:27:46] the grape contract for the vineyard immediately next door, I
[3:27:49] must raise my concerns about the impact of wedding activities
[3:27:52] every Saturday during peak grape growing season would have on
[3:27:55] the farming of those grapes. The owners of the vineyard
[3:27:58] next door work for other companies during the week. And
[3:28:01] I managed my own vineyard with my crew Monday to
[3:28:03] Friday. Saturday is the day the vineyard owners and I
[3:28:07] are able to work on the vineyard together. These activities
[3:28:11] include spraying the vineyard with antifungals, organic antifungal, such as
[3:28:16] sulfur have a very, very strong odor, and as does
[3:28:20] the application of manure compost. These strong odors can last
[3:28:24] for days. Other activities, such as the running of tractors
[3:28:29] and atvs, operating two stroke weed eaters, chainsaws and vine
[3:28:33] hedgers generate loud noises typical to vineyard operations, as are
[3:28:36] recognized in the al R and a two zoning. Does
[3:28:40] council expect us to surrender our legislative right to farm
[3:28:43] just to avoid conflict with the weddings? While we're talking
[3:28:48] about farming, I would like to raise the issue of
[3:28:50] biosecurity. The couch and valley suffering from the introduction of
[3:28:55] an invasive insect, philoxera. For those of you not in
[3:28:58] the grape farming industry. Philoxer is the insect plague that
[3:29:01] nearly wiped out the wine industry a few decades ago.
[3:29:04] It has spread on the shoes of those walking through
[3:29:06] a vineyard and on vehicles and equipment used in an
[3:29:09] affected vineyard. So you're coming up on time. But if
[3:29:12] there's no. Other speakers I'd like to. If you want
[3:29:16] to finish and then I'll open up to others for
[3:29:18] second round. Those vineyards are better. If you could hold
[3:29:21] on for one moment. Point of privilege. You get three.
[3:29:25] Three minute maximum, though, correct? It's unlimited. No. Okay, just.
[3:29:28] For some limited. Just wanted a clarification, that's all. Thank
[3:29:31] you. Please continue. I thank council for their flexibility here.
[3:29:37] I genuinely appreciate it. Those vineyards that are in the
[3:29:40] Wine Islands Growers association. Winger members were all subjected to
[3:29:43] BC agricultural ministry inspection, field sampling and lab testing to
[3:29:47] identify the philoxer infestation status. Those vineyards that were all
[3:29:52] found positive, all. Have federally enforced biosecurity protocols in place
[3:29:59] that include equipment cleaning and bleach. Baths for your shoes.
[3:30:01] What you must walk through. When another vineyard staff member
[3:30:04] enters my vineyard, we ensure their shoes are decontaminated as
[3:30:08] oak and vine. Hasn't been a wig of amber I
[3:30:10] do not know the vines philoxro status or the risk
[3:30:13] at the wedding guests. Would present if they were to
[3:30:15] go from the. Oak and wine property. Over to my
[3:30:19] property to have a wine tasting even the next day
[3:30:22] or even days later. Is there a plan to get
[3:30:25] the property tested? Given the atrophied state of the vine
[3:30:28] on the properties. And the visible vine death happening. One
[3:30:33] must wonder if it is philosophy that is part of
[3:30:35] the problem. Some of you may know that prior to
[3:30:38] entering the grape farming industry, I was a health and
[3:30:41] safety professional. I worked as a safety director for a
[3:30:44] major canadian and global multinational companies, including as the director
[3:30:49] of the safety director for the largest road contractor in
[3:30:51] western Canada. I'm a past member of the Canadian Society
[3:30:57] Safety Engineers, and I'm also experienced accident investigator and instructor,
[3:31:02] and some of my students have included the RCMP and
[3:31:05] other forms of law enforcement. I also have experience pulling
[3:31:09] in and out of the property next door to the
[3:31:11] oak and vine. In my car, in my grape bin
[3:31:13] loaded sprinter van. This is a busy road and getting
[3:31:17] on and off Lakes Road safely is a risk. At
[3:31:20] that site, the North Couch and Engineering Department report states
[3:31:25] that Lakes Road, which is classified as a high. Volume.
[3:31:28] Arterial road has a posted speed limit of 60 km/hour
[3:31:33] but that the report noted that 85% of the traffic
[3:31:36] at that point exceeded this to an average speed of
[3:31:38] 78 km/hour. This is 18 km an hour faster than
[3:31:43] the posted speed limit. I would highlight that this difference
[3:31:47] increases the stopping distance for a vehicle by over 50%.
[3:31:51] North couch in engineering has presented three options to make
[3:31:54] the selection of the road section of the road safer.
[3:31:59] The latest staff report recommends the selection of the cheapest
[3:32:02] and least effective auction presented by the engineering department be
[3:32:06] adopted. Mayor, councilors, if there is a fatality on that
[3:32:13] section of the road where excessive speeds of 85% of
[3:32:17] traffic have been formally documented by your engineering department. Are
[3:32:21] you comfortable telling the surviving family, the media and voters
[3:32:24] that you endorse the least effective option for road safety.
[3:32:27] Because it was cheaper. As a safety engineer, I would
[3:32:31] never make that call. In closing, it is for all
[3:32:35] of these reasons that we find ourselves unable to support
[3:32:38] the zoning amendment application. And formally register our opposition. As
[3:32:42] north couch and farmers, small business owners and community members,
[3:32:46] I thank you for your time and consideration in listening
[3:32:49] to our concerns. All
[3:32:58] right, one more time. So, good evening, mayor and council.
[3:33:02] My name is Kerry Nengren. Tonight, we've heard a great
[3:33:05] deal about the perceived economic benefits of though combined application,
[3:33:09] but a responsible decision requires this council to look beyond
[3:33:13] the limited profits and balance those claims against. The very
[3:33:17] real economic costs to our community. This application sets a
[3:33:21] dangerous precedent. It suggests the applicant can avoid their fair
[3:33:25] share of commercial property. Taxes and water fees by masking
[3:33:28] a large scale commercial operation on a residential property. While
[3:33:33] the spot rezoning will allow the use, I suspect the
[3:33:36] property will retain a residential classification, meaning residential tax, water
[3:33:40] and other utility rates. This creates hidden costs. When a
[3:33:45] business doesn't pay its fair share, the burden doesn't. Disappear,
[3:33:49] it is shifted onto the residential taxpayers. It is asking
[3:33:53] the community to subsidize the profit margins of a single
[3:33:57] owner. Further the applicant is attempting to avoid the road
[3:34:01] upgrades necessary for public safety. These aren't paid. For upfront
[3:34:05] by the applicant, the municipality, and therefore the taxpayers are
[3:34:09] left footing the bill when an accident occurs and the
[3:34:11] widening finally gets prior. Prioritized. Results so inactive. Unfair competition,
[3:34:17] as has been mentioned with other wineries, but just in
[3:34:20] general by avoiding the provincial rules that other venues of
[3:34:23] this nature have to operate under, and the overhead that
[3:34:25] other businesses pay, this applicant can undercut the prices of
[3:34:29] other venues who operate responsibly pay commercial rates and follow
[3:34:33] the rules. We should be protecting the businesses that play
[3:34:37] by the rules, not granting a competitive advantage to those
[3:34:40] who bypass them. Finally, we must consider the economic risk
[3:34:44] to our local winery and farming industry raised today. Our
[3:34:48] wineries are a far greater significant contributor to our local
[3:34:52] economy. This high traffic venue, as proposed increases introduces significant
[3:34:57] biosecurity risks that jeopardize the health of neighboring vineyards, including
[3:35:01] my own. Economic development should be responsible, fair and safe.
[3:35:06] This proposals, none of those things. It places the burden
[3:35:09] on taxpayers, creates an uneven playing field for responsible business
[3:35:13] owners and risks the health of our local wine industry.
[3:35:16] For these reasons, I urge you to look at the
[3:35:18] full economic picture and reject this. Application. And I just
[3:35:22] want to say none of this has ever been personal.
[3:35:27] We actually reached out to the applicants recently and met
[3:35:32] with them earlier this week in an attempt to resolve
[3:35:34] things. We did agree that these challenges, some of these
[3:35:37] challenges are not of their making. They have to do
[3:35:40] with the structures and the rules and the bylaws that
[3:35:43] do and do not exist, but they do impact this.
[3:35:47] Application and how the neighbors will experience the consequences if
[3:35:50] council. Approves the rezoning. So, again, for these reasons, I
[3:35:55] respectfully ask counsel to reject the permanent application and consider
[3:35:59] your other options. Thank you. Are there any other speakers
[3:36:04] who would like to step forward? Now, I'll call in
[3:36:08] the public a second time to share their comments, and
[3:36:12] I will. Now call in the public a third and
[3:36:14] final time to share their comments. Lastly, I'd like to
[3:36:19] provide staff and the applicant with an opportunity to respond
[3:36:22] to new information or factual matters have been raised during
[3:36:26] the public hearing. So start with staff. Any comments? I'd
[3:36:31] like to invite the applicants to come to the podium
[3:36:34] if they have any new. Information or factual matters that
[3:36:37] have been raised during the public hearing. Is this the
[3:36:43] time I can respond to some of the things that
[3:36:45] were said? Yeah. New information. Or no? Hey, just want
[3:36:48] to make sure. Yeah. Well, I can say there's lots
[3:36:57] of hearsay here tonight. Facts and a bit of entertainment.
[3:37:02] Andrew just pointed out that he would welcome the council
[3:37:04] to his backyard. He can confirm December 19. He turned
[3:37:08] me down for that exact offer so I could see
[3:37:10] his concerns real time. When I met with Suzanne and
[3:37:14] asked her about specific events that really impacted her, she's
[3:37:17] a neighbor behind me, she replied. They usually spend the
[3:37:20] summers away and couldn't comment. We did meet with Jamie
[3:37:24] and Kareen about the weekend farming practices on the weekend.
[3:37:28] And we only asked that we work together during the
[3:37:30] ceremony. That might be 20 minutes in duration. We didn't
[3:37:33] care about the rest. We understand they have work to
[3:37:35] do because they work. All week. Just as we do.
[3:37:40] Zach, the wine expert. We are junior great farmers. We
[3:37:43] just started. We purchased an ailing vineyard. And we are
[3:37:46] working at turning it around. We hope in the future
[3:37:49] to become a member of your wine association and pick
[3:37:52] your brain on your expert vine growing skills. But that
[3:37:55] takes time. Counsel. Keep in mind Karina's customer and a
[3:38:02] friend. And from what I can gather, now. Tonight we
[3:38:05] are a competitor. I didn't even know. They'd be very
[3:38:08] vested in our vines to not succeed. We all read
[3:38:12] the file report. It's very thorough and covered all of
[3:38:15] the questions in the legal letter submitted by our neighbor
[3:38:18] George Farkus added comments regarding the questions around the Alc
[3:38:22] or the miss. Missing appropriation of ALC OCP and the
[3:38:27] liquor license concerns. They validated everything in the file report
[3:38:31] to be correct. As you can tell, there could be
[3:38:34] some personal conflicts at play here tonight, but aside from
[3:38:37] this. It's similar to the earlier cannabis zoning hearing. Everyone's
[3:38:41] worried about the unknown change. And personal interests. We have
[3:38:45] a property that is zoned for uses that are more
[3:38:47] impactful. Than what we are asking for. This also goes
[3:38:51] for the road widing the current zone. Zoned uses bring
[3:38:54] more impactful, consistent traffic than 13 to 16 vehicles making
[3:38:58] a left hand turn into a property ten times a
[3:39:01] year. I know this has been a long meeting, but
[3:39:04] I want to thank everyone that has attended both. Opposed
[3:39:07] and in support tonight. To have an impactful discussion. Thanks
[3:39:12] for your time. I'd also like to speak to some
[3:39:15] of the concerns that were brought up, and I do.
[3:39:18] Just want to state, like, we're not asking to reinvent
[3:39:21] the wheel here. Like many, many wedding venues, operate in
[3:39:27] town with no problems. And we're not asking for any
[3:39:31] different. We're actually asking for a lot less. Special event
[3:39:35] permits are standard practice of any wedding venue. I worked
[3:39:40] with the RCMP back when I got my first permit,
[3:39:42] they came over to my property. And they stated that
[3:39:46] they can show up at any time during the event.
[3:39:50] And the couple? Yes. They are liable for a $10,000
[3:39:54] fine if they don't. Abide by what's in that special
[3:39:56] event permit. So that means that a half an hour
[3:39:59] before end time, the bar has to shut off. There's
[3:40:02] no drinks allowed and. The bartenders are very. Strict about
[3:40:06] that. They don't want to get in trouble either. There
[3:40:08] is actually lots of rules around a special event permit.
[3:40:11] That's why it has worked for so many other wedding
[3:40:13] venues already. This is nothing new. We're just following the
[3:40:18] same process that all the other wedding venues in town
[3:40:21] that I have worked at over and over and over
[3:40:23] are doing. So I do feel that that's not really
[3:40:27] a valid point in any of this. There's already processes
[3:40:30] in place and our CMP are already all over it.
[3:40:35] Okay. I'm going to speak to the bylaw infractions that
[3:40:40] everybody keeps saying that. I've done, and I'm really struggling
[3:40:43] with this one because I've never built anything without a
[3:40:47] building permit. We've never torn anything down. I don't know.
[3:40:50] Where that information came from. We've never had to rebuild
[3:40:53] anything. That's just completely non factual. Can we speak to
[3:40:59] it tonight? Can I speak to it tonight? So with
[3:41:04] the bylaw. I have had bylaw on my property one
[3:41:08] single time, knocking on my door. And it had nothing
[3:41:11] to do with the wedding venue. It was actually. A
[3:41:14] neighbor in the back. Reported. Piles of tweet branches in
[3:41:20] my back property that they wanted me to clean up.
[3:41:23] Bylaw came and investigated, and it was dismissed because. It's
[3:41:28] in our back forest. We don't actually have to clean
[3:41:29] them up. And then the only other valid bylaw complaint
[3:41:34] was for our secondary suite that was on the property
[3:41:37] when we bought it in 2015. It was an affordable
[3:41:41] rental. We rented it for $1,000 a month, and our
[3:41:44] neighboring property. Our neighbor. Property line neighbor called it in
[3:41:50] when she found out about our wedding venue, and we
[3:41:53] had to kick out our couple, who had lived there
[3:41:56] and were having an affordable rental, and so when they
[3:41:59] keep talking about how I haven't abided by the rules.
[3:42:02] I'm very confused about this because my original permit stated
[3:42:06] I. Could have 14 events in one year on my
[3:42:09] land. It actually didn't state that I had to have
[3:42:11] it inside the soundproof building. I just wanted to, and
[3:42:14] then I couldn't. Because of Covid. So, yes, I would
[3:42:17] have wanted to do that. But it didn't happen. But
[3:42:21] that actually wasn't a bylaw infraction. I've never been fined
[3:42:24] by bylaw. And again, one time they've been on my
[3:42:27] property. So. I'm a bit confused, but I did want
[3:42:32] to speak to that because. They keep on saying that
[3:42:35] I don't abide by the rules. And like many people,
[3:42:37] here have said I've been picked on my whole life
[3:42:40] for following the rules too much. My family makes fun
[3:42:42] of me all the time. So I take it very
[3:42:45] seriously in the future that I will be following the
[3:42:48] rules. If this goes through tonight. Because again, even with
[3:42:52] the 11:00 p.m. cut off, I don't want to work
[3:42:54] any later than that. I want to clean up, and
[3:42:56] by the time. I'm done cleaning up in there and
[3:42:58] going back in the house, it's midnight. So 11:00 p.m.
[3:43:02] is actually a great time for cut offs. And that
[3:43:05] would be the rule. Ten events was already a lot
[3:43:07] of work for us. That would be the rule I
[3:43:09] don't want to do anymore. Liquor licensing. Again with the
[3:43:13] second event. There is no second event. We are zoned
[3:43:18] and allowed to have a bed and breakfast, and these
[3:43:20] are our bed and breakfast guests that are there at
[3:43:23] a rehearsal. You don't ask bed and breakfast guests to
[3:43:27] go and take out a liquor license to. Have a
[3:43:29] barbecue. You don't do that. That's not part of it.
[3:43:38] Sorry. Just reviewing my notes here, I think. That's probably
[3:43:42] most of it we have dealt with. A significant amount
[3:43:46] of opposition over the years, and we have really tried
[3:43:50] to work with people. We have found. That some people
[3:43:54] don't want to be worked with. And that's fine. I
[3:43:57] understand. That. And I understand that change is hard, but
[3:44:00] we have made every reasonable effort to make sure that
[3:44:04] their lives are not going to be impacted by this.
[3:44:06] 80 people is a very small wedding. This is not
[3:44:09] high traffic or high commercial use like everybody. Keeps saying.
[3:44:15] This is small. 80 people at a wedding is considered
[3:44:18] a small wedding. But I do want to thank staff
[3:44:23] because I know that this has been a hard file.
[3:44:30] And. My experience this go round has been amazing, and
[3:44:33] I'm really thankful for that because last time. That wasn't
[3:44:38] always the case. It was really, really challenging the past.
[3:44:41] And I think that did have to do with the
[3:44:42] pandemic, but this time they've been very thorough. And our
[3:44:46] fellow report. Is. I think it kind of answers everything
[3:44:50] that needs to be answered. So I do thank the
[3:44:54] staff for that very much. And moving forward. We don't
[3:44:59] want to live in conflict with neighbors. We do want
[3:45:02] to with our one. Neighbor. We do want to be
[3:45:05] able to move forward and peacefully coexist. Like we've been
[3:45:10] able to do with many other neighbors over the time.
[3:45:16] And speaking to the vineyard like, yeah, our vineyard is
[3:45:19] failing, and. I did not have a supportive partner in
[3:45:23] the past that wanted to work on the vineyard and
[3:45:26] that's not the case anymore. This is a different situation.
[3:45:31] I have a lot of support now, and we want
[3:45:32] to be able to turn this vineyard around. But we
[3:45:35] can't do that unless we actually have the income to
[3:45:38] come in, because it's expensive. Farming is expensive. And that's
[3:45:42] exactly why the Alr put into place. That ALR properties
[3:45:47] can do these non farm use events to bring in
[3:45:50] money to help them. To subsidize their farming. We are
[3:45:53] asking for the same thing. We are farmers. We are
[3:45:57] outside all day, every day in the summer. We planted
[3:46:01] 430 lavender plants, and they're thriving. And that's just the
[3:46:04] beginning. We are looking forward to the future, being able
[3:46:07] to put in honeybees and do so much. More. So
[3:46:11] we're really just asking for the same thing. And what
[3:46:14] the distillery use, that is. True. In 2023, I completely
[3:46:17] gave up. I was done. I was selling my property.
[3:46:20] I was done with the process. I had given up,
[3:46:24] and so I was in talks of selling it to
[3:46:25] a distillery because they wanted to take it over and
[3:46:28] they wanted to do exactly what I want. To do
[3:46:30] with it. They wanted to host event. Events. It's beautiful.
[3:46:33] That was a large scale distillery. They were very excited
[3:46:37] about it. And then Randy. He convinced me. Try, please,
[3:46:41] one more time. Let's just try this and we're. A
[3:46:44] family, and we're a small business. And we just want
[3:46:47] to be able to have this business for the community,
[3:46:50] so let us try. Instead of having a larger corporation
[3:46:54] come in and do it anyways. Yeah. Thank you. Thank
[3:47:01] you. All right here. You know. Further comments, the public
[3:47:05] hearing for Bylaw number 40 30 is now closed. No
[3:47:13] further verbal or written presentations will be received by any
[3:47:17] member of council. However, council may receive technical information from
[3:47:20] its own staff. I'll now reconvene our regular council meeting
[3:47:25] at 10:40 p.m. The bottle off for consideration of third
[3:47:29] reading is on amendment bylaw number 40 32,025. Do I
[3:47:33] have a mover for third reading? Before we get that
[3:47:36] motion. On the table. We have been asked by several
[3:47:42] people to at least consider a temporary use permit, which
[3:47:47] would allow the community to. See if things really work.
[3:47:51] And I think Ms. Wood just said, give us a
[3:47:54] chance to try. I think it might also allow that.
[3:47:58] Personally, I think it would be a reasonable approach to
[3:48:01] test it out for a few years. And see if
[3:48:04] it's actually going to work for the community. So before
[3:48:08] there's a motion on the floor, I just would open
[3:48:10] it up to council. If there's any appetite or way
[3:48:15] that we could set this aside for a few years.
[3:48:18] And put a temporary use permit in place to see
[3:48:21] if it in fact operate as it should. So I
[3:48:25] just throw it out to council. Councilor Manhat. Thank you,
[3:48:33] Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mirror, I'm going to be against the
[3:48:35] temporary use permit they've already had a couple of temporary
[3:48:37] use permits already. I think it's time to move on
[3:48:40] with this. And make this permanent. Any further comments around
[3:48:46] the table. Councilor stash. I had shared with yourself and
[3:48:54] I had mentioned at the previous meeting I was leaning
[3:48:56] towards tempering. Use permit. But based on the legal advice
[3:49:01] that we have received, And some really good back and
[3:49:05] forth with staff. I see. And hopefully. With council support.
[3:49:13] There's actual meaningful things we can do now that would
[3:49:17] serve. The same outcomes that a temporary use permit would
[3:49:20] do through the zoning process. And part of that context
[3:49:25] was included. It was a last minute staff report. With.
[3:49:31] Those new understandings and our discussions with legal counsel. I
[3:49:36] think. That we don't need to go to the path
[3:49:39] of the temporary use permit. This is my personal thought
[3:49:43] on that, even though that's the way I wanted to
[3:49:45] go. Because. I didn't see any ways, as council justice
[3:49:49] said, to see if it doesn't. Work out. We didn't
[3:49:52] have the means to do it, but it looks like
[3:49:53] we would. Have means. To change things if it isn't
[3:49:57] an amicable situation. Any further commas around the table.
[3:50:07] Councilor Calio. Thank you, mayor. I'd like to ask staff.
[3:50:15] Reading a report. It spoke in the report that we
[3:50:17] had at the last meeting about the reasons why? The
[3:50:22] tup does not fit this application. What a member of
[3:50:25] staff like to comment on that. Is, y'all.
[3:50:35] Yeah, it is. In the report that was attached for
[3:50:38] first and second reading. Essentially. First of all, that's not
[3:50:45] what's been applied for here. But secondly. It does speak
[3:50:52] in the OCP specifically. To only use, only uses that
[3:50:58] will not result in permanent facilities under land, alterations that
[3:51:00] will encourage noncompliance once the temporary use permit has expired.
[3:51:12] First of all, to understand previously, when. The first up
[3:51:18] came in, we were operating under a different OCP that
[3:51:21] had different. Framework as far as what should be considered
[3:51:25] with tups. But staff. 's position is still that the
[3:51:34] temporary use permit is not the most appropriate tool in
[3:51:37] this particular instance. Councilor justice just as follow up, because
[3:51:43] I think what you just said was it's. Not the
[3:51:45] most appropriate tool, but is it a possible tool?
[3:51:58] Staff's position remains that it is not appropriate based on.
[3:52:02] What the parameters are in the official community. Plan around
[3:52:05] temporary use permits. We're not the decision makers. But that
[3:52:11] is our interpretation of what's in the OCP. Mr mayor.
[3:52:21] I don't actually quite know how to do this, but
[3:52:23] I would like to just test. The council, so I
[3:52:27] would like to. Move something that I don't have in
[3:52:31] any sort of. Complex or any sort of a formal
[3:52:35] way, but. I would just test counsel by saying I
[3:52:39] would like to move that we move towards a temporary
[3:52:42] use permit. In some capacity and postpone this decision of
[3:52:46] a permanent rezoning for a period of two or three
[3:52:50] years. My understanding, perhaps the corporate officer can weigh in
[3:52:55] on this, but that if we did want to. Pursue
[3:52:57] a temporary use permit. We would have to first deal
[3:53:01] with the zoning amendment application. So if council were to
[3:53:05] reject the third reading of the bylaw amendment, then we
[3:53:09] would be in a position to consider. Inviting the applicant
[3:53:13] to reapply with the temporary use permit. I think. I
[3:53:17] believe we have to first deal with the zoning amendment
[3:53:21] before us. Turn to miss May. I don't know the
[3:53:25] answer to that question without looking it up. Honestly, I
[3:53:28] can't. Say for certain. I'd have to look it up.
[3:53:33] I guess I'm sort of looking at it to sort
[3:53:34] of see if there would be. Support for going that
[3:53:38] route. So I didn't get enough sort of feedback from
[3:53:42] council the last time I tried it. So I'd like
[3:53:44] to try it a little bit more formally. If I
[3:53:46] could somehow just. Saying I'd like to move. That we
[3:53:51] consider going in that direction somehow and see if there's
[3:53:53] a seconder and see if council supports it. So I'm
[3:53:59] just worried procedurally, right now, I think I do need
[3:54:01] a bit of. Advice from staff on this because we
[3:54:04] have just concluded. A public hearing on this, so if
[3:54:09] we could take. I know everyone's been here waiting. Patiently
[3:54:12] all night. But if we could take. Like a two
[3:54:15] minute recess even. Yeah. Sure? Yeah. We're going to take
[3:54:20] a two minute recess.
[4:00:24] Mr. Mayor, you are now live. All right, we're now
[4:00:27] going to resume our council meeting. We just had to
[4:00:30] take a recess to get some advice from staff procedurally
[4:00:35] on whether at this point, we should be considering a
[4:00:38] third reading of the zoning amendment. Bylaw or the alternative.
[4:00:42] That was suggested that. We refer this back to staff
[4:00:46] to invite the applicant to submit a temporary use permit.
[4:00:49] What? I'm advised by staff is that because the applicant
[4:00:52] did apply for the zoning amendment bylaw? That we should
[4:00:56] be dealing with this first, and then if it passes,
[4:00:59] we determine next steps from there. And if it fails?
[4:01:01] Then we'll be in a position to determine if we
[4:01:03] want. To invite them to submit a temporary use permit.
[4:01:08] So I'm going to turn to council. And ask if
[4:01:09] someone would like to move. The third reading of zoning
[4:01:13] amendment by law number 40 32,025, moved by councilor stash.
[4:01:18] No. You said we can't do temporary use, Perma. We
[4:01:21] can suggest amendments. To what's? Presented. Basically, I need clarification
[4:01:28] on where. Because. The way we've talked about and we've
[4:01:33] heard through public hearing is really like. As we saw,
[4:01:39] I think about the other public hearings we've had already.
[4:01:43] And first of mine is together we can and the
[4:01:46] public petitions against that and saying, well, we've got a
[4:01:49] good neighbor agreement. But what good is a good neighbor
[4:01:51] agreement? And I feel. What these neighbors are feeling there
[4:01:57] and through that is the meat of it is what
[4:02:00] can we actually do. In our business licensing bylaw to
[4:02:04] actually have substantive fine structures, business license revocation and more.
[4:02:11] Power and control. That would come out. My understanding is
[4:02:15] that would come after third reading. So we decide on
[4:02:18] third. Reading right now and then. I was going to
[4:02:21] ask. Thank you. Then council will have the option of
[4:02:23] giving direction of staff. To either. Update. The business licensing
[4:02:29] by a law or consider restrictive covenant or some other.
[4:02:33] Parameters around. The application, Mr. Swavy. Mr. Mayor, I would
[4:02:37] suggest that you have a debate about whether you're in
[4:02:41] support of the application or not, and if you're in
[4:02:43] support of it based on maybe a restrictive covenant that
[4:02:47] ties some of the oversight in place. You would talk
[4:02:51] about that now? And then that your support. Would be
[4:02:56] subject to that being undertaken before we finalize the resulting.
[4:03:01] So I think it's. Kind of a hybrid of it.
[4:03:04] You want to understand that you're going down the path
[4:03:07] of approving this at third. Reading. If there's restrictions put
[4:03:11] in place that cover off the oversight that you'd like.
[4:03:14] But those would be two separate motions. We deal first,
[4:03:17] the third reading, and then after that decide. On whether
[4:03:20] to do a separate motion. Imposing these other requirements in
[4:03:25] the property. Could I just do a follow up then?
[4:03:29] Thanks to the CAO for clarifications and yourself, mayor. I've
[4:03:34] met. With the neighbors and with the proponent. And I
[4:03:40] shared with both that I believe in the facility and
[4:03:44] what's being proposed and I've always been an advocate of
[4:03:46] business as being a previous business improvement association. President and
[4:03:51] always a member of chambers where I've ever been. So
[4:03:54] the business case and what being presented here, I think.
[4:03:59] Is valuable to our community, but. I also think there
[4:04:02] does need to be guardrails. And as I said to
[4:04:06] the other neighbors, I'm committed to that side of things,
[4:04:08] but definitely. I'll be supportive of third reading, then, if
[4:04:11] that's what you're. Looking for clarity on and where the
[4:04:13] will of counsel and the direction is going. But I
[4:04:18] guess that's all we're asking right now. But I have
[4:04:20] lots of other things I want to add to it.
[4:04:22] So just to cut that short, I'm fine. With third
[4:04:24] reading. All right, who wants to move third reading? Move
[4:04:27] by Councilor Hogg seconded. By. Of course. I'd like to
[4:04:35] move third reading, but I'd like to amend it slightly,
[4:04:38] so. Are we going to move? Third reading. Then we
[4:04:39] can come up with a friendly amendment. Does that. Work.
[4:04:43] Let's hear the amendment right now and perhaps you get
[4:04:45] some staff advice on the fly. Okay, so the original
[4:04:47] one, the original thing that we voted on, of course,
[4:04:49] was first and second. Readings, the widening of Lakes Road
[4:04:52] and then the good neighbor agreement. So I would like
[4:04:55] to suggest removing the widening of Lake's road. So I'm
[4:04:58] going to have to turn to staff for some procedural
[4:05:01] advice on this. That was a previous motion endorsed by
[4:05:06] council. Would be bringing it back for rescinding it. You
[4:05:15] could simply just rescind. I have passed the path motion
[4:05:19] in front of me. What can a council member who
[4:05:22] voted against something. At this point. When did this go
[4:05:30] through? What meeting? December 17. Yeah. It's not the same
[4:05:39] as a reconsideration. Well, since these were separate motions in
[4:05:48] the last meeting, council be treated as separate motions here
[4:05:51] as well. Yeah. Ms. Made, is that work? Yes. So.
[4:05:59] Third reading has been seconded. Councilor staff. She looked. You
[4:06:03] got a question or a. Comment. So we can't change
[4:06:08] the substance of it. If we go to third reading,
[4:06:10] we can't. Change the basis of it before adoption, then.
[4:06:19] So, clarity on that, can we? Because it was included
[4:06:23] in the thing here. Where do we speak about the
[4:06:25] Covenant, Mr. Merrill? We really need to get this procedurally
[4:06:30] right, because. I really want to talk about Covenant. I
[4:06:34] really want to talk about. Where do we stop this
[4:06:36] process? Until our business license bylaw is updated, there's several
[4:06:41] steps here, so I just want to make sure I'm
[4:06:43] doing them in the appropriate. So I think you can
[4:06:46] speak on all of them right now if you want,
[4:06:48] but we're. Going to have to deal with them in
[4:06:50] three separate motions. The first one would be the third
[4:06:53] reading. The second one would be. The. Reading had points
[4:06:58] under it. But not today. Today, all we're voting on
[4:07:02] a third. Reading that last meeting. We voted to endorse
[4:07:06] the staff recommendation for the third option in terms of
[4:07:11] widening lakes. Road and providing that shoulder. But from Stas
[4:07:13] perspective, that was dealt with on December 17 that wasn't
[4:07:16] supposed to come back for Redeyed at this meeting, but
[4:07:20] we do have that option if we want to reconsider.
[4:07:23] It. All right, so. It's been moved and seconded for
[4:07:32] third reading. Would someone like to speak on the motion,
[4:07:34] recognizing that. You can also talk about. The other restrictions
[4:07:39] we're considering or. The concerns around the road widening. Council
[4:07:45] justice. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It is getting late. It's
[4:07:50] getting a bit confusing. But I will speak to the
[4:07:56] motion. But I also want to. Say that, as you
[4:08:01] know. I've got emotion that. I'm hoping to make. To
[4:08:09] counsel if. This motion. If third reading passes, which speaks
[4:08:15] to a covenant and to. A looking at. The business
[4:08:21] license by law in order to give the good neighbors.
[4:08:25] Agreement. Some teeth and substance, counselor stash, so we can
[4:08:30] speak about it. Of course. Now. But I. Think it
[4:08:32] is also something I understand. We could do subsequent. To
[4:08:38] our decision on the third reading. Having said that. I
[4:08:43] would like to say a few words about it. I
[4:08:46] first start by just turning to the, to the people
[4:08:50] who have spoken today and say thank you very much.
[4:08:53] For almost. For all of your participation. For and against.
[4:09:00] I thought it was a very respectful. Conversation almost for
[4:09:05] almost 100%. Maybe a few little glitches here and there
[4:09:08] out of passion. We've heard tonight that. There are at
[4:09:15] least two very passionate. And compelling sides to this and
[4:09:21] that the issues are very complex. But for me. And
[4:09:25] I think, as I said, when council first brought this
[4:09:29] to public hearing, a month and a half ago or
[4:09:32] whenever it was. I don't think anybody would object to
[4:09:37] this business idea at all and principle the question. For
[4:09:42] me is simply where it's located. Is it in the
[4:09:46] right place and how much? Impact is it going to
[4:09:48] have on what is essentially a quiet and bucolic residential
[4:09:54] neighborhood? And. As the staff report says. Despite the mitigation
[4:10:00] work that the proponents have been doing, These events will
[4:10:04] undoubtedly have impact. In many ways. As we've heard from
[4:10:10] many people here tonight, and it doesn't need to be.
[4:10:12] Repeated by me. And beyond the impact on neighbors, I
[4:10:18] think. There's another long term, significant risk to the municipality
[4:10:23] related to. Administrative costs and ongoing neighborhood conflicts. Unless we
[4:10:30] get this one right. So I think. No matter. If
[4:10:38] it's going. Where I suspect it might be going. I
[4:10:42] think we really do need to think through how to
[4:10:44] make this. As good as possible for all involved, which
[4:10:49] is going to involve. Those things mentioned earlier. I guess
[4:10:54] in some for me, I just feel this is not
[4:10:56] the right place for a wedding. Venue and believe that
[4:10:59] the price is too high. In terms of the negative
[4:11:05] impact it will have on neighbors and the risk it
[4:11:08] poses to the municipality, so I won't be. Supporting the
[4:11:12] rezoning. At this time anyway, but. I would, if it
[4:11:18] goes the way I suspect. Like to talk some more
[4:11:21] about how we can adjust this thing. Thanks. Councilor hog.
[4:11:27] Thank you, mayor. Thank you all for speaking. And it's
[4:11:32] very late, and I'm sure no one was here too.
[4:11:34] Much more now, but. I would just like to put
[4:11:37] a little bit into perspective here. I just found out
[4:11:39] that. Our council chambers holds a maximum of 74 people,
[4:11:44] including us as council members. And when it's. Full. So
[4:11:49] we are asking. Randy, you're asking for 80 people. Can
[4:11:57] I ask staff a question? Do you know the square
[4:11:59] footage of this council chambers? Does anyone have a tape
[4:12:08] measure?
[4:12:20] Okay, so my point is that there was reference made
[4:12:23] in the speaking that the venue was quite small and
[4:12:27] it was 2700 believe. But we sit here. With 74
[4:12:32] of us. In less that size, quite comfortably. I've met
[4:12:36] with the neighbors and I appreciate all the concerns. And
[4:12:39] I said to them, I agree 100% with the concerns
[4:12:45] and I do feel like they have met. Many concerns.
[4:12:51] I, unfortunately, were not able to go to the open
[4:12:53] house, and so I did go on a separate day.
[4:12:56] To the barn to listen. And. I was absolutely shocked
[4:13:01] on the sound that did not transfer. Right now. I'm
[4:13:05] currently living in lake couch, and because my house is
[4:13:08] under renovation, And our health place we have in Lake
[4:13:11] couch. Couchen is not very far from sunfest. And even
[4:13:16] at my property. And the sound going there, I don't
[4:13:19] hear sunfest. And if you do, it's very faint. But
[4:13:24] where I used to live, I used to hear the
[4:13:26] train going every night and. No matter where you live,
[4:13:29] your hair sounds, and I do feel like. With the
[4:13:34] one neighbor speaking who? Is literally on their driveway. Saying
[4:13:38] they didn't hear it. That, to me, was a seller
[4:13:41] 100%. It's been a back and forth here because.
[4:13:53] I don't ever want to upset either side. I do
[4:13:55] want to find, as Chris said, try and find something
[4:13:58] that can make it. Good on both sides, but I
[4:14:02] will be supporting this. Thank you. Any other comments from
[4:14:06] councilor manhat? Manhattan. I too have been. Checked out the
[4:14:15] facility. And I was quite surprised. How the noise is
[4:14:22] contained. To the insides. You can walk around 510ft away
[4:14:28] from that building. You can't hear any noise. I've been
[4:14:32] there a few times. I was quite impressed with the
[4:14:36] work that. Randy and Museka have done. To do that
[4:14:41] mitigation and also the fencing they have done. To try
[4:14:46] to mitigate some of the concerns for the neighbors. And
[4:14:49] I like councilor Hogg. When it's so powerful? When the
[4:14:54] person that lives right next door. Doesn't. Can't hear the
[4:14:57] noise, can't hear the music. I think that's pretty compelling.
[4:15:01] Thanks. So I will be supporting the third reading. Councilor
[4:15:07] Kellyo. Thank you, mayor. I support the venue. I think
[4:15:17] they've done everything it possibly can to mitigate the disruption.
[4:15:21] And the noise. Light has been mentioned many times. The
[4:15:24] building has been soundproofed. And I agree. You probably can't
[4:15:28] hear anything outside that building at all. I think we
[4:15:32] should be supportive of business in our town and promote
[4:15:36] venues like this. And it's been mentioned many times. That
[4:15:42] the people support a tup. And not a zoning change.
[4:15:47] But the staff. Report spoke to that in the last
[4:15:50] report, and Miss Young has confirmed that. The neighbors are
[4:15:55] worried about a Gna good neighbor's agreement. And it has
[4:15:59] no teeth. But we got some good information today. From,
[4:16:05] I believe, our counsel. And. In this email that I
[4:16:12] received. It says that in council's view, a good neighbor's
[4:16:17] agreement provides a business license. Holder with notice as to
[4:16:20] the types of activities that would be viewed by the
[4:16:23] municipality as being inconsistent with good business practices that may
[4:16:27] result in the suspension or revocation of a business license.
[4:16:32] And I quote again, there's a long standing case law
[4:16:35] supporting the proposition that a municipality can revoke a business
[4:16:38] license where the mandarin, which the business is being operated,
[4:16:42] has nuisance. Impacts on the neighborhood, even where the business
[4:16:45] is expressly authorized by the municipality zoning bylaw. In essence,
[4:16:50] municipality is well within. Its power to require a gna
[4:16:54] as a condition of rezoning. Can't. Thought there's something else.
[4:17:04] Sorry. Councilor Finley. Thanks, Mr. Samaria. I'm also in favor
[4:17:10] of third reading here. For a whole bunch of different
[4:17:14] reasons, but. I think it's been shared around. I think
[4:17:20] as councilor Hogg and councilor Manasser spoke to the owner
[4:17:23] of the straddle out. Number one speaking about it. That
[4:17:27] was a seller, I think, for me, and I understand
[4:17:29] everybody's concerns. That are in the neighborhood. But when so
[4:17:35] many of the adjoining neighbors that are the most affected.
[4:17:37] Are in support of this application. I think. That's telling.
[4:17:42] So I'll be in support of third reading and like
[4:17:45] to speak. To the other items, perhaps when we come
[4:17:47] forward with other motions. All right. Thanks, Councilor Finley. Yeah,
[4:17:53] I'd like to. Similar to what my colleagues said earlier,
[4:17:56] I would like to thank all the people who came
[4:17:58] out this evening. It's past 11:00 and you've been here
[4:18:03] throughout the whole public hearing. Taking the time to share
[4:18:06] your perspectives on this application and around this council table,
[4:18:09] we've got used to public speaking over the years, but
[4:18:12] I know for many folks who don't, do this on
[4:18:14] a regular basis. It's challenging to get up to that
[4:18:19] podium and share your perspective. Not just with the folks
[4:18:22] in the room, but these are recorded and there is
[4:18:24] a bigger audience. There watching these meetings. I'm certainly sympathetic
[4:18:29] to all sides here. I do recognize. The applicants have
[4:18:33] put a lot of time and effort and resources and
[4:18:35] considerable investment. In terms of addressing some of the challenges
[4:18:41] with this property that were raised. In the previous staff
[4:18:45] report presented to council in 2020, and I do believe
[4:18:48] there has been a genuine effort to respond to the
[4:18:51] concerns raised by neighbors in the surrounding area, whether that's
[4:18:56] through the open house that those held recently, which I
[4:19:00] did attend. Or proposing the event contract as a way
[4:19:05] to set some parameters around. These weddings that would be
[4:19:10] held on the property. At the same time, though, I
[4:19:12] am very sympathetic that concerns raised by the people in
[4:19:16] the surrounding area. I think with any land use decision
[4:19:19] like this. It's important that we consider all perspectives. Whether
[4:19:22] it's, again, the applicant nearby. Residence. Even folks who live
[4:19:27] outside the municipal. Municipality and other businesses. However, the residents
[4:19:32] who live in close the closest proximity to the subject
[4:19:36] property, I would say. Their concerns deserve careful consideration from
[4:19:41] count someone were making decisions like this. And the neighbors,
[4:19:44] in my view, have raised. Legitimate concerns with regards to
[4:19:49] the application. Wanubuitch is the fact that this would be
[4:19:53] a commercial venue in the middle of a quiet, residential,
[4:19:57] rural residential neighborhood. And these are people who. We heard
[4:20:01] from them earlier this, this evening. They've lived in the
[4:20:03] area for decades, and they. They purchased these properties. With
[4:20:08] the thinking that they would be able to, you know,
[4:20:10] sit in their backyard, sit on their porch on those.
[4:20:11] Those beautiful summer evenings, and we don't have. Have enough
[4:20:15] of them here. Living in this part of the world
[4:20:16] as great as it is. And it's certainly going to
[4:20:19] be disruptive if there is a wedding venue of the
[4:20:23] scale on the nearby property. And I think we can
[4:20:26] all agree that there are noise impacts associated with that,
[4:20:29] despite the efforts of the applicant to take steps to
[4:20:34] address some of those concerns. The other point as well
[4:20:38] is that there's been a number of comparisons made to
[4:20:41] allowable uses in the agricultural land reserve and how these
[4:20:45] should be extended to this property. In my view. These
[4:20:52] comparisons. Don't really fit that well. This is a six
[4:20:59] acre property in the middle of what's recognized as a
[4:21:02] rural residential neighborhood. It's recognized by the surrounding residents that
[4:21:07] way and is certainly designated that way in our official
[4:21:10] community plan as well. The ALR. Typically, these are larger
[4:21:15] properties. Many of the LR properties that do host these
[4:21:18] wedding venues. Are significantly larger, sometimes upwards of 20 acres
[4:21:24] or even 300 plus with the birdside Co farm and
[4:21:28] wedding events on those properties. Are typically buffered by the
[4:21:33] distance. And I think many would argue that when the
[4:21:36] agricultural land commission did provide. Permission to. These ALr property
[4:21:44] owners to have a certain amount of these wedding events
[4:21:46] on their properties every year without having to apply for
[4:21:49] a non farm use application. They were considering the larger
[4:21:55] acreages again, where there's much more of a buffer between.
[4:22:00] The properties and less of an impact in terms of.
[4:22:04] The noise created. Which in a neighborhood like this, where
[4:22:08] the lots tend to be a lot smaller, despite the
[4:22:11] fact that it is rural. It's a much different dynamic.
[4:22:15] Despite these concerns from the surrounding neighbors, we have heard
[4:22:19] many suggest that a compromise would be a temporary use
[4:22:23] permit, and in my view, this would be a prudent
[4:22:26] way to approach. This proposal, it would allow us to
[4:22:29] have a three year trial period and determine that if
[4:22:34] the property could be managed and operate in such a
[4:22:37] way as to minimize the impact on the surrounding area.
[4:22:42] And if you look at some of the recent temporary
[4:22:44] use permits, not specifically a north couch, but the city
[4:22:47] of Duncan, for example, they did grant a temporary use
[4:22:50] permit for the village site on trunk road. Many of
[4:22:53] the neighbors in the surrounding area were understandably opposed to
[4:22:57] it. Very concerned. About having that facility in close proximity
[4:23:00] to their homes, but because of how. Well, it was
[4:23:03] operated. Many of those same neighbors came out afterwards to
[4:23:06] speak in favor of that. Site again because it had
[4:23:10] been managed so well over the previous three years, and
[4:23:13] my hope would be that. If we could look at
[4:23:16] another temporary use permit for the site. That the applicants
[4:23:19] and neighbors could find a way to work together, address
[4:23:21] some of these concerns. And if that were to take
[4:23:24] place, I'm sure we'd have a much different public hearing
[4:23:27] if the applicants were to come forward and ask for
[4:23:30] a permanent change in terms of the permitted uses on
[4:23:34] the property, so I will be voting against third reading,
[4:23:37] but would welcome. The application from the applicant for a
[4:23:43] temporary use permit. So again, we can have a trial
[4:23:46] use. For. This wedding venue in such a way that
[4:23:49] we can ensure the concerns of the astronomy neighborhood are
[4:23:52] addressed. For family and then councilor stash. Thanks. Mr. Mayor,
[4:23:58] I just want to respond to something. That several people
[4:24:00] have said regarding the potential distillery that could be on
[4:24:03] this property, the BC liquor loss changed several years ago
[4:24:06] that allowed distilleries to get lounge licenses with the lounge
[4:24:10] license, you essentially become a liquor primary, which means that
[4:24:13] if there's a. Distillery on this property every single night.
[4:24:16] There could be people outside or inside drinking and carrying
[4:24:20] on. There can be bans every Friday and Saturday night.
[4:24:25] Not just ten events a year. I'm talking every night.
[4:24:28] So I'm just looking it up right now. In the
[4:24:29] hours of liquor service, could be. 09:00 a.m. to 04:00
[4:24:31] a.m. depending on the location. So, 04:00 a.m. is usually
[4:24:35] New Year's Eve, but generally it could be very similar
[4:24:38] to my pub in Maple Bay. It could be open
[4:24:39] to 01:00. Every single night. Sorry. Every Friday and Saturday
[4:24:43] night. Not every single night. So I think that's. A
[4:24:46] critical piece that I think some people might be missing
[4:24:48] here is if this didn't. Go. And the distillery opened
[4:24:52] and lounge access came in, it could disrupt. The neighborhood
[4:24:56] far more than ten weddings in a year, so I
[4:24:59] just wanted to throw that out. There. Councilor stash. Thanks
[4:25:05] for letting me speak again, mayor. I'm still just really
[4:25:08] hung up in the process. Because my vote here is
[4:25:11] contingent on everything else that comes after it. So supporting
[4:25:15] third reading. The way this flows through. There's no reassurances
[4:25:21] that council will follow through on the other things that.
[4:25:23] We've lightly touched on. So I don't know how we
[4:25:26] get around that, because I brought it back up here
[4:25:29] and again. And we're specifically doing third reading only on
[4:25:33] commercial assembly use of ten times per year. That is
[4:25:38] the exact wording. And it speaks to nothing else. I
[4:25:41] think the assurance you get is that we do third
[4:25:43] reading, then we decide if we want. To put these
[4:25:45] further restrictions on it if council decides they don't want
[4:25:48] to put any further restrictions on it, and you're unhappy
[4:25:50] with that decision, then you can always vote against adoption.
[4:25:55] If the bile were to come back. So thank you
[4:25:56] for that. So then, speaking just to the third reading,
[4:25:58] then being I have those assurances. The reason why I'm
[4:26:02] also supportive of a third reading isn't actually, the math
[4:26:06] release jumped out at me when we heard a speaker
[4:26:08] here. When you look at the math of how many
[4:26:12] events that, that's 3% of a year. Actually, it's not
[4:26:14] even 3%. It's 2.7% of a year and out of
[4:26:19] that. Yeah. The most disruptive portion of it would be
[4:26:23] the music side of it, which is seven till. Eleven
[4:26:25] at night because it states that everything has to be
[4:26:29] shut down at eleven. Most bands start at seven. So
[4:26:32] that music starts at seven because you have to have
[4:26:34] your reception, that's 40 hours a year. I don't want
[4:26:37] to do the math on what percentage that is. But
[4:26:40] the impact of it was two. .7% of a year.
[4:26:44] There. And then as well, to just the use of
[4:26:47] it. I quickly just wanted a rebuttal. We're not debating
[4:26:52] the commercial use of it. Commercial use is allowed. We're
[4:26:56] debating. The assembly use of it. And then. My continual
[4:27:01] track record is we go into our fourth year. Is
[4:27:05] always to stand behind staff and what they do. And
[4:27:08] I heard comments attacking staff. From the gallery through the
[4:27:12] public hearing process. Saying the proponents were put in this
[4:27:15] place, and the proponents have actually done a really good
[4:27:17] job. They went through temporary use permit phase. They could
[4:27:21] have applied for a tup again, but they chose to
[4:27:23] do a zoning amendment phase because that's just the way
[4:27:26] the zoning bylaws. Dictate all of staff have done their
[4:27:29] job adequately, and the proponent has done an exemplary job
[4:27:32] of going through the process. So to say that anybody's
[4:27:35] been put into a predicament or north couch has. Done
[4:27:38] something wrong. North couch and staff have just stuck by
[4:27:41] the bylaws that existed for a very long time. So
[4:27:46] no one's put anybody in a predicament at all. There's
[4:27:50] just a lot of emotions that go through a public
[4:27:51] hearing process and through the past history of what's gone.
[4:27:54] So I just want to say everybody's done a good
[4:27:56] job. Proponents, opponents, everybody on both sides. I just wanted
[4:27:59] to put that out there just to lay a bit
[4:28:01] of a positive groundwork and to support staff with doing.
[4:28:05] And I do want to thank the proponent of we
[4:28:07] often we don't hear feedback. Giving the feedback on how
[4:28:11] well staff are supportive of them, but also. Those speaking
[4:28:16] against said how well that staff help them work through
[4:28:19] the process and the time they were given on that.
[4:28:22] Again, mayor, thanks for the clarification on that that I
[4:28:25] can vote with this, but still. Have the ability to
[4:28:27] vote against it if those other measures aren't in place,
[4:28:30] councilor. Kelly. Thanks, Baron. Yeah, it's getting a bit late
[4:28:36] here. I'm not feeling well and. I am getting tired.
[4:28:45] Councilor Istash brought up some very good points, and I
[4:28:49] agree with everything that he said. There. I just wanted
[4:28:57] to mention also that. I live on davis crescent. Which
[4:29:02] is my house, is literally 150 meters from the Duncan
[4:29:07] Community Lodge, formerly known as the moose. And. They hold
[4:29:13] an event almost every weekend. As a matter of fact,
[4:29:17] in October. They had a Halloween bash there with a
[4:29:22] band and probably 150 people or more inside that building.
[4:29:27] And living across the road. I heard nothing.
[4:29:38] Okay, so the thing is this is that I lived
[4:29:40] after this venue, and also there's another venue at the
[4:29:44] same place, and that is rowing Canada. And when they're
[4:29:48] in operation, and their training. There could be 45 cars
[4:29:51] come there every morning and leave every afternoon, and I
[4:29:55] hardly even notice they're there because. They're in and out
[4:29:59] and gone and talking about a left hand turn lane
[4:30:02] or a bypass. If anywhere ever needed it would be
[4:30:05] into the moose road. Because. Literally, it lines up there
[4:30:10] every day. And people are going in and out of
[4:30:13] our road all the time. And so my point is
[4:30:16] this, is that living next door to this facility, I
[4:30:21] hardly even noticed that. They're there. Thanks, Councilor Kelly. I
[4:30:29] think you raised good points. But one thing we should
[4:30:33] be considering here, though, is we've heard this from. Some
[4:30:37] of the surrounding neighbors. Is in some cases, not so
[4:30:40] much the activity, but the timing of it. There is
[4:30:43] an expectation that when you have purchased a property in
[4:30:46] a quiet, rural neighborhood that you are going to be
[4:30:48] able to peacefully enjoy. Those summer evenings again, out on
[4:30:52] your porch or your yard with your friends and family
[4:30:55] and that. Does become more challenging if there are these
[4:30:59] activities in close proximity. It's one thing to have them
[4:31:01] in the middle of the day, whether. It's commercial activities
[4:31:06] or people using their leaf blowers or lawn mowers or
[4:31:09] what have you, but I would say it's a bit
[4:31:12] of a different dynamic if you're. Dealing that with that
[4:31:15] on the Fridays and Saturday nights when, again, many folks
[4:31:19] who live in these rural neighborhoods do expect that peace
[4:31:22] and quiet. We've all stated our positions on this already.
[4:31:25] Can I call the question now on third? Reading. All
[4:31:28] in favor and opposed. Motion carries to the mayor and
[4:31:31] council. Justice opposed. We're going to put something forward here,
[4:31:35] either a gna or some sort of covenant. But we've
[4:31:38] already approved a gna. The direct staff to enter in
[4:31:45] a good neighbor's agreement with the applicant prior to business.
[4:31:47] Licensing. If we alter that? Or are we adding the
[4:31:51] conditions on it now? That's the question. Y'all was broken.
[4:31:56] Turn a staff on that, it would be. Either. Supplement
[4:32:01] what we've already passed, or would it just supersede it?
[4:32:05] Mayor. So if you want to look at the motions
[4:32:08] that you passed back in December to decide whether you
[4:32:12] want to keep them or if you want to fix
[4:32:14] them, you can amend a motion. That was previously adopted.
[4:32:19] So if you want to change it or amend it,
[4:32:23] You can pass the motion to amend it a certain
[4:32:25] way. If council agrees, then you vote on. The motion
[4:32:29] as amended. And it changes if council. If council doesn't
[4:32:32] agree with the amendment. Then the original motion still stands.
[4:32:37] Does that make sense? That's one way to handle it.
[4:32:43] Councilor justice. Yes, Mr. Mayor. I circulated a motion. To
[4:32:49] counsel this afternoon. I think Ms. May. Has a copy
[4:32:53] of it that she can project up onto the screen.
[4:32:57] And I'd like the opportunity to move that. At this
[4:33:02] time. So let's get it up on the screen, and
[4:33:06] then I'll let you move. It and see if there's
[4:33:08] a second there.
[4:33:23] How about you read it out first? We'll see if
[4:33:26] there's a second there. So the motion goes. It's a
[4:33:30] little bit long. That council directs staff, as a condition
[4:33:34] of rezoning, to enter into a good neighbor agreement. With
[4:33:37] the applicant. And that council direct staff, prior to consideration
[4:33:42] of adoption of the rezoning, to undertake amendments. To the
[4:33:45] municipality of North Couch and business license bylaw number. 2002
[4:33:51] to authorize the business license inspector to impose additional conditions
[4:33:55] on business licenses, including but not limited to hours of
[4:33:59] operation, use of amplified music, onsite parking, and the requirement
[4:34:02] of a good neighbor agreement and compliance therewith. And that
[4:34:07] council requires a condition. As a condition of rezoning a
[4:34:11] section 219 land title. Covenant to be registered on title
[4:34:15] of the subject property and common property that restricts commercial
[4:34:18] assembly. Use on the subject property. In the following ways.
[4:34:24] A no more than ten events per year, with maximum
[4:34:27] of 80 attendees at each event b that an event
[4:34:30] be limited to a 24 hours period. C that events
[4:34:34] be limited to a maximum of two per calendar month,
[4:34:37] leaving neighbors with about half of summer weekends free. D.
[4:34:41] The schedule of events is available in advance to neighbors.
[4:34:44] E. That all amplified music will be contained behind closed
[4:34:47] doors of the assembly use building on the premises. F
[4:34:52] that the event, including all music, shall end at 11:00
[4:34:54] p.m. with all attendees having vacated the premises by 11:30
[4:34:59] p.m. G that the operators shall hold a valid business
[4:35:03] license for the commercial assembly use and h that a
[4:35:06] good neighbor agreement be in place. And if there's a
[4:35:11] second, I'll speak just very briefly to it. Is there.
[4:35:15] Second, my councilor stash. Yeah. So thank you. I'm introducing
[4:35:20] this motion, but full credit. To staff for their guidance
[4:35:25] with respect to helping counsel. Find a way that. We
[4:35:31] can at least sort of pose some what could be
[4:35:35] considered a reasonable compromise here. I think this is a
[4:35:39] way that maybe everyone can be okay, or at least
[4:35:42] a little bit. More okay with this decision. By putting
[4:35:46] some conditions on the wedding venue. That, most of which,
[4:35:50] in fact, probably all of which are ones that. They
[4:35:54] themselves have volunteered. That protect neighbors and the municipality, and
[4:35:59] that makes sure that the conditions are enforceable, permanent and
[4:36:05] transferable, so. The motion, if passed, would lead to three
[4:36:12] things. One is a good neighbor's agreement, which is, in
[4:36:15] fact, Already in process, as I understand it. An adjustment
[4:36:20] to the business license bylaw, which would ensure the good
[4:36:24] neighbors agreement actually had teeth. And was enforceable and a
[4:36:29] covenant to make sure that this arrangement would continue even
[4:36:34] if the property was sold and the ownership changed. So
[4:36:39] that's the idea of it. And. I hope council can
[4:36:47] support it. Councilor stash and councilor hog. Thank you, mayor.
[4:36:50] Councilor. Family. Thanks. For council justice basically put this in
[4:36:57] place and to work there based on. Staff working through
[4:37:01] all the feedback from the proponent and all the people.
[4:37:06] Kind of provide the neighbors, providing their concerns, and I
[4:37:09] was glad to see this come about as a way
[4:37:11] that we could find a way to give real teeth
[4:37:14] to it. But also, as I mentioned earlier all the
[4:37:17] concerns we've heard on other public hearings and changes to
[4:37:20] land use. The perfect example. Together we can in the
[4:37:24] Norcost road rezoning where people were concerned about a good
[4:37:27] neighbor agreement not having any real merit. It's just only
[4:37:32] as good. As the paper is written on. So a
[4:37:37] real good, wholesome look at our business licensing bylaw. And
[4:37:42] the powers that the municipality has. To really control a
[4:37:46] business operation I think is warranted. Out of all these
[4:37:51] processes. I find every time there's something else in the
[4:37:53] municipality that we find that we can improve, and I
[4:37:56] think this gives us an opportunity. From one experience to
[4:38:00] improve a future experience for others so that we can
[4:38:03] know that through the public hearing process. People don't have
[4:38:08] to make concerns. On that. There's no avenue for them
[4:38:13] to have issues vetted out and dealt with. Appropriately. Looking
[4:38:20] at the list a through h here. It's pretty much
[4:38:22] all pulled directly from. What was already laid out. In
[4:38:28] the proponent's own documents. The only thing I was looking
[4:38:30] at is. Working through on sea. That's what I'd mentioned
[4:38:37] earlier and asked. I don't know if it's only two
[4:38:40] per month, or if it's something that's every other, because
[4:38:42] some months have five weeks. In weekends in them. So
[4:38:46] it's just. That's kind of just a semantics or. How
[4:38:49] it's worked out. I think there's maybe something to be
[4:38:52] smoothed in point. C in there, but this part of
[4:38:55] the bylaw in there. As this being one extra line
[4:39:00] added when we go to adoption, I'm definitely supportive of
[4:39:03] this. Councilor hog. Thank you, mayor. Well, you beat me
[4:39:12] to that one. But my other question is. B the
[4:39:16] event limited to 24 hours period. The event being the
[4:39:20] wedding in itself, because. It's scheduled at the bridal party
[4:39:24] will come, but they don't hold a special permit. For.
[4:39:29] The. Rehearsal and set up. So is that 24 hours
[4:39:35] period, is that just. For the actual wedding day. Let's
[4:39:41] call it the Saturday. Thank you for the question. Just
[4:39:44] for clarity, that would be for the wedding event itself.
[4:39:47] The actual ceremony. Okay. Thank you. And receptions are. And
[4:39:54] reception, but. It wouldn't pertain them for doing the. Very
[4:39:59] good point by Mr. Swaby. It's probably more important for
[4:40:02] a councilor justice. To clarify what his intent was behind
[4:40:05] that motion. Thank you. Councilor justice. Do you want to
[4:40:12] weigh in on that? Thank you. My intent was to
[4:40:16] basically mirror. The language of. The agricultural land Committee rules
[4:40:25] for events and weddings. Councilor Finley. So that begs the
[4:40:34] question. So based on that, the agricultural committee's suggestion is
[4:40:38] the 24 hours or. Is it the one day or
[4:40:42] is it the weekend? I'm kind of confused. What was
[4:40:44] the agricultural committee suggestion. Is it similar to what Mr.
[4:40:47] Farkis had just suggested? It is. Okay, good. That's fine.
[4:40:51] I'm not in favor of the motion. The way it's
[4:40:52] written, I think it triples up. Here. We're passing another
[4:40:57] good neighbor agreement. Although we've already passed it. We're. Saying
[4:41:00] that they can't get the adoption of the rezoning until
[4:41:04] we change. The business licensing. Bylaw, which includes a good
[4:41:08] neighbor agreement. And then we're saying that we can register.
[4:41:11] It. Section 9219 covenant on there, which has a whole
[4:41:14] bunch of conditions and a good neighbor. Agreement. So I'm
[4:41:18] not in favor of the first two, because if there's
[4:41:20] a covenant, that covenant supersedes anything, right? I mean, it
[4:41:24] doesn't matter if we've. Changed our business. Licensing by law
[4:41:27] is my understanding. It's a covenant's on title. And they
[4:41:29] have certain restrictions. They have to follow those restrictions. Is
[4:41:33] that a fair comment? The nature in which you regulate.
[4:41:37] Sorry about the mic. It's a bit loud here. Changes
[4:41:40] with respect to the two different regimes. So. You're allowed
[4:41:45] to use ticketing as a regulatory tool with the amendment
[4:41:49] of the business. License bylaw. But with respect to a
[4:41:54] covenant, you'd be applying to an injection to. The courts,
[4:41:57] which is a much more onerous and costly process for
[4:41:59] the municipality. So I guess my perspective is both tools.
[4:42:05] Are useful, aren't necessarily redundant, just allows you different regulatory
[4:42:09] tools in the toolkit. Follow up. Yeah. In that case,
[4:42:15] then I'm not in favor of. The. It seems fairly
[4:42:22] onerous here. All three of these, especially prior to adoption
[4:42:26] and the rezoning. The good neighbor agreement could cover off
[4:42:29] everything that's in this section 19 219, Covenant. That needs
[4:42:36] to be done. It just seems so onerous, all. All
[4:42:39] three of these things going forward. And even if we
[4:42:43] did want to put the section 219 covenant in, I
[4:42:46] think limiting two per calendar month. I agree with councilor
[4:42:50] stash on that. I think that's unfair and having to
[4:42:52] notify the neighbors, I think is also just an extra
[4:42:55] layer of. Unrequired information sharing. Yeah. So the way it's
[4:43:01] written, I'm not voting in favor of this if we
[4:43:04] tweak it a little bit, then I think I could
[4:43:05] get there. Councilor Manhas Calio. And then a stash. Thank
[4:43:11] you, Mr. Mayor. Is 24 hours. Period long enough because
[4:43:16] if you have a rehearsal, the rehearsal will also be
[4:43:18] part of the 24 hours period. Right. Rehearsals at 02:00
[4:43:21] in the afternoon. And then. You're only there. For. Ten
[4:43:28] or reception. The next day or whatever. Ms. Bukesh, thanks
[4:43:34] for the question. When staff reached out to the ALC
[4:43:41] to get some clarity on their policy with respect to
[4:43:43] that 24 hours restriction. The information that we received indicated
[4:43:47] that they don't have a really strict interpretation of what
[4:43:51] that 24 hours is and that they actually take a
[4:43:53] fairly light hand. With interpretation. And so. Staff were told
[4:44:01] that. There's the ability for a rehearsal the night before
[4:44:06] to fall under some other permitted use. Of the ALC
[4:44:10] land use regulations that. Allows family and people to just
[4:44:14] generally stand on a property. Certainly if you're talking about
[4:44:19] the wedding venue that is hosting. An invite only larger
[4:44:22] gathering. Of people for a Friday night rehearsal dinner and
[4:44:27] then a Saturday. The information staff received is that in
[4:44:31] some situations, the ALC compliance officer could identify that that
[4:44:35] is outside of the 24 hours limit, but in that
[4:44:38] case, they would. Refer that to compliance issue to the
[4:44:42] ALC for an ultimate interpretation on policy. So there's still
[4:44:46] a path forward for that kind of structure to be
[4:44:49] permitted. It's just unfortunately, staff didn't receive a very strict
[4:44:53] policy interpretation. From the ALC. Yeah. I'm not in favor
[4:44:57] of this, then, because. It's not proper interpretation. Of the
[4:45:04] bylaw. Because. If they. Would a rehearsal be another event?
[4:45:13] Would that be like two events for that weekend? So.
[4:45:16] Then they're down to cut down to five weddings. Right.
[4:45:20] So until we get a proper interpretation, I think, or
[4:45:22] proper thing, I'm not for. This. Also, what's the time
[4:45:27] frame? To get the business license bylaw done. Mr. Horn.
[4:45:41] You want to hit the mic there? Upon direction of
[4:45:44] council, we could bring it back within about. A two
[4:45:46] week turnaround. It's a fairly small revision to the business
[4:45:49] license bylaw. Okay? Two weeks. I could because I just
[4:45:55] want to hold these guys. Yeah. We'll require two readings
[4:45:59] of the bylaw, don't we? So it's. Going to take
[4:46:02] two council meetings. We have no more meetings this month.
[4:46:08] It'll be next month, so probably. In March. It would
[4:46:12] be adopted at the latest. Three readings and the first
[4:46:16] March meeting them. Consider adoption at the second meeting in
[4:46:19] march. Yeah, I hate to just delay Delhi delay because
[4:46:24] people are starting to book their weddings and stuff, right?
[4:46:27] I'm not in favor of this either, Councilor Calio. Thanks,
[4:46:35] mayor. I'm potentially in favor of it, but. Like councilor's
[4:46:43] family of Mount, as I've mentioned. I find a 24
[4:46:46] hours period hasn't been explained properly. And that. It's already
[4:46:54] been said by the proponents that. They have get together
[4:47:00] on the Friday night and then the weddings on the
[4:47:01] Saturday and there's. Cleanup on the Sunday. So I asked
[4:47:06] this question earlier. Was that 16 hours on the Saturday?
[4:47:10] Is it 8 hours on the Friday? 8 hours on
[4:47:12] the. Sunday. Until we can actually get that cleaned up
[4:47:16] and get it hardened, I can't vote for this either.
[4:47:22] I mean, we just don't know. What it contains. And
[4:47:24] another thing is. The schedule of events available to it
[4:47:29] in advance of the neighbors. Potentially for that, but which
[4:47:34] neighbors? And what are they going to have to go
[4:47:36] door to door? Or how would that be done? I'm
[4:47:39] just curious as to the parameters of that. Councilor Istash
[4:47:45] then councilor justice. I think we're really overthinking the event
[4:47:54] time period. Did nobody read our own staff's report. It
[4:48:00] says, we are inferring from the decision an event to
[4:48:03] be when all attendees converge. In the property for ceremony
[4:48:06] and reception, then activities tangentially related to the wedding, overnight
[4:48:10] accommodations of priority and after that do not necessarily contravene
[4:48:13] a 24 hours restriction are excluded from being part of
[4:48:17] the event and. We're counsel. We decide that. So don't
[4:48:21] worry about it. Support it 24 hours. Is the event
[4:48:25] itself and tangental side events of being set up and
[4:48:29] takedown aren't. Going to occur on it. We're overthinking things
[4:48:32] here and it's. Easy to get ten emails from a
[4:48:35] neighbor's list and have the property owner have that, and
[4:48:38] we probably don't need a full schedule. Of events. We
[4:48:40] could just say there's a wedding on this day. We've
[4:48:44] been to enough weddings. The wedding is usually at 02:00
[4:48:47] suppers at six dances at seven. Every wedding is cookie
[4:48:51] cutter that way, pretty much. We're really overthinking things, but.
[4:48:57] I can. And then for Councilor Finley. One more month,
[4:49:01] they're going to have the zoning in place. Weddings are
[4:49:03] until later. I think we really need to have that
[4:49:06] business license change in there. To the other councils that
[4:49:09] said they can't support it because of that. If we
[4:49:11] can put enough meat into the business. License requirement. I
[4:49:14] can understand councilor Finley's point on having the redundancy. Of
[4:49:21] a covenant on there not being necessary, and even staff
[4:49:24] said that that might be overly redundant. Not necessary. And
[4:49:27] likewise, legal counsel. I would just really like to get
[4:49:32] council support on putting some things in here that help
[4:49:35] us. On future land use concerns of where. Neighbors concerns
[4:49:41] can be alleviated with this proper teeth. Councilor justice. I
[4:49:48] mean, if the 24 hours period thing. Is a stumbling
[4:49:54] block. Let's just pull it out. I'll move to remove
[4:49:58] it from the list. You'll move to what? Amend your
[4:50:03] motion. A strikeout. That item? Yes. So it's? Been moved.
[4:50:09] Keep. Bear with me one moment here. So let's just
[4:50:15] go through the list then the 24 hours is. B.
[4:50:23] What were the other ones you mentioned? Let's just do
[4:50:26] the mortar time. One at a time. Okay, so we're
[4:50:32] going to have to sever. It a few ways here,
[4:50:35] then. That's just a simple text. Pull it up. Just
[4:50:43] bear with me for one moment. So there's three parts
[4:50:45] to emotion here. It's. The first one the council direct
[4:50:47] staff has a condition of rezoning to enter into. A
[4:50:49] good neighbor agreement with the applicant, which I think is
[4:50:51] redundant because we already passed that of the December 17
[4:50:54] meeting. And the next part here is that council direct
[4:50:58] staff, prior to consideration, adoption of the rezoning. To undertake
[4:51:02] amendments. The municipality North Couch business license filed on number
[4:51:04] 2002 to authorize the business license of spectrum imposed additional
[4:51:08] conditions on business licenses, including, but not limited to hours
[4:51:12] of operation use of. Amplified music, onsite parking and the
[4:51:18] requirement for a good neighbor agreement and compliance therewith. So
[4:51:21] do we want to vote on that part separate? I'm
[4:51:25] turning the corporate officer to make sure I'm following procedure
[4:51:28] properly here. Do you want us to move and second
[4:51:29] this again, or can we just sever these? Go ahead
[4:51:35] and sever, but I will make a comment, though, that
[4:51:38] the good neighbor agreement. That was previously passed, just so
[4:51:43] council is aware, was prior to business license issuance. So
[4:51:47] that is the different nuance there than the one that's
[4:51:50] in front of you now. Council justice. As the author
[4:51:54] of this, do you have a preference on us, considering
[4:51:57] the one you've just brought forward or what we passed
[4:51:59] on December 17. The nuance on that, as I recall,
[4:52:06] is that if you've already issued the good neighbor agreement,
[4:52:09] and then you amend the business license. You won't be
[4:52:11] able to tie it. To it. So you need to
[4:52:14] hold off until you amend the business license and then
[4:52:18] tie the good neighbor. Agreement to that. Just leave what
[4:52:22] we had on December 17? Yeah.
[4:52:32] If you want to amend the business license. That needs
[4:52:36] to be done and then tie the good neighbor agreement
[4:52:39] to that don't do the grid paper agreement first. The
[4:52:43] way the motion was passed would be problematic. All right.
[4:52:47] Clear to everyone? Crystal clear. So let's vote on the
[4:52:52] first part of this, then. The councilor staff as a
[4:52:55] condition of rezoning to enter into a good neighbor agreement
[4:52:57] with the applicant. Can we vote on that one? Yes.
[4:53:05] Okay, so I'll call the question on that one. All
[4:53:09] in favor? And opposed. None opposed. Motion carries. Now, we'll
[4:53:14] consider the second part of it, then. The second part?
[4:53:18] Of the motion that council direct staff prior. Do I
[4:53:21] have to read this out again? Okay, so. We're going
[4:53:23] to vote on the second part. Now, in terms of
[4:53:26] amending. The business license by a loss. So, assuming we
[4:53:32] can get this done in time, but, I mean. If
[4:53:37] all accounts. We're pushing forward to rezoning, and this is
[4:53:40] now delaying it. By a month because we have to
[4:53:42] go to two or three council meetings. We're coming into.
[4:53:46] We made a bunch of changes recently to expedite stuff
[4:53:48] like. The garden on Wallace street. Right. So we expedited
[4:53:52] it. This might hinder their ability. To book weddings this
[4:53:55] summer because brides are booking the weddings now. They were
[4:53:57] booking them six months ago. So my concern is that
[4:54:00] we wait two months, two and a half months, until
[4:54:02] we pass the business license bylaw, and then they've missed
[4:54:04] out on part of the summer. Wedding season. That's my
[4:54:08] concern. Perhaps staff want to comment on this. But. It.
[4:54:12] Would it not be possible to have like, if it
[4:54:14] the business amendment bylaw came back? On the second meeting
[4:54:17] of March. We could have the zoning amendment bylaw come
[4:54:21] back at that same meeting for adoption, correct, Mr. Swaving.
[4:54:24] You've got to separate. Mr. Mary, I believe you have
[4:54:27] to separate. Have two meetings to adopt that bylaw. The
[4:54:32] corporate officer would know better than me. Think you can
[4:54:36] give it first three readings and it has to come
[4:54:38] to the next council meet. I get that, but could
[4:54:42] we not consider. So let's say the second meeting of
[4:54:46] March. We've got the business amendment, business license, amendment bylaws
[4:54:50] come back for adoption. Could we not consider adoption of
[4:54:53] the zoning amendment bylaw that same meeting. The business would
[4:54:59] depend on the covenant being registered for one. And. The
[4:55:05] other issues that are tied to the business license being
[4:55:08] done in the good neighbor agreement. Counselor. Do you want
[4:55:17] to, Counselor Hogg? That will come back to you. Or
[4:55:20] do you want to? Finish. What you're. I just briefly
[4:55:25] wanted to respond to councilor Finnley's concerns about timing. I
[4:55:30] think I heard fairly clearly during. The public hearing that,
[4:55:35] in fact, this is not causing a delay in booking
[4:55:38] weddings. They're booking weddings. And I think with the indication
[4:55:42] that. We are moving, although slowly, towards. Approving this wedding
[4:55:49] venue. I don't think that. They're going to be missing
[4:55:55] out on any bookings. I'm guessing, of course, but. I
[4:56:00] wouldn't worry about a couple of months myself. Councilor Hogg.
[4:56:08] Thank you. This question, I guess, might be for Ted
[4:56:11] or Trisha. With adopting. It's so late.
[4:56:21] Doing the adoption. For what we're doing right now. I
[4:56:27] don't even know how the words, the business license bylaw.
[4:56:29] No. The amendment. Oh, the zoning amendment. Thank you. How
[4:56:34] long would that. Where would that look like in timeline,
[4:56:39] anyways, if we're looking at comparison, what are we looking
[4:56:41] at that adoption? Do you get what I mean? No,
[4:56:48] not 100%. Why making the assumption? The council wants to
[4:56:55] amend the business license bylaw. We'll take those two meetings
[4:56:59] that the MER described. If making the assumption that council
[4:57:03] wants the restrictive covenant register, which we've never talked to
[4:57:05] the applicant, likely about. That's a whole process where the
[4:57:09] lawyers have to draft the covenant, our lawyer has to.
[4:57:11] Review it, and then it has to be registered on
[4:57:13] title. It'll take about the same. Amount of time. As
[4:57:16] long as we have agreement. On those issues going into
[4:57:20] the covenant. Sorry. I think I can be a little
[4:57:22] bit more clear. That? Let's just say taking the bylaw
[4:57:26] out of it completely and all, we're. Doing is moving
[4:57:28] forward. What would the timing be like to just, I'm
[4:57:31] looking at timelines for adoption if this wasn't in, it
[4:57:34] saves a different scenario. We're not talking the wedding venue.
[4:57:37] We're here right now. We're doing third reading and. We
[4:57:39] need to adopt. It. What is the timeline? But it
[4:57:42] depends on what council wants. To tie as restrictions if
[4:57:46] you don't have anything except a good neighbor agreement. Yes,
[4:57:49] we can draft that up and probably have this back
[4:57:51] in the first meeting in February, okay? Thank you, Councilor
[4:57:56] Finley. If we're pushing forward on business license bylaw. So
[4:58:01] we're going to amend the business license to impose these
[4:58:04] additional business license requirements at the same time as creating
[4:58:07] a good neighbor agreement. Why do we have a section
[4:58:09] 219 at all? We don't even need it. Because the
[4:58:12] good neighbor agreement is covering off all the stuff. Plus
[4:58:14] a business license is also covered. Is it not? The
[4:58:17] big difference is it goes with the land. So that's
[4:58:20] the thing. It stays on title, right? So future owners.
[4:58:24] Will be with those conditions, right? With respect. To a
[4:58:28] condition of business licensing through a good neighbor agreement. Really?
[4:58:31] Then it requires the licensee. To reapply or the owner
[4:58:35] to reapply for the license. So they're actually different. The
[4:58:37] other one goes with the land, the other one doesn't.
[4:58:41] And there could be human error with respect to administration.
[4:58:43] So, for example, let's say if there's a new owner.
[4:58:47] And they apply for a business license, it'll be up
[4:58:50] to the bylaw staff without. Any further direction of council
[4:58:55] to determine whether or not to build in that condition.
[4:58:58] Right. So there's a chance that that doesn't happen, and
[4:59:01] then those conditions don't. Flow to the new ownership. I
[4:59:05] think it's late, Mr. Mayor. It's quite late. And bad
[4:59:08] decisions get made. When it's late. And I'm really sensing
[4:59:17] that even. With all the advice that's been provided, even
[4:59:20] by the solicitor, that this is falling through. The crocs
[4:59:23] for you. So. Another option is that you're going to
[4:59:27] defer this decision until you get a report. Back on
[4:59:30] how to implement it. That delays it more, but I'm
[4:59:33] just recognizing that it's late and we're. Struggling. And just
[4:59:39] to clarify the timelines we've been referring to March, I
[4:59:42] think I started. That inadvertently. But if Mr. Horn Team
[4:59:49] can pull together the update to the business licensing by
[4:59:52] a law in two weeks, then we would be in
[4:59:54] a position to consider that at the first meeting. Of
[4:59:57] February. And to wrap it up potentially before the end
[5:00:00] of the month. And it was a bit of a
[5:00:04] buffet. The motion has a bunch of things you don't.
[5:00:06] Have to do them all. I think that was explained
[5:00:09] earlier as well. That there's checks and balances. To both.
[5:00:14] But you don't need to do all of them to
[5:00:16] achieve the same thing. So do we want to give?
[5:00:19] And I'm going to come to you in one moment.
[5:00:21] Councilor man asked, but do we want to give staff
[5:00:23] direction right now then to begin updating? The business license
[5:00:27] bylaw, recognizing that they're going to have to bring it
[5:00:29] back. To us for first three readings, and if anyone
[5:00:33] gets cold skate at that point, we can decide. To
[5:00:35] move in a different direction. Do you want to comment
[5:00:39] on that? Councilman? Ask. Did you want to comment on
[5:00:41] that? Can the covenant on the land not be put
[5:00:45] on afterwards? The incentive or the leverage that council has
[5:00:55] is to require it before you finalize the zoning. Yes,
[5:01:01] it can be, but. It's never done that way because.
[5:01:07] What's the incentive to do it? I'm just saying, just
[5:01:09] expedite things. Further? No. What's the incentive on the applicants
[5:01:13] point? Did it? Well, we get the word. No. Do
[5:01:17] we want to vote then on the second part of
[5:01:19] this, to give direction to staff, to update the business
[5:01:22] licensing bylaw. Recognizing the gain. We're not making the final
[5:01:25] decision, right? Now they're going to bring the bylaw back
[5:01:27] for debate. At the sounds of the first meeting of
[5:01:33] February. It's going to call the question. Someone keeping an
[5:01:37] eye on mike there I keep forgetting to look at.
[5:01:41] His box on the screen. Councilor Callie. Sorry. So call
[5:01:43] the question then. All in favor and oppose. None opposed.
[5:01:46] Motion carries. So we're now at the third part, and
[5:01:50] this is the longer portion of. The motion. And that's
[5:01:54] with regards to section 219, land title act, so it
[5:01:58] sounds like. You were willing to. Remove one part of
[5:02:02] this councilor, justice and. That was the section b, the
[5:02:06] 24 hours period. And Councilor Finley, you identified a couple
[5:02:09] of. Other areas you had some questions or concerns about.
[5:02:14] Ms. May, could you put them back up on the
[5:02:15] screen? Councilor Finley. Yeah. So I'd suggest removing BC Andy.
[5:02:24] So as the author, I'll go to councilor justice first
[5:02:27] and over to councilor. Stash. I think that they need
[5:02:34] to be considered separately, but if we're speaking to it,
[5:02:38] I would say that. The schedule of events is really
[5:02:42] easy. And they just have a website. When the weddings
[5:02:48] are so that I think actually it's to their own
[5:02:51] benefit, because then people who are making noise and the
[5:02:54] people next door. Can ensure that. They're going to be
[5:02:59] quiet during that particular Saturday, at that particular time. So
[5:03:04] they're, not disturbing. The wedding ceremony outside, so, I mean,
[5:03:08] I think. That's just. Basic. Easy, right? Easy vs. Well.
[5:03:20] We've got a motion movement seconded. We severed it so
[5:03:23] we don't have. To revote on this portion, but how
[5:03:25] about we vote on amending it to decide if we
[5:03:28] want to remove certain portions of it. But, councilor stash,
[5:03:30] you want to jump in? Well, just a comment on
[5:03:32] all three when I was speaking about my thoughts on
[5:03:35] them earlier. I didn't fully look at the little parts.
[5:03:43] The last part is property in the following ways. If
[5:03:45] it was a covenant, BC and d don't really need
[5:03:49] to be in the covenant. Those are parts of a
[5:03:51] good neighbor agreement to my feeling, and I think they're
[5:03:54] too prescriptive to a covenant, whereas. AeFG and H are
[5:04:01] the key parts because H is going to deal with
[5:04:04] Bc and D. If I might, just for clarity, the.
[5:04:11] Conditions were supposed to be things that were protected by
[5:04:14] all three of those things. They weren't specific to the
[5:04:17] Covenant in my intent. Counselor hog. Thank you, mayor. I'm
[5:04:24] just looking at e here and just some clarification. It
[5:04:27] says that all ancillary music will be contained behind closed
[5:04:30] doors of the assembly. Use building on process. What are
[5:04:36] we considering? Amplified. When you have a wedding venue or
[5:04:40] when doing an outdoor wedding, you're going to have music
[5:04:42] playing or is there a decibel reading that we need
[5:04:45] to make that bit more? Clarity in that. Because. It's
[5:04:51] just to have the best clarification on here. So we're
[5:04:59] not putting the wrong wording in. As the author. Council
[5:05:03] justice. Want to clarify that? Then I'll go to councilor
[5:05:04] Manass. I'm. With respect. Once a motion is made and
[5:05:12] seconded, it really belongs to all of council, and not
[5:05:14] just the original author. Understanding your intent is helpful for
[5:05:21] all of us. Yes. So with respect to which one?
[5:05:26] With respect to e. The amplified music being indoors. Well.
[5:05:32] Really? That was just reflecting. The promise that the proponents
[5:05:38] made. And so it's really about what they meant, because
[5:05:42] they're saying that all the music is going to be
[5:05:44] indoors and the doors will be shut and nobody's going
[5:05:47] to hear it from outside. And so we're going. Yeah.
[5:05:49] Okay. So let's just protect. That with the good neighbors
[5:05:52] agreement or the business license stipulation or whatever it is,
[5:05:58] so. I don't know the answer to that, but. This
[5:06:04] is really mostly, as I said, mostly things, almost entirely
[5:06:07] things that the proponents themselves. Have put forward as conditions.
[5:06:14] I think staff and maybe. If I were to interpret
[5:06:17] that as if you have a guitar music when you're
[5:06:19] coming. Down the aisle or harp or something that's not
[5:06:22] amplified music. And that's okay. It's when the rock band
[5:06:26] comes out. And Councilor Hugg gets her dancing. She's on.
[5:06:30] That's got to be. Behind closed doors. All right. So
[5:06:39] do we want to go through it one by one?
[5:06:41] Which ones? We want to remove like no one brought
[5:06:43] up a as an issue b. Do you want to
[5:06:46] keep remove B.
[5:07:00] The reason I would recommend leaving it in was it
[5:07:02] was a big part of. Trying to define what the
[5:07:05] event was. For the neighborhood. What is that, five days?
[5:07:11] So that we tried to look at the way that
[5:07:13] the agricultural. Land commission. Land commission does it, and I
[5:07:19] think that's a reasonable way to do it. Councilor Finley.
[5:07:22] Why don't we change it to 36 hours? That covers
[5:07:24] Friday night or. Through to all. A Saturday. I move
[5:07:28] that. Gets moved. Is there a second?
[5:07:40] A second by councilor Manass. Any discussion? Ready to call
[5:07:43] the question? All in favor and opposed. Motion carries with
[5:07:49] the mayor, councilor stash and councilor. Justice. Opposed? We've amended
[5:07:53] one part of it. That's B C. To two events
[5:07:58] per month. Someone. Moved to remove that move by councilor
[5:08:03] families or a seconder second by Councilor Hogg. Any discussion.
[5:08:09] Council justice. Yeah. I think this is a really important
[5:08:13] one. And I think as the proponents themselves indicated, that
[5:08:17] they are going to be doing. They will probably want
[5:08:22] to do it. Every other weekend anyway, so I think
[5:08:26] this is a really important one. In terms of giving
[5:08:30] the neighbors. Some assurance that they're not going to. Be.
[5:08:38] All tan. Weddings are going to be on the ten
[5:08:40] nice summer evenings, and so do they have every other
[5:08:44] weekend off. I think that's just. A completely reasonable sort
[5:08:48] of. A compromise. Whether it's two per calendar month or
[5:08:54] every other. I don't know how to. Do that, but,
[5:08:56] I mean, I think two per calendar month is a
[5:08:58] pretty reasonable way of going. About it, Councilor Fenley. So
[5:09:02] the issue is that July and August have 31 days,
[5:09:04] right? And so I'm just looking at January just because
[5:09:06] it's right here and the 3. January is a Saturday.
[5:09:09] The 17th is a Saturday. 31st is Saturday, so that
[5:09:12] could be three in a 31 day month. And also
[5:09:15] in the 30 day, months. You have the same thing.
[5:09:17] So that's why I'm concerned about that. Because if they're
[5:09:19] every two weeks, which is what the proponent has suggested,
[5:09:21] she's trying to limit to, then that would be fine.
[5:09:24] But as she said, sometimes they might get one. On
[5:09:26] the third and the 10th. And not another one till
[5:09:28] the 24th to the 31st. So again. Could be three
[5:09:32] in a month. So I just don't think we should
[5:09:33] limit. We were limiting tan already and the wedding season
[5:09:37] is made to October, so I think that should just
[5:09:40] be removed. I wonder if there's another way of doing
[5:09:43] it. For example. Limiting it. To. Maximum three of
[5:09:52] the. Well, now, I could say. I guess. You said
[5:10:01] how many? There's 62 days. Of nine weeks. In the
[5:10:08] height of the summer. So what about. Five over. The
[5:10:15] summer months. Maximum five months. Insurer. How are you defining
[5:10:21] summer months? July and August. Okay. All right. Councilor man
[5:10:27] asked. Yeah, I think that's pretty difficult to restrict because
[5:10:32] what if somebody is adamant on a certain day for
[5:10:35] a wedding. Well, they can do that if it's a
[5:10:38] number, if it's a maximum of five of July and
[5:10:42] August. They could pick whatever dates they wanted. I don't
[5:10:50] know. Well, remember, what we're trying to do is achieve
[5:10:54] a compromise. Absolutely. So that not every weekend is right.
[5:11:00] Half the weekends you can have weddings. Half the weekends
[5:11:02] they have free. Seems like a totally reasonable compromise. So
[5:11:08] I think we've got a motion here to strike this
[5:11:11] out. Is there an appetite? Around the table. To instead.
[5:11:16] Consider some alternative wording that does set some limits around
[5:11:20] how many of these can be held in a given
[5:11:22] period, or do you just want to strike it out
[5:11:23] altogether? Councilor stash. Is there some way to word it
[5:11:28] that it needs to be negotiated in? The good neighbor
[5:11:31] agreement. This is something. A good neighbor agreement. How does
[5:11:37] it come up with it? The neighbors and the proponent
[5:11:39] get together? And come up with a good neighbor agreement.
[5:11:41] Is that how it works? What's the process? We just
[5:11:44] dictate what it's going to be. We're delving into. Like
[5:11:51] we're in the weeds. I get it. I support while
[5:11:54] you're doing it, and I agree with it as well.
[5:11:56] But we're getting into the weeds, and we don't know
[5:11:58] what the right balance is. So I want to achieve
[5:12:01] what you're trying to achieve, but I just don't. Know
[5:12:03] how to go about it without getting into the weeds
[5:12:05] or council we're supposed to. Be bylaw, policy high level,
[5:12:09] and we're really deep. So I see your mic still
[5:12:14] on, councilor. Just sending that. We shouldn't be in the
[5:12:18] weeds. But we're in the weeds, right? So what are
[5:12:25] you going to do? Just like. This is a really
[5:12:30] important thing. To remind us again of what we're hopefully
[5:12:36] trying to do here, right? So we're moving towards improving
[5:12:39] this wedding venue, which has raised a lot of concerns
[5:12:43] amongst a lot of neighbors. We're trying to find a
[5:12:46] way of just making it work as best as possible
[5:12:49] for all people right now. Given. The time constraints, we
[5:12:55] could say, good, send us back to staff and say,
[5:12:57] give us some recommendations. But that's going to put everything
[5:12:59] two weeks behind. Schedule, so. I would say just let's
[5:13:05] go with maximum two per calendar month. That leaves a
[5:13:09] possibility. Of 24. Two per month. 24. And they're only
[5:13:17] doing ten, so they can fit it in. Councilor Finley.
[5:13:23] Why don't we just amend it to, say, maximum of
[5:13:25] three in July? And a maximum of three in August,
[5:13:28] because then if it's five weekends, then we're. Golden. Too
[5:13:31] many. It's not enough. Free weekend. It's way more than
[5:13:35] half, right? Slightly. More than half. Three out of five
[5:13:41] over the two months. We got a boat and killing
[5:13:44] it. To remove. Section. From the.
[5:13:56] Question on all in favor? Opposed motion carriers. The mayor,
[5:14:01] councillor. Want to move an alternative for that. Councilor.
[5:14:12] I would move. A maximum of. Five per calendar. Over
[5:14:18] the months of July and August. Second by councilor staff.
[5:14:22] We have to debate it. Just call the question. All
[5:14:26] in favor? And opposed. Counselor. Council on that. It's defeated
[5:14:34] with councilor's Callie Log, Finley and Manhattan. All right. There
[5:14:40] was a comment made about schedule of events. We want
[5:14:43] to leave that one. Can we now vote on this
[5:14:47] part of the motion as amended? Call the question. All
[5:14:51] in favor and opposed? Motion carries. We still don't. One
[5:14:56] item with regards to this application. Council family. It was
[5:15:03] the road shoulder edition. Mr. Mayor, I would like to
[5:15:09] move to not require the road widening on Lakes Road.
[5:15:14] So some moved. Is there a seconder? Second by councilor
[5:15:16] Manhas any discussion? Are we ready to call the question?
[5:15:23] So, all in favor? To resend that requirement. And oppose.
[5:15:31] The motion, sir. There's a bit of a leg. Okay,
[5:15:34] so I think, councilor. Can you clarify, councilor Calio, because
[5:15:40] there's a bit of a lag on. Your camera. Were
[5:15:41] you voting in favor or against? The motion from councilor
[5:15:49] family to remove the requirement for the shoulder. I was
[5:15:53] voting for the removal. Okay, so it passes with the
[5:15:58] mayor, councilor stash and councilor justice opposed. That concludes our
[5:16:06] business. I'll clear this meeting. Adjourned. No, wait. This meeting,
[5:16:11] then we'll start, they'll resume the other meeting. This meeting
[5:16:17] is now adjourned. We're going to resume our regular council
[5:16:21] meeting if anyone wants to stay and observe that.
[5:16:31] Sure you want to. Just refer it all.