[6:28] Okay, good evening everybody. I'd like
to welcome you to the regular council
[6:33] meeting of July 27th, 2026. Uh calling
this meeting to order. I'd like to first
[6:38] of all recogn recognize that we're on
the traditional lands of the South
[6:42] Nation who have stewards of this
property for millennia. Uh first order
[6:47] of business is approval of the agenda
that the agenda for the July 27th, 2026
[6:52] regular meeting of council be adopted as
presented. So moved by St. Pierre,
[6:58] seconded by Baitman. Any discussion to
the motion? Hearing none. All those in
[7:02] favor? All right. Which likes unanimous.
Okay. Uh now we're getting into uh
[7:08] public and statutory hearings. Now this
is going to take me a minute, so hang
[7:13] on. Statement you read. the chair of the
public hearing. The public hearing is
[7:17] being convened pursuant to section 464
of the local government act in order to
[7:22] consider proposed short-term rental
accommodations modernization zoning
[7:27] amendment bylaw number 947600-12026.
[7:33] As this is a public hearing, any person
present who believes that his or her
[7:38] interest in the property is affected by
the proposed bylaw shall be given an
[7:42] opportunity to be heard on matters
contained in the proposal bylaws.
[7:46] However, it is important that we all
that all who speak at this public
[7:50] hearing restrict their remarks to the
matters contained in the bylaw. It's it
[7:54] is not my responsibility as chair of
this hearing to ensure that all remarks
[7:58] are so restricted. Those who wish to
speak concerning the proposal bylaw
[8:03] should at the appropriate time commence
your address to the council and public
[8:07] hearing by clearly stating your name and
where you live for the record. Then you
[8:11] may give us a brief uh benefit of your
views concerning the proposed bylaws. It
[8:17] should be noted that this public hearing
is being recorded and wreamed live and
[8:21] the recording will be posted on the
website. I will ask anyone who wishes to
[8:26] speak to keep the remarks approximately
3 minutes before yielding to another
[8:29] speaker. Once everybody has spoken, if
you have further points you would like
[8:34] to make, you are welcome to continue
representation. We want to hear all
[8:37] points from people who are believed
their interest in this land and their
[8:41] land is respected.
Members of council may if they so wish
[8:45] ask questions of you following your
presentation. However, the main function
[8:49] of council members this evening is to
listen to your to the views of the
[8:54] public. It is not a function of council
and the public hearing to debate the
[8:58] merits of the proposed bylaw with
individual citizens and this hearing is
[9:02] not an appropriate back and forth.
Everybody who deems his or her interest
[9:07] in property to be affected shall be
given the opportunity to heard at this
[9:10] meeting. No one will be or should feel
discouraged or prevent from making his
[9:15] or her views known. If you wish to
provide a written submission to be
[9:19] included in the record of the public
hearing, you must hand that submission
[9:22] to the corporate officer prior to the
close of the public hearing. Once the
[9:26] public hearing is adjourned, council
will not be able to receive any further
[9:30] information from the public on this
matter. After the public hearing has
[9:34] concluded, council may without further
notice give whatever effect council
[9:39] believes proper to the representations
made at the public hearing. During the
[9:43] course of the public hearing, people
sometimes become enthusiastic or
[9:47] emotional. Regardless of whether you're
in favor or opposed any particular
[9:50] application or argument, please refrain
from applause or other expressions of
[9:55] emotion. Restraint enables others who
views may not coincide with your own to
[10:00] exercise their right to express their
views. Enable all views to be expressed
[10:04] to be heard in impartial form
as possible.
[10:10] It's a long one, but that's the way it
is.
[10:13] Okay. Uh so now the we'll call the
public uh
[10:19] hearings open. So if uh and this is to
do with short-term rental
[10:24] accommodations, modernization zoning
bylaw number 94760012026.
[10:30] If anybody wishes to speak, they can
come up now.
[10:34] They're
>> in the presentation first.
[10:36] » Sorry, my apologies. We'll do a
presentation first.
[10:46] Okay, thank you and good evening. Um,
this agenda item is related to zoning
[10:49] amendment via number 947, which is
intended to modernize the district's
[10:53] zoning regulations for short-term rental
accommodation.
[11:08] » Okay. Okay. The purpose of this
presentation is to provide context for
[11:11] the proposed amendment bylaw and briefly
explain its provisions uh before council
[11:15] hears from the public. Uh no staff
recommendation or motion is being
[11:19] presented as part of the public hearing.
However, council is scheduled to
[11:22] consider a third reading separately
under item 10.1 of tonight's agenda
[11:27] following the close of the public
hearing.
[11:32] On February 9th, council directed staff
to prepare amendments to clarify and
[11:36] modernize the district's regulation of
short-term rental accommodation,
[11:39] including alignment with the provincial
short-term rental legislation. Staff
[11:43] then coordinated a business with
business licensing and other relevant
[11:46] departments and presented the proposed
amendments to the LUDC. On June 9th,
[11:51] LUDC recommended that the bylaw receive
first and second reading and that
[11:54] council direct staff to schedule a
public hearing. Then on June 22nd,
[11:59] council subsequently gave the bylaw
first and second readings and directed
[12:02] staff to schedule a public hearing,
which brings us to today.
[12:08] Uh reasons for the bylaw update include
the need to modernize terminology. Uh
[12:12] for example, the existing zoning bylaw
uses the term vacation accommodation
[12:16] unit and does not contain a consolidated
set of regulations for that use. This
[12:21] has created some uncertainty,
particularly where a property contains
[12:25] multiple dwelling units or more than one
type of visitor accommodation. The
[12:29] province has also recently introduced a
principal residence framework for
[12:33] short-term rentals, which is proposed to
be captured more clearly in the zoning
[12:37] bylaw through these amendments.
Uh the proposed amendments also respond
[12:41] uh by creating clear definitions in a
dedicated regulatory section of the
[12:45] zoning bylaw, which currently does not
exist.
[12:50] In terms of proposed terminology
changes, uh vacation accommodation would
[12:54] be replaced with the more commonly used
term short-term rental. Uh the bylaw
[12:58] would also replace small suite uh with
detached suite uh which more clearly
[13:02] describes the type of dwelling being
regulated. Also, new definitions for
[13:06] short-term rental, principal residence,
and host uh would establish the
[13:10] foundation for administering these uses
consistently.
[13:18] Uh the proposed short-term rental
framework is intended to mirror the
[13:21] provincial framework uh which is based
on the host principal residence. So
[13:24] under these amendments, a short-term
rental could occur in the principal
[13:28] dwelling, a secondary suite or a
detached suite provided the use is
[13:32] permitted in the applicable zone. A host
could use a maximum of two dwelling
[13:36] units for short-term rental. However,
the two units, if two units are used,
[13:40] one must be the host's principal
residence. also clarified in the bylaw
[13:44] amendments uh in the case where a host
principal residence is an accessory
[13:47] dwelling unit such as a detached suite
or a secondary suite uh they may rent
[13:52] out the main house on the same parcel
under these provisions.
[13:56] So the proposed definition also changes
the maximum stay uh from 30 to 90 uh
[14:02] consecutive days to align with the
provincial legislation.
[14:07] And yes, one one of the more significant
clarifications is that the host would
[14:11] not need to remain physically present on
the property whenever a short-term
[14:14] rental is occurring. For example, a host
could rent out their principal residence
[14:18] while tempor temporarily traveling
provided the dwelling continues to be
[14:22] their principal residence as defined. Uh
this differs from the district's
[14:26] previous administrative approach which
uh required vacation accommodation uh to
[14:31] be linked to a homebased business
regulations and generally interpreted as
[14:35] requiring the operator to reside on the
premises while the business was
[14:38] operating.
[14:44] The amendments also intend to clarify
that short-term rentals and bed and
[14:47] breakfast are distinct accommodation
uses and are not homebased businesses.
[14:52] Each use would be regulated through its
own definitions and requirements. The
[14:56] amendment would also prohibit a bed and
breakfast and short-term rental from
[14:59] operating concurrently on the same
parcel. Uh the intent is to prevent the
[15:04] stacking of multiple commercial
accommodation uses on a residential or
[15:07] rural residential property. Uh this
separation is a zoning classification
[15:12] change.
[15:15] [snorts]
The proposed amendments are
[15:17] intentionally limited in scope. uh they
do not expand short-term rental
[15:21] permissions into zones where the use is
not already permitted as vacation
[15:24] accommodation and it would not increase
the number of dwelling units otherwise
[15:28] permitted on a parcel. The amendments
would establish the land use framework
[15:32] uh whereas operational matters may be
considered separately through business
[15:35] license bylaw or uh related enforcement
practices such as licensing fees,
[15:40] inspections, complaint response and
enforcement procedures.
[15:44] uh properties also within the ALR uh
would also remain subject to the the ALC
[15:48] act and the ALR use regulation uh which
is more restrictive.
[15:56] Staff have confirmed that there are
currently 107 active short-term rental
[16:00] business licenses and 14 active licenses
for bed and breakfast. Um, following
[16:05] receipt of correspondence concerning an
existing combined operation, uh, based
[16:09] on the available data, uh, staff
confirmed that only one property
[16:13] currently is holding a license for both
bed and breakfast and short-term rental.
[16:17] Uh, no other licensed property was
identified as operating both uses
[16:21] concurrently.
[16:24] Notice of the public hearing is
published twice in the local newspaper
[16:27] in accordance to the local government
act. Um, as for the preparation of this
[16:31] presentation,
um, as of the preparation of this
[16:35] presentation, two written submissions
had been received, that one in support
[16:38] and one requesting the bylaw not proceed
as drafted or that an existing combined,
[16:43] uh, bed and breakfast and short-term
rental operation be allowed to continue.
[16:47] Staff have reviewed the business license
information and operating history of the
[16:51] identified property. And based on that
review, staff confirmed the existing
[16:54] combined bed and breakfast and
short-term rental use would be lawful
[16:58] non-conforming if bylaw 947 uh was
adopted as drafted.
[17:04] However, the use could not be expanded
or if discontinued for a period of 6
[17:08] months. Um future use would need to
comply with the zoning bylaw in effect
[17:12] at the time.
Uh the rationale for the amendment
[17:15] remains to prevent new stacking of
multiple commercial accommodation uses
[17:18] on residential and rural residential
parcels. Uh and is consistent practice
[17:23] uh in most municipalities.
[17:28] That concludes my presentation. Um
again, once the public hearing is
[17:32] closed, council will have an opportunity
to consider third reading uh under item
[17:35] 10.1 of the agenda. Thank you.
>> Thank you, staff. Uh now I will call on
[17:41] any individual that has a concern in
regards to uh this bylaw to come
[17:46] forward. State your name and uh
community you live in.
[17:59] You have to press the on button there.
[18:04] Uh good evening. My name is Mike Hicks
and representing my wife Kathy Hicks as
[18:08] well. 3018
Manor Road, Souk.
[18:13] [clears throat] So, thank you, uh, mayor
and council, counselors.
[18:18] Um, we have run our small homebased
business for 25 years. And thank you,
[18:24] uh, Jade, too. We've been writing back
and forth. We have, uh, run our small
[18:29] homebased business, uh, for 25 years on
our property, 4.5
[18:34] acre property in Souk. We operate a
vacation rental and a threeunit B&B on
[18:41] our property. We have soup business
licenses for both. We also are
[18:47] registered with the BC government for
the vacation rental. So basically all
[18:53] our ducks are in order for 25 years.
this bylaw amendment not allowing a
[19:00] vacation rental and BNB on the same
property and reclassifying away from
[19:08] homebased business will destroy our
means of income. That's that's what
[19:14] it'll do. The district of Souk staff are
bringing forth this amendment to
[19:19] modernize Souk's regulation on shortterm
rental accommodations.
[19:26] As far as we can determine, Kathy and I,
we are the only parcel
[19:31] affected in suit in all of soup and we
were never consulted
[19:37] and the question is why are you doing
this?
[19:41] But anyways, the bottom line is we are
directly affected affected negatively
[19:47] and trust that you will not adopt this
bylaw as written or you will grant us
[19:52] lawful non-conforming status. Thank you
very much. Thank you, Mr. Hicks.
[20:01] Is there anybody else wish to speak on
this matter?
[20:14] » Once again, your name and uh the
community you live in.
[20:22] » Yeah. Press thing. Here we go.
>> Yeah.
[20:24] » Sorry. Uh Dave Saunders uh family owns
property on W and Spit. I live in
[20:29] Machosen but I represent my family own
that property and within spit for over
[20:33] 60 years. Um I've supplied uh our CIO uh
with a email. I believe there's overlap
[20:41] between the two um issues respective of
vacation and tourism and the redefining
[20:49] of uh the
land use. I don't believe in any of the
[20:56] reports that I've seen uh that deals
with fair and equitable taxation with
[21:01] respect to either residential,
commercial or ALR. I believe some of
[21:07] what is proposed benefits ALR over and
above what was just uh professed here by
[21:14] Mr. Hicks and Kathy uh their long-term
existence. I've been asked to speak uh
[21:22] because of the fairness. Um it doesn't
really affect us so much because our
[21:26] property is ALR, so we would benefit if
we did uh have short-term rental on
[21:32] here, but it certainly wouldn't be fair
to those other entities. I don't believe
[21:36] that we've done enough homework. I also
believe that there's been two members of
[21:40] the land use committee that have
prejudiced the process and my email
[21:44] speaks to that. I can provide evidence
to that when I've circulated that to
[21:48] mayor and council and that's through
disclosure and whatnot. So I would just
[21:53] uh say maybe put the brakes on this
until such time that you've fully
[21:57] researched the fair and equitable
taxation related to the overlap with
[22:01] respect to what I've presented both at
this council meeting and the previous.
[22:06] Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[22:11] Is there any questions for the person
speaking? Hearing
[22:16] none. Will anybody else wish to speak?
[22:21] Hearing none, then I'm going to close
the public hearing and and go on to uh
[22:27] regular business.
[22:48] I'll move that. Thank you.
[23:08] Uh, yes. The only thing I want to add to
the report was just a special shout out
[23:11] to the artists um that um have their
[clears throat] artwork displayed on the
[23:15] new banners hanging around town um Megan
and and Kathy um have some beautiful
[23:19] pieces there that are now decorating our
town and u just want a special thank you
[23:24] to them and uh the soup fine art show
for um supporting their work.
[23:30] » Thank you. Any any questions for our CEO
in regards to that report?
[23:36] » Yeah, I'll I'll throw a question out.
>> Okay, there you go. Councelor Baitton
[23:39] » through through you to our CEO. I note
you uh have the item intersection is
[23:43] part. Can you give us the quick update
for those who have not read the report?
[23:48] » Uh for sure. Uh through the deputy
mayor, councelor Baitman. Uh the more
[23:52] update, the last uh update I am aware of
is I believe they're planning on um
[23:57] setting up in the parks as they're
leasing some of the space for us during
[24:00] the duration of the project. Uh they
said uh late August, early September, I
[24:06] believe uh the tender closed and um I I
know that some people may see on-point
[24:11] signs and some trucks around there. So
the prog the project is uh progressing
[24:15] just a little bit of delay closing the
tender but um the last we've heard is um
[24:19] starting in September uh there should be
more noticed activity in the area.
[24:25] » Thank you. Any more questions for
>> and just in terms of road closures and
[24:29] hours of of work you have a I think
we've heard before that we're going to
[24:34] be sensitive.
>> Uh yes through the uh deputy mayor
[24:38] council Baitman. Uh I know a bit
there'll be a bit more um calm
[24:41] communications going out when um we know
a bit more from the province on the
[24:45] timeline but I know I was attended a
meeting with the school district as well
[24:50] on this subject. Of course they're
concerned with cenos there and the
[24:53] province is assured um that there'll be
communication well in advance if they
[24:57] ever do need to close the road they um
or or divert traffic. It'll be um
[25:02] obviously at later on in the evening's
time as well as during the school year
[25:07] they will have um fencing up on the site
uh to ensure safe crossing for the
[25:13] children and parents. Uh drop off areas
will be repositioned in the short term.
[25:18] So um yeah, more details to come on that
but but they are aware of the issues and
[25:23] um don't know the timelines if they do
need to temporarily close the road for a
[25:27] certain phase of the project.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for
[25:31] our CEO?
Hearing none, we'll proceed on to the
[25:36] public question and comment period. This
is a time for any member of the public
[25:40] to come and comment about any other item
that's on our agenda other than 10.1.
[25:45] You'll be given two minutes if you wish
to come up and uh state your name and
[25:49] the community you live.
[26:02] on. Oh,
Ellen Lur's uh Cenos.
[26:08] Um I I want to talk to 10.3 the permiss
permissive tax exemption application
[26:13] from from uh catalyst. Um I know that
it's up for passing today. Now, I just
[26:20] wanted to say that uh I did talk to
staff and and it wasn't uh uh necessary
[26:28] to to pass the pass the permissive tax
exemption in order for the medical
[26:32] center to happen. That wasn't a caveat
that was being held over our heads just
[26:38] for council's information because they
were starting in 20 by the end of 2026.
[26:45] And also they're they're a development
company and uh when you look at the
[26:51] amount [clears throat] of money
>> this could you please not talk while our
[26:56] public or
>> the amount of monies that are
[26:58] » just a sec one I'm going to give you
some more time please do not
[27:05] we have the person speaking here and I'm
having trouble hearing it with the
[27:08] background talking so okay we'll
continue on. Thank you Miss Lewis. So uh
[27:14] the amount of monies doesn't seem like a
lot lot,000
[27:19] but without the permissive tax it'd be
447,000
[27:25] and and uh
these people are already getting tax on
[27:29] the commercial part in the bottom or not
tax income from the commercial part in
[27:35] the bottom which is for the doctor's
offices and uh for the other 70% of the
[27:42] affordable able or at at um market
value. So I I I don't think we should be
[27:50] giving permiss giving uh tax exemption
to people who are developing. We already
[27:55] gave them as uh councelor Haldane said
that at the last meeting that we gave
[27:59] them a pretty expensive piece of
property and we gave them a lot of um um
[28:05] you know parking and all kinds of
exemptions that they already and I don't
[28:10] think we should be seeing tax exemptions
especially in light of the fact that we
[28:14] are already paying way too many taxes
and the pro people are suffering. So I
[28:19] think that that should be looked at
more. It's not necessary to give them
[28:23] tax exemption. They ask for it. They'll
ask for the work. Everybody asks for as
[28:28] much as they can get. Squeeze, squeeze,
squeeze, squeeze. But we have there's a
[28:32] point you have to say no.
>> And uh I also another um question I
[28:37] have.
>> Miss Lures, your your uh time is up.
[28:40] » I know, but is it very short?
>> Yes, very short. I just want I'll give
[28:44] you I just want to know give you some
latitude. I just want to know why the um
[28:50] do we know if the medical center when
it's built is going to be built with
[28:54] medical equipment in it and is it going
to be staffed? Do we have staff work? I
[28:59] just a question. I've never heard
anybody say that it's going to be
[29:02] equipped with medical equipment.
>> Okay. Well, we'll we'll check that
[29:05] question in a minute. Uh I'll go to um
staff if they have that answer. My
[29:10] understanding is uh VIHA uh will be
looking after that portion of it. I
[29:14] don't know much more. Uh the deputy
mayor uh yes that's my understanding is
[29:20] the staffing model hasn't been um
decided yet but it will be run uh by
[29:24] Island Health and as far as the
equipment in place again that's hasn't
[29:27] been determined but as far as I know
like it's not set up for X-ray I know a
[29:31] few samples have been thrown examples
have been thrown around um
[29:35] [clears throat] over the years and so
it's not X-ray is not scheduled to move
[29:38] in there that's a separate entity with a
separate I know they'll be reaching out
[29:42] to confirm if they wanted it but
>> uh yes it would be Alan health. Sorry.
[29:46] » Okay. Thank you, Miss Lewis.
>> Okay.
[29:50] » Anybody else like this opportunity to
speak?
[29:53] » Yes.
State your name and your community,
[29:57] please.
[30:03] » My name's Veronica Pbertton Billing. I
live in Sun River Souk. It's good to be
[30:07] with you. Appreciate your work. Uh I'm
going to speak on two things in my two
[30:12] minutes. One is I just want to
underscore what Mrs. Lure said about tax
[30:15] exemptions. I can't remember the exact
uh number and I don't have it in my at
[30:21] my fingertips, but I seem to recall
Mayor Tate speaking about every 1% like
[30:26] every 120,000 or maybe it's a bit more
is equal to a 1% increase on the tax
[30:33] load of our homeowners. And so this is a
serious thing. And I I don't think we to
[30:38] give the tax exemption there is to force
pressure on the homeowners that are
[30:44] struggling so much. So I I don't think
we should be doing that. I also think
[30:48] the below market
uh category is very confusing a below
[30:53] market rent because rents have been
falling in Vancouver. So it is in fact
[30:57] possible for someone to offer or to have
offered a below market rent last year
[31:02] that would be above market this year
because the rents have been falling. So,
[31:06] it's a it's a bit of a questionable
category. So, I would just say that and
[31:11] I'll leave that up to council. I wanted
to speak principally on the ECOM. This
[31:16] is section 84 on the agenda, the ECOM
911 update and the projections for the
[31:22] increase over the next several years.
And this is really concerning and I know
[31:26] council's concerned about it and I know
everyone's concerned about it and I
[31:30] think we need to be looking at
alternatives and I don't know what they
[31:33] are. I don't know if every single
municipality uses this service, but it
[31:38] see
that have exempted themselves from it. I
[31:42] don't know. But I I really think we need
some creative I would say in the
[31:47] consulting out of the box thinking on
this about how to you create an
[31:52] alternative because I just don't think
we can sustain that uh level of increase
[31:58] and I think we need to be pushing back
and pushing back hard and being willing
[32:02] to not do it. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[32:08] » Anybody else wish to speak? Come on up.
Same thing. Your name and the community
[32:12] you live in, please.
[32:19] » Hello, my name is Patty Holm. I live in
Souk. Uh we received a letter about um
[32:25] the application for variance and I'd
like to speak to that please. Um my
[32:32] family uh my husband who's written a
letter already that you have in your
[32:36] email package and myself and our other
family member that share our home. We're
[32:41] all in agreement that we want to see
this application denied and I'll outline
[32:46] some reasons.
So the first reason is geotechnical
[32:51] hazard and I know that you do have a
geotechnical
[32:54] somewhat of a report. Um I'd just like
to speak a bit more about it. So the
[32:58] subject property for the variance
application is located at the base of a
[33:02] steep slope. The existing slope is about
1.5 to 1 and 8 m high. It's likely near
[33:09] the maximum safe angle of repose. Any
undercutting of the slope toe may
[33:15] destabilize the UPS slope. Some adjacent
properties are reported to have had
[33:20] related slope instability issues
already. So a geotechnical hazard report
[33:25] addressing the uphill slope risk and
required remediation to current practice
[33:31] standards should be provided before the
uh application for variances is
[33:37] considered. Secondly, it's a flooding
risk. The subject property is located in
[33:42] the identified flood plane. Ocean level
rise and increased wind and wave height
[33:47] associated with climate change may
exacerbate this issue. This development
[33:52] will likely require alterations to the
wetted perimeter shoreline and flood
[33:57] protection that should be studied before
considering the variance permit.
[34:02] Thirdly, the foreshore and the
repairarian protection and environmental
[34:06] impact developing within the 15 m
shoreline. And just to be clear, the 15
[34:12] meter corp is what is the usual standard
and this is being requested to be
[34:18] reduced to 3.09.
That is a huge difference in variance.
[34:23] Um so developing within the 15 meter
shoreline protected area may
[34:28] » holds. Uh you're out of time. If you got
much more to go, I give I have some
[34:32] latitude here to give you another 30
seconds.
[34:34] » Okay, I can take 30 seconds. Thank you.
So it it will adversely affect the first
[34:39] nations intertital zone. Um, typically
residential developments
[34:45] for this kind of variance are not
accepted unless it's it's um like a
[34:49] hardship case like a fire or something
like that when it's allowed to be uh
[34:53] rebuilt. Finally, archaeological
concerns. People have lived in that area
[34:58] for a thousand years at least thousands
of years and there should be a full
[35:03] archaeological study instead of just
finding things when the construction is
[35:07] being done.
>> Thank you for listening. Anybody
[35:13] else take this opportunity?
[35:18] » Once again, state your name, your
community, and what uh item you're
[35:22] speaking to.
>> Yeah, my name is Chris Rein. Uh Souk. Um
[35:28] I'm currently the president of the
Fredmill Park Society. I'm here to
[35:31] discuss our recent rental changes for
our user groups. Fredmill Park is a
[35:35] private facility owned by the community
association and operated by the Fredmill
[35:39] Park Society. This facility currently
received zero tax dollars and zero
[35:43] support from the municipality of souk.
The new rates were decided by the
[35:46] Fredmill park board and not the
community association. In the past two
[35:50] years, the community association has
provided more than 100k towards various
[35:54] park upgrades. Any negative attention
towards a community association is
[35:57] simply unacceptable. I do not attend
community association meetings or nor
[36:01] have I received any direction from the
community association members. The
[36:05] Fredmill park has historically been run
by volunteers from both the Souk soccer
[36:08] club and the souk slow pitch societies.
Fredmill park has always charged a
[36:12] minimum rent on the understanding each
organization was putting money away for
[36:16] future park upgrades. Unfortunately, the
current soccer executive has no desire
[36:20] to collaborate and assist with park
upgrades. Ju just cause constantly. Do
[36:24] we have that on the agenda? Uh
>> I'm looking for it as he's speaking. He
[36:29] did speak a number.
>> I was waiting to double check. Yeah. If
[36:31] there was course I need some
clarification then I'll let him continue
[36:34] it. But
>> yeah. Are you speaking to a certain item
[36:37] on the agenda? Is it public?
>> No. It has to be an item on the agenda.
[36:42] So that's why I was trying to double
check if it was either in the
[36:44] correspondence package or in the minutes
>> um from the last meeting. So yeah.
[36:48] Sorry. No, I was just uh
[36:53] » so I I have to go to our CEO to see if
that's okay to continue.
[37:00] » Yeah,
you got halfway through anyway. So,
[37:05] [laughter]
>> uh yes, sorry. It is an item on the
[37:08] correspondence agenda, so it's fine. So,
the item you're speaking to, sorry, the
[37:12] correspondence agenda item.
>> Okay, you continue. Thank you.
[37:15] » Thank you.
Speaking for soccer, Pete McCay claimed
[37:18] the Fred Park Society voted on these
increases without a representative from
[37:22] soccer being present. This is simply
untrue. Souk soccer had two
[37:26] representatives at the vote when the
rent was changed. We're at a point where
[37:29] our turf is on its final legs. We're
hoping to get five more years. The
[37:32] expected cost to replace is $1 million.
The decision to increase our rental
[37:36] rates was not made lightly. Without
support from the district of Sue, we
[37:40] simply have no choice. If we suddenly
have no turf field in 5 years, how would
[37:43] the community respond? This is more than
a few soccer fields. This is more than
[37:47] slow pitch ball fields. This is the
largest public, remember, it's private
[37:51] property, green space in the District of
Souk. When the facility isn't booked,
[37:55] it'll often be full. It might be people
playing soccer on the turf with a
[37:59] different group playing football. At the
same time, there are groups of people
[38:01] playing frisbee, baseball, or simply
hanging out on the grass. Private or
[38:05] not, what you think of it or not, this
is a public space the public uses, and
[38:09] we love it. The public using the
facility puts wear and tear onto it.
[38:13] That wear and tear requires maintenance.
It's time the district pursuit steps up.
[38:17] It's time the district put some funds
towards these facilities. Lastly, all
[38:21] the funds sent to Fredmill Park stay
with Fred Park. No funds received from
[38:25] by Fred Park go to the community
association. The community association
[38:28] provides Fredmill Park with funds. They
do not take away to the community. Get
[38:34] off your keyboard. Step up. Volunteer.
Thank you for your time.
[38:38] » Thank you.
>> Any questions? No, I just I there any
[38:43] questions for the individual?
>> Okay, thank you for your
[38:48] » anybody else wish to speak with any
other items other than 10.1.
[38:55] » Once again, your name and your location
and 6507 Water Street.
[39:01] » Okay.
>> And your name again?
[39:05] » Wilfrid Kanga. K L I N G S A T.
>> Go ahead. I've been endeavoring to build
[39:11] a building on this property for two and
a half years now and I've had all the
[39:16] variances passed and at the last
committee varants were passed. Uh they
[39:21] brought up the point that the district
said I would have to pay $107,000 for
[39:26] the road front. I was u I was confused
by it and I sort of agreed to it, but
[39:33] I'm really against it and I'm hoping
council will give consideration for the
[39:38] hardship this places on me for $107,000
added to the cost that I've incurred
[39:43] already. I'm about $100,000 into this
thing without even a building permit.
[39:49] So, I'm just asking you guys if you
could just consider this to lower it
[39:52] down or anything would help it.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'm sure we'll take
[39:56] that into consideration when we discuss
that later on.
[39:59] » Thank you.
Anybody else at this time? Okay.
[40:06] » Once again, your name, your community,
and what item you're speaking.
[40:11] » Oh, uh, Dave Mccclimman, Souk. I'm
speaking on 8.3. I think it's the CEO
[40:17] report on Philips Road connector. That
correct?
[40:22] So, I've
I've been on that property for a long
[40:27] time. I've done some work on that for
the District of Suit, the trail. I'm not
[40:31] in favor of the uh I'm only in favor of
the 20 mill 20 meter rightway. I don't
[40:36] think we need to spend our money on an
elaborate roadway. I believe we should
[40:40] get the uh rightway from the uh CRD now.
So, eventually we could build the road
[40:47] out bigger when we have the the funds to
do it. So, at this time, I think it's a
[40:52] safe alternative
to the extravagant plan that I've seen
[40:57] with many different engineers over 20
years. I've talked about it with them.
[41:02] I've walked it with them. I just think
we need a two-lane road with a bike lane
[41:06] on one side. I think it'd be safe enough
and that would meet our needs of today.
[41:12] And so, it' be an interimm road until
we're ready to spend the money. I don't
[41:16] think the taxpayers are going to
want to spend that much money and it's
[41:21] going to fail and we won't have a road.
We need a road. We've been talking about
[41:24] this
for 30 years and it's time that we get
[41:29] it done. Thank you for your time.
[41:35] » Any other speakers? Okay.
Again, your name and the item you're
[41:41] speaking to.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. uh citizens uh
[41:45] staff uh Dave Saunders uh the item I'm
speaking to is 10.6 six and the minutes
[41:50] uh also the minutes just want to speak
to the minutes I've uh given an email to
[41:56] uh the CEO the minutes are incorrect
with respect to my statements at the
[42:00] last meeting but more importantly um
there was new information about troop
[42:04] road connector and I had asked what I
thought was a simple question to some
[42:08] members of council about a 25 meter
rightway and the impact to a legacy art
[42:14] Morris Park ballpark
uh I'm speaking to you now was a former
[42:19] president, past president of Lanford
Minor Fastball. Had three daughters in
[42:23] fastball, coached them for 15 years,
coached many uh young ladies from Souk
[42:28] in fastball. So when I heard our mayor
talk about generations or future
[42:32] generations for the impact on a 25 meter
road, I can tell you the impact on the
[42:37] generation right now that are using that
ballpark equated to a 25 m impact is not
[42:44] conducive to having that park last in
perpetuity.
[42:50] I'm concerned about future generations
that use that legacy park. The impact of
[42:55] 25 m. You learned the impact. Staff knew
about the impact and a simple question
[43:02] was asked. Will it impact the park? Yes,
it will impact the park with respect to
[43:07] parking and loss of field space. That
park is one of the best parks in all our
[43:12] entire region. Coached here for 15
years. Sports kept me from the bad side
[43:19] of drugs and alcohol and being on the
streets. If I had not had sports in my
[43:24] youth, I may be different today. I've
coached many women and young ladies and
[43:31] males in the sport of hockey and
fastball. I can say very clearly that
[43:36] the impact of this park on the future
generations will impact our youth. It's
[43:42] not acceptable. Please reconsider the
road design. It doesn't impact that
[43:47] park. Thank you. You right on time.
[43:53] Okay, next person. Same drill.
Your name, uh, what community you live
[43:58] in and what item you're speaking to.
>> Absolutely. My name is Katie Grieve. I'm
[44:02] also a resident of Souk and I am
speaking regarding the group road
[44:06] bypass.
>> Um, and specifically regarding the loss
[44:10] of a park at Art Morris. I grew up
playing on that park. My brother did. My
[44:14] dad did. Um, I have spent a lot of time
giving back to Souk as well. I can speak
[44:20] from experience that we do not have
enough youth fields anywhere on this
[44:24] island. And there's already concerns
from other leagues, be it baseball,
[44:29] soccer, football, as to where they can
find fields based flight. Boozing a
[44:34] field at Art Morris is detrimental to
that. It's really unnecessary. I agree
[44:40] with Dave that we do not need a 25 meter
bypass. It's absolutely unnecessary.
[44:46] Adding in a bike lane, absolutely. I can
see that being very beneficial,
[44:50] especially with the school very close
by, but anything more than that is
[44:54] frankly ridiculous and a misuse of
funds.
[44:59] And that's essentially all that I have
to say about that.
[45:01] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[45:05] » Anybody else? Please come forward
again. State your name, what you're
[45:10] speaking to in your community.
>> Hello, my name is Brian Banner, live in
[45:14] Souk. I'm speaking on item 8.3.
Uh, good evening, mayor and council.
[45:21] I'm the vice president of Souk Minor
Fastball Association. I'm here tonight
[45:25] because I support the throughpro
connector. In fact, it's unbelievable
[45:28] this road still hasn't been built in
more than 20 years of discussion. Souk
[45:32] needs another connection, and I don't
think anyone would disagree with that.
[45:36] What I don't understand is how we've
gone from building a muchneeded
[45:39] connector road to a proposal of 25 m
rightway with an estimated cost of
[45:43] around $50 million at the expense of one
of the most important recreation
[45:48] facilities in our community. Art Morris
Park has served the community for more
[45:52] than 70 years. It wasn't built by the
district. It was built by volunteers,
[45:57] fundraising grants, local sponsors, and
thousands of hours of hard work by
[46:02] people who wanted to give their kids a
place to play.
[46:06] and it's owned by the Souk Community
Association. What concerns me the most
[46:10] is we're talking about taking recreation
away from the community that already
[46:14] already doesn't have enough. Over the
past 20 years, Souk has grown
[46:18] dramatically. But our recreation
infrastructure has not kept up. We need
[46:22] more ball diamonds. We need a second
sheet of ice. We need more soccer
[46:26] fields. We need more indoor recreation,
not less. Every week, Souk families
[46:32] leave town because we don't have enough
facilities for our kids. They travel to
[46:35] Langford, Cwood, Victoria, and beyond
just to play sports they love. That
[46:39] shouldn't be a reality in a community of
our size.
[46:43] And if we're going to lose ball
diamonds, parking, and pickle ball
[46:46] courts, where where's the replacement
plant? Where are the new facilities? How
[46:51] will they be funded? Those are the
questions our community deserves answers
[46:54] to before a decision is made. I'm not
asking to stop a Through Pro Connector.
[46:59] I'm asking to find a way to build it
while protecting Art Morris Park. We
[47:03] shouldn't have to choose between
transportation and recreation.
[47:06] A grow a growing community deserves
both. Please don't solve one problem by
[47:11] creating another. Thank you.
[47:16] Anybody else?
[47:20] Once again, your name, your community,
and what item, please.
[47:24] » Okay. Um, my name is uh Dell Gibbs and
it's concerning the th road. Um, mainly
[47:30] the Art Morris
um baseball park um Art Morris is my
[47:37] grandfather and at the time art worked
for a man named Eric Bernard after and
[47:43] after his death Mr. Bernard donated that
land to the ball field and is now on is
[47:50] now on in memory and perpetuity to Art
Morris and Souk. I'm thankful for all
[47:55] the volunteers that have done all the
hard work. Um Souk has turned out a lot
[48:00] of known great ball teams because of
those fields. Uh the conductor road is
[48:06] proposed and is definitely needed to
ease congestion through suit during peak
[48:11] times. Um the area is very sportsminded
with the golf course, Souks gate park,
[48:17] pickle ball courts, the baseball field,
plus the nearby schools of Poyet and
[48:22] Journey Middle. The school is classified
as a connector or the road is classified
[48:27] as a connector road and schools the
speed limit will be 30 kilometers an
[48:32] hour in that area. It would be
beneficial to narrow the road width as a
[48:38] deterrent to speeders and hopefully
prevent any encroachment to the baseball
[48:42] park property lines. And as it is, I
have two young grandsons in the area and
[48:48] they will becoming baseball players in
the future. Um they will have a sense of
[48:52] pride in deeply rooted family history to
see their great greatgrandfather's name
[48:58] um and legacy on a sign. Thank you.
Please narrow the road.
[49:04] you.
Anybody else?
[49:08] Again, state your name, your community,
and uh what item you're speaking to.
[49:14] » Okay. My name is Matt Banner. Speaking
item 8.3.
[49:18] I was born and raised in Souk. My
family's lived here for over 100 years.
[49:22] Like many of the kids raised here, I
played fastball.
[49:25] Some of the best memories I have are
playing sports in general. As I get
[49:29] older, as the kids got older, we had to
leave sports to play elsewhere. And Souk
[49:33] didn't have the leagues nor facilities
to support higher levels of play with
[49:36] the exception of fastball. I have two
active sporty sons. I don't want them or
[49:40] the next generation of Sug athletes to
have to leave Souk to play competitive
[49:44] sports we love because we have no
facilities left.
[49:48] I've been following council's discussion
about the fruit road connector and I
[49:51] struggle with it from an industry
perspective. I agree this road needs to
[49:55] be built. What growing community with
any sort of plan doesn't have a bypass
[49:59] road? I'm blown away at the costs. I'm
shocked at the notion we would sacrifice
[50:03] the softball fields my family and
friends have spent thousands of hours
[50:06] building and maintaining and they're
still in good condition. Professionally,
[50:10] I'm a general contractor with over 20
years of experience in road
[50:13] construction, underground servicing, and
land development. Listen to council
[50:16] discussions. It seems to me there's only
a few counselors that under that that
[50:21] recognize this is a complex engineering
project with more than one path to a
[50:24] safe and effective outcome performance
and financially. As a contractor, I know
[50:30] I knew and I wanted to prove that there
was a better way. In discussions with my
[50:33] engineering firm, Onpoint Engineers,
I've had them prepare an alternative
[50:37] through road connector concept and
construction estimate from Souk Road up
[50:41] Phillips to Church. The engineers
confirmed there is a much better way.
[50:45] There also can be an interim road with
two travel lanes, a center turn lane, a
[50:49] sidewalk, a bike lane that meets specs
and transportation needs. And we can do
[50:53] this while protecting the sports field,
neighboring properties, all within a 20
[50:57] m rightway, which I will add works in
every other community in Western Canada
[51:01] that I've worked in. The estimate that
we came up with so far has come up at
[51:06] $15 million and will include a 25%
contingency. That's a fraction of the
[51:11] cost being recorded
recommended by the majority of mayor and
[51:15] council. This shows the road can be
built sooner. It meets and needs any
[51:20] safety requirements. It can protect
recreation. It can preserve the option
[51:24] to build the ultimate road if and when
it's ever needed, which I don't really
[51:26] feel that it would need to be in the
community.
[51:28] » Mr. Banner, you're just out of time. How
much longer have you do you need?
[51:31] » Two lines.
>> Okay, go ahead.
[51:33] » Most importantly, we'll build a road
when we can afford it. Okay.
[51:37] » Thank you.
[51:48] Rob Pierce, uh, 2407 Popular Sun River.
I've been to a few meetings here when
[51:54] you guys have been talking about the
Through Road Connector, and for the life
[51:57] of me, I cannot understand why the
majority of council, the mayor, and
[52:02] staff seems hellbent on this $50 million
project. We can't afford it. Simple. Now
[52:09] you're talking about taking land from a
recreation facility that we don't have
[52:13] enough of in Souk. It's ridiculous. It's
It's ridiculous. It's It needs to be
[52:22] relooked at. We can have the road. We
can have the sports facility that's
[52:26] already there.
It's a win-win. Stop throwing $50
[52:32] million around. It's ridiculous. And no,
I'm going to leave it at that.
[52:37] » Thank you,
[52:43] CEO.
>> I just wanted to make you aware I think
[52:45] we're very close to 20 minutes of
>> one more speaker, please.
[52:58] » I too want to speak to the Super Road
connector. As I've spoken before, I
[53:02] think it's ridiculous that we're looking
at building something bigger than our
[53:06] souk road, our highway, looking at a
bypass. It's ridiculous. It's 25 m is
[53:15] way out of whack. And I do like what Mr.
Banner proposed. And I hope that council
[53:20] would go back to this and look at this
and and um uh say no to this $50 million
[53:27] question going on a on a uh referendum.
I I think it's totally insane. And uh
[53:35] talk to the people that live here.
There's a lot of people that know. And I
[53:38] also had five grandsons that went
through that ball field
[53:48] off. Sorry. So So looking at everybody
else's forgot mine. That ends our public
[53:54] question and comment period. Thank you
everybody that took the time to comment
[53:57] on some very tough issues that are we're
facing in our community. Um I'm pretty
[54:02] sure council is listening and uh we'll
see where it goes from there.
[54:11] Okay. Now we'll go to the consent agenda
that the following items in the consent
[54:16] agenda be adopted as uh by consent 8.2
8.3 and 8.4. Is there anybody want to
[54:23] pull any of those? Councelor Pearson
[54:32] » 10J
through connector uh from Dave Saunders
[54:38] 19F
[54:41] zoning amendment uh bylaw 54 947 Mike
and Kathy Hicks. And I'll have to ask
[54:47] the corporate officer through through me
through the chair.
[54:52] » Um I'm asking for that after a public
hearing has been. So this isn't this
[54:57] this is already here.
>> It's in the agenda. So is it it's
[55:01] acceptable? It's not we're not receiving
more information. It's my question.
[55:04] » Uh through the deputy mayor to councelor
Pearson. Uh that is my understanding is
[55:09] it's not new information. Uh it's
already been included on the agenda.
[55:12] Just now that the public hearing is
closed, council is not allowed to
[55:14] receive any new information.
>> Okay.
[55:16] » So, this is not considered
>> I didn't want to jeopardize the public
[55:19] hearing.
>> Thank you.
[55:20] » And 22.1
uh engineering safety matter and
[55:24] petition uh from Miss Parks T. Parks.
>> Those three items, please.
[55:31] » Thank you.
>> Uh all right. So then all those other
[55:35] items. Uh council.
[55:40] » Yeah. So I'd like to pull 8H Ella Beach
behaviors Fred Brown.
[55:45] Okay, that's recorded. And yeah,
[55:51] » Mr. Haldane. Sorry, Council Hold.
>> Yes, please. Um, I would like to take
[55:56] out 7G
and 18E.
[56:04] » So, my understanding, it's correct me if
I'm wrong, CAO, that will come up at the
[56:08] next meeting.
>> Correct. Thank you.
[56:12] » All right, with that, uh, we have a vote
on all the other items. Uh, we remove
[56:18] those from correspondence, the 8.3 and
8.4. So, we have a motion. So, moved by
[56:23] councelor St. Pierre. We have a second
here.
[56:26] Councelor Pearson. Any discussion to the
motion? Hearing none. All those in
[56:31] favor? Unanimous. Thank you.
Uh, report of the chief and
[56:39] I already had that, right?
[56:44] 9.1. It's good. Thank you. Uh, roof
replacement, Pursuit Municipal Hall.
[56:49] That's a staff report.
[56:53] Thank you very much. Um,
staff went out to tender for the roof
[56:59] replacement for this building and some
work on the siding. Uh, we received four
[57:04] bids. only one was a qualified bid or
compliant bid I should say. The other
[57:10] three were not non-compli were not
compliant. Um therefore with a compliant
[57:16] bid within budget we are proposing to
award to
[57:22] uh Regal Roofing for 234,754.
[57:32] So that's our staff report. Any
questions from councel?
[57:37] Council Pearson.
>> Yes. Thank you, chair. Through to the uh
[57:41] district engineer. Um are we changing
the type of roof that we're getting?
[57:46] Like 234K. That sounds like a huge
amount of money.
[57:50] What's the price per square meter or
square they used to call? What I used to
[57:55] put or deal with through the deputy
mayor to the council. Uh I can't tell
[58:01] you the cost because that would be
proprietary information for through the
[58:06] bid. It is an ashalt roof which is
pretty standard for a building. And this
[58:12] is a fairly large building to replace
its roof plus and its elevation and
[58:18] slope and such. So that's not in my mind
too unreasonable the the dollar amount.
[58:24] And that is what we were looking at when
we budgeted for this project in the in
[58:29] the 26 budget.
>> Okay. And just one follow-up question.
[58:33] And how old is this? How old is our roof
now?
[58:38] » I would have to go back and double check
because that predates me by quite some
[58:43] time, but it's probably beyond 20 years
or more
[58:46] » at least. Yeah,
>> it's the original roof. I did it.
[58:49] » That's my understanding. Okay. Thank
you. Any other counselors wish to speak?
[58:55] Okay. Councelor Haldane.
>> Yes. Thank you. Um, so when you say you
[59:00] we we budgeted for this, all I've seen
in the report was a budget for 70 and
[59:04] something,000 for windows, roofing, and
a bunch of other repairs. So what was
[59:08] budgeted for the roof in the breakdown?
>> I would have to go back and double
[59:13] check, but I believe it was close to
250K for doing the roofing.
[59:18] » And And who came up with that? Where
where do we get that number? That would
[59:22] be from our consultant.
>> We hired a consultant to come up with an
[59:25] amount of roof or we we've sent it out
to tender to get.
[59:29] » They prepared the tender and
administered it for us and part of that
[59:33] was preparing the uh cost estimate for
doing the work.
[59:37] » Okay. And and lastly, during u the
budget deliberations this year, we
[59:42] talked about a lot of these uh costs and
expectations and it was brought up by me
[59:47] and and it brought up on more than one
occasion about using local contractors
[59:50] and local people. And in this case, we
go out to BC bid. We throw it out there
[59:55] from June 29th to July 13th, so a two-e
period. And we don't inform local
[1:00:00] people. And it's been said time and time
again. We have a soup builders
[1:00:05] association that we didn't ask about any
of it. So, they had no idea that we're
[1:00:10] going out to these bids. So, it's I
guess it's it's up to each person to go
[1:00:14] on BC bid anytime uh the district suit
decides they're going to put something
[1:00:18] out, but not everybody has BC bid as
part of their computer system. So, can't
[1:00:24] we do it in the future where we go to
some local contractors and we have many
[1:00:27] roofing contractors and suggest
put on here right now was done by a
[1:00:32] local roofing contractor originally. I'm
not sure what process he had to go
[1:00:36] through, but the roofs lasted for the 30
years it was built in 96. So, um I would
[1:00:41] think at this point we could go to
another local suit guy where people who
[1:00:44] pay local taxes here could get to work.
So, I'll be voting against this. Thank
[1:00:49] you.
>> Mr. Mr. Miller, would you like to
[1:00:52] comment?
>> Uh, your worship. Um,
[1:00:57] basically we have a purchasing policy
within the district. We also have the
[1:01:04] provincial trade requirements through
trade agreements that anything over a
[1:01:09] 100,000 in construction has to be open
bid. And we also have a Supreme Court
[1:01:15] decision that basically struck down
local preference um clauses that made it
[1:01:21] impossible for municipalities to do that
without running the risk of lawsuits. So
[1:01:28] um we can't make anyone bid. That is a
decision the biders make, but we do
[1:01:34] follow the process as set out by the
province and by tender law.
[1:01:40] » Thank you Miller. and our CEO would like
to comment.
[1:01:43] » Uh and just one further uh comment in
regards to uh local uh businesses
[1:01:48] knowing about BC bid procurement. Uh we
did speak with our MLA uh Leanness and
[1:01:53] my understanding was he was planning to
organize and host a session for
[1:01:57] businesses on how to uh submit bids to
BC bid because it's not just souk that
[1:02:03] has this requirement to post um requests
for proposals etc on BC bid. other
[1:02:08] municipalities, other levels of
government as well use this system. So I
[1:02:12] believe um potentially uh MLA Lajanesh
could be a resource because he was going
[1:02:16] to coordinate and offer a community
session information session on how to uh
[1:02:20] procure uh or submit bids for contracts
on BCB as well.
[1:02:24] » Thank you.
>> Anybody else? Councelor Baitman.
[1:02:28] » Yeah, thank you for for all this. Um a
few points. I I believe a consultant was
[1:02:32] hired to look at the entirety of the
municipal hall and all the work that
[1:02:35] needed to be done within this aging
building. So, councelor Haldane, I think
[1:02:40] we've discussed this before as well.
We've also discussed local um bids to lo
[1:02:46] to local uh suppliers and I do see that
we had one uh local um local company did
[1:02:53] bid on this project and they clearly did
not meet the the uh the policy uh
[1:03:00] approach to uh submission.
[1:03:05] Uh what's the word I'm looking for? you
know where I'm going with that. So, and
[1:03:10] yeah, for I our house, a 1600 square
foot uh residence, uh $20,000 to put a
[1:03:17] new roof on that. So, I I guess 20
What was that? 230 is not a bad
[1:03:23] » 2347.
>> Okay. 224. Okay.
[1:03:30] Anybody else council?
[1:03:35] Okay. And hearing none, then I'll call
for the motion the council award the
[1:03:38] roof replacement municipal hall project
contract to regal roofing in the amount
[1:03:44] of 234,754
excluding GST. Do I have someone making
[1:03:49] that motion? Councelor St. Pierre, do I
have a second? Councelor Baitman. Okay.
[1:03:54] Any discussion to the motion? So,
councelor Pearson. Oh.
[1:04:00] » Oh, sorry. Yeah, sorry. I should go to
the movers first. So, we'll go to
[1:04:03] councelor St. Pierre.
Uh so I appreciate councelor Haldane's
[1:04:08] uh points about trying to hire local
people and I think that's actually what
[1:04:11] we should be doing. Uh having said that
uh we are constrained by the Supreme
[1:04:16] Court and various other nonsensical
rules to not do what makes more sense
[1:04:20] for our community. Um I think the work
that the staff has done on essentially
[1:04:27] keeping us more or less under the
proposed budget of the contractor and um
[1:04:31] getting the job done makes sense. I feel
it's unfortunate we're still using
[1:04:34] ashalt when we probably should be using
metal even though it's more expensive
[1:04:39] but it lasts a hell of a lot longer
doesn't burn and given that we you know
[1:04:43] have risks in that direction that would
make sense to me but given that we're
[1:04:47] looking already at 234 for something
that does burn I guess we're going to
[1:04:52] we're going to skip the fire smarting
and go to ashvalt
[1:04:55] but having said that I think the work is
good and we do need a new roof and this
[1:04:59] is what is budgeted and this is the
tender process we Council
[1:05:03] Baitman.
>> Yeah. Well, that's fine. Thank you.
[1:05:07] » Hey, Council Pearson. Yeah. Well, it's
it just every time we award one of these
[1:05:12] contracts and it goes out of town, it
feels counterintuitive to what we're
[1:05:15] doing, what we should be doing. You
know, we're trying to get traffic off
[1:05:18] the road, we've got congestion, we've
got, you know, greenhouse gases, all of
[1:05:22] the things that get improved. So,
there's something missing in our system
[1:05:27] of either a getting qualified
contractors. You know, the economy is
[1:05:30] tough right now. Builders are out of
work or you know, it it's slowing down
[1:05:35] certainly and this is another example of
where we could employ local people and
[1:05:39] do all the right things. So, something's
wrong with our system in my opinion.
[1:05:43] However,
anybody else?
[1:05:48] Okay, hearing from nobody else, I'll
make my comments. Um, I think staff has
[1:05:53] followed the procedures as been outlined
following provincial law. The other
[1:05:57] thing that wasn't mentioned is that uh
if we do in in future adopt the process
[1:06:02] where we give favor favoritism to uh
people that are registered in souk uh
[1:06:08] then that allows Langford to do to do
the same and then uh that could cut out
[1:06:13] a lot of our souk uh contractors and our
best souk contractors don't just work in
[1:06:18] souk they work in the capital region
district so you also put that in
[1:06:22] jeopardy when you keep everything in
house langford who keep everything in
[1:06:26] house call to keep everything in house.
The chosen keep everything in house and
[1:06:30] that limits our our contractors. We live
in a capital region district and we have
[1:06:35] to uh allow our contractors to uh move
just because they live here and have
[1:06:40] their office here. They do need that
work in those other areas. So uh I will
[1:06:45] be supporting this motion and uh at that
I will call the question. All those in
[1:06:50] favor of the motion.
All those against. Okay, that's three to
[1:06:55] two. That is passed. Thank you.
All right. Next is development permit in
[1:07:01] with variance PLN01930
flood plane exemption
[1:07:07] staff report.
>> Yeah. In summary, this application is
[1:07:10] requesting a a development permit.
>> Sorry.
[1:07:16] » Oh, sorry. Yeah. Thank you, Councelor
Haldane.
[1:07:29] Yes. So, in summary, um this application
is requesting a development permit,
[1:07:33] flood plane exemption, and two variances
to accommodate a proposed duplex
[1:07:37] development at 6507 Water Street. Um the
zoning variance proposes to reduce the
[1:07:43] 15 m setback to the sea uh to 3.09 m for
the dwelling and 1.2 m from the deck.
[1:07:51] There's also an SDS uh bylaw variance
proposed to exempt the applicant from
[1:07:55] required frontage improvements at
building permit.
[1:07:59] Uh the flood plan exemption is proposed
due to the dwelling being proposed
[1:08:02] within 15 meters of the sea and a
development permit is required due to
[1:08:07] the activity taking place near the
shoreline and with steep slopes on the
[1:08:11] property.
The LUDC considered this application on
[1:08:15] July 7th uh in support of the staff
recommendation um which was to approve
[1:08:19] the develop permit zoning setback
variance and flood plane exemption while
[1:08:23] denying the requested frontage uh
improvement exemption variance. Um just
[1:08:28] one thing to note is that this item was
inadvertently uh approved through the
[1:08:32] July 13th consent agenda before the
required notice for the variance request
[1:08:37] had been completed. So the uh the first
motion therefore rescends that approval.
[1:08:43] Um notification uh I can confirm
notification has been completed and the
[1:08:47] remain motions return uh the application
for council's consideration uh in
[1:08:51] accordance with the LUDC uh and
mirroring the staff recommendation here
[1:08:55] today. Um so with that staff are
available for questions uh and the
[1:08:59] applicant is uh also in attendance I
believe still uh if there are questions
[1:09:03] directed directly for him.
>> Okay. Um,
[1:09:08] we can either do it with having the
motion on the floor, but I think I'll u
[1:09:12] have uh uh council ask questions now.
They have some for staff.
[1:09:20] Anything? Councelor St. Pier.
Um, so I recall that the
[1:09:28] the cost of $17,000 for the front
improvements was based on a
[1:09:31] cross-section which um think council
tended to think was probably more than
[1:09:38] was necessarily needed for that
particular area for water street. Uh my
[1:09:42] understanding is that uh there would be
the possibility of sending Zaka staff to
[1:09:46] look at an alternative cross-section
that might have a reduced cost because
[1:09:50] that would make sense and would actually
reduce the cost of the applicant. I
[1:09:53] believe that although there was some
appetite on the part of council to
[1:09:56] actually do so um and this will be
something to refer to the applicant
[1:10:00] again when the applicant was asked if
they would want a delay to consider a
[1:10:06] potentially less expensive
cross-section. they would reduce the
[1:10:09] frontage costs.
Uh the response was I'd like to have
[1:10:13] this built before I die. Um or something
along those lines. So I was curious at
[1:10:18] this point in time and I guess that
might not be a question for staff so
[1:10:21] much for the applicant. What does the
applicant actually prefer? Something
[1:10:24] more immediate get her done or more time
spent to reduce the cost of frontage
[1:10:29] potentially?
[1:10:33] » I hope so. Yes, you may answer. Yes, you
come up to the mic.
[1:10:39] Okay, I can I can repeat and and try and
explain because I think it's important
[1:10:42] that you be very clear in what's being
>> suggested here.
[1:10:46] » Right now, the only way potentially we
have to reduce your frontage costs
[1:10:51] » is to look at a front at a a treatment
for the road, you know, with sidewalks
[1:10:55] and so on that is less than what is in
presently being asked. And it doesn't
[1:11:01] make sense to quite put as much as being
asked in that particular road because
[1:11:04] that's a small area. it doesn't make
sense necessarily to build out that
[1:11:07] much. So, if we went back to staff and
said, "We need maybe a different
[1:11:11] alternative cross-section,"
chances are we could come back with
[1:11:15] something that's cheaper than $107,000,
but it would take more time.
[1:11:22] And when you were previously asked if
you willing to take more time, you
[1:11:26] indicated not.
[1:11:31] » Can you turn his microphone on?
>> Turn on turn the mic, please. Uh, right.
[1:11:35] No, no, on the the long stem. Bottom of
the long stem.
[1:11:39] » Other one.
>> Other box.
[1:11:41] He's got off.
>> So, so just to clarify,
[1:11:43] » I sorry, I thought I was confused and I
thought I was going to get the the
[1:11:47] billing permit the next day and was
explained to me after, no, you're not
[1:11:50] blah blah blah. So, I would have asked
then it be reduced. I went along with
[1:11:55] this thing for about two and a half
years and nobody ever mentioned this
[1:11:58] until that meeting that they would bring
this up for $107,000.
[1:12:03] that so it was a big shock.
>> Okay. So, but at this point in time,
[1:12:07] would you prefer
an additional delay with the potential
[1:12:11] to reduce the cost of the
>> If I could just ask you what would the
[1:12:14] additional be? You don't know.
>> I don't know. We we probably we go to
[1:12:19] staff and uh if it goes back to relook
at that portion of the uh what we're
[1:12:24] looking for road improvements, can you
give me an idea what the delay would be?
[1:12:31] your to you council. Uh
basically the delay would be we're not
[1:12:38] just redesigning this one portion of the
road. We're going to create a whole new
[1:12:42] cross-section within the subdivision
bylaw. So it would take me
[1:12:49] probably a month or two just to kind of
find one that works through the whole
[1:12:54] situation. And again, I can't guarantee
at this time that the new cross-section
[1:13:00] would be lesser what its cost would be
because I would have to look at the road
[1:13:05] in its entirety, not just the frontage
across this lot
[1:13:10] and see what type of cross-section. Then
it would have to come back to council
[1:13:15] for adoption because it would form part
of the subdivision bylaw. So, there is
[1:13:21] at least two council meetings in which
to do that. Um,
[1:13:25] » and we're running out of council
meetings.
[1:13:27] » Yeah. So, if I pushed it really, really
hard and pushed a few things down to the
[1:13:33] bottom of the pile, I might be able to
come back in September with a new
[1:13:38] cross-section and the amendment to the
bylaw. Um,
[1:13:44] but beyond that, then I would be
constrained by the municipal election.
[1:13:49] » Right. So, there is no immediate
recourse for those. Well, they're going
[1:13:53] to get me both ways, I think. So, I
might as well just agree to it.
[1:13:56] » Okay.
>> Go with it.
[1:13:57] » Well, I guess so because they might come
back and just say they want 107 or 106
[1:14:01] or something.
>> I just want to make sure we were
[1:14:03] » Okay.
>> Yeah. No, I understand. I appreciate
[1:14:05] that.
>> And I appreciate your comments back.
[1:14:07] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:14:08] » You want to ask me?
>> So, go ahead. Yeah. Council Pearson.
[1:14:12] » Okay. Yeah. Um
[1:14:18] through the chair through the chair to
staff. I I not have a question for you
[1:14:21] in a minute. So
>> when we discussed this
[1:14:26] in pri previous meetings it was it
[snorts] was our request to consolidate
[1:14:31] these lots
where there wouldn't have been any road
[1:14:35] frontage required right like we kind of
debated that whole point is that because
[1:14:40] they consolidated and I my opinion is is
that we actually just took three lots
[1:14:45] waterfront lots and then had most of
their land in the water and somebody and
[1:14:49] I think wisely said well if we put them
sideways,
[1:14:53] we can make a building site. It's a
pretty uh you know, we heard from one
[1:14:58] member of the club, pretty treacherous
site to to even kind of work with, but
[1:15:02] they've done they they've done all the
work.
[1:15:04] Can we pass all the ports? My question
to staff, can we pass all of the
[1:15:10] amendments with the exception of the
road frontage improvement um and
[1:15:17] exercise cash in Lou?
through the chair.
[1:15:22] » That's for staff to answer please.
>> Sorry through the deputy mayor. So
[1:15:27] what's being uh requested right now is
cash and
[1:15:30] » no my question two parts um Mr.
manager of community planning um through
[1:15:38] the chair is can we pass the we've got
how many variances we have here? One,
[1:15:44] two, three, four, right? Can we pass all
four of them with the exception of
[1:15:52] the road improvements
and then discuss that last one?
[1:15:59] And and I have a I have an idea and I
I'm not going to surprise it. My idea is
[1:16:03] to pass those and then ask staff and the
applicant to to negotiate a cash and loo
[1:16:10] settlement because I really believe this
is one of these weird things. We asked,
[1:16:15] we consolidated those three lots. If he
hadn't consolidated those lots, even
[1:16:20] though there are treacherous lots on the
hill, they could be built without roads,
[1:16:25] right?
>> On if if they had been consolidated,
[1:16:31] they could have been built without ro
>> the deputy mayor staff
[1:16:36] » possibly. Yes, for your last question
there. Um but I'll confirm here that
[1:16:41] procedurally yes, council can of course
um pass the all all the motions with the
[1:16:45] exception of that the last one for
frontage exemption. Um but when talking
[1:16:51] about um negotiating for cash and loot
right now the the discussion is about
[1:16:55] cash and loot not construction.
[1:16:59] » That's a statement
>> that could
[1:17:05] thank you for that answer.
So I have to go back to our corporate
[1:17:10] officer or CEO the procedurally. I'm not
familiar with this one.
[1:17:15] » Uh to the deputy mayor I believe if I'm
understanding um Mr. Riley correctly. Um
[1:17:22] council can pass all those motions and
defer commentary on the last motion in
[1:17:28] regards to the frontage. However, we'll
still be in the same situation of delay.
[1:17:33] So, I guess if councelor Pearson was
going to come up with alternative
[1:17:37] motion, maybe potentially is that what
he's looking for? Um, we would just need
[1:17:42] to understand what that look like.
>> I just need a little bit of recap for my
[1:17:45] own mind if we if we even if we separate
this, we're still looking at uh delays
[1:17:52] in getting into the election. And uh the
the member applying for this, the the
[1:17:58] citizen said that he's we just he wasn't
really in favor of going on and on by
[1:18:04] this. That's what I heard.
So, uh
[1:18:09] » correct.
>> I I don't see if we separate it. We're
[1:18:11] just doing much the same thing as
before, throwing it back to staff to
[1:18:15] negotiate with the the applicant and
then and then we're right back at the
[1:18:20] same position we were before. So, it's
just a different avenue to get there.
[1:18:25] Uh, it's still delays and the applicant
said that uh he wasn't in favor of any
[1:18:30] more delays. So, yes, sir, Mr. Riley.
>> Yes, just uh one point of clarification.
[1:18:36] So, with the all the uh uh permits,
flood plane exemption variances being
[1:18:42] proposed, um all of them are contingent
upon each other in order for this
[1:18:46] project to move forward with the
exception of the frontage exemption
[1:18:50] variance. So if uh the uh variance to
the sea, the variance to the flood plan
[1:18:56] exemption and also the um uh the
development permits, if those are all
[1:19:01] approved together, the project may move
forward to building permit. The only
[1:19:05] thing uh that is a barrier potentially
for the owner would be the the cost of
[1:19:09] uh the cash and payment of $17,000 in
accordance with the STS bylaw. So that
[1:19:15] that could be separated out. It would it
would
[1:19:18] » the clarity that I needed. So it will
not affect the issuing of the building
[1:19:22] uh permit or the he can go ahead with
with the construction now then then the
[1:19:29] negotiation starts about the $107,000 of
revenues.
[1:19:34] So what uh I need from the CEO uh what
procedure is we just separate uh
[1:19:40] just a sec just a sec. I'm just asking
the CEO question first. Now come to
[1:19:44] council m
>> uh the through the deputy mayor. I
[1:19:48] believe uh you can put forward for
council consideration uh the one two
[1:19:54] three all of the that motions and uh for
now
[1:19:59] call the question on those if council is
supportive of that and then defer the
[1:20:04] conversation on the last motion which is
and that council deny the subdivision.
[1:20:09] Uh, if councelor Pearson or others want
to have additional conversations on
[1:20:14] that, if you would like to close the
loop on all of the first items,
[1:20:17] » I hear what you're saying.
>> You can read out all of those items.
[1:20:19] » I think I can do that by chair to
separate.
[1:20:22] » Correct. Correct.
>> Yes. Yes. And yes,
[1:20:24] » I I will do that as chair to separate
and we'll vote on the the first ones.
[1:20:28] And just a sec. I'm going to go to uh
councelor Baitman first. But that's my
[1:20:32] plan until I hear differently. Councelor
Baitman.
[1:20:35] » Yeah. So, thank you. Um, so before we we
jump to a conclusion here, we need to
[1:20:39] very carefully consider the uh
submission tonight from uh Jeff Holm and
[1:20:46] his wife Patty. Uh Jeff Holm being a
professional engineer who and a near
[1:20:51] neighbor of this property. So I' I'd
just like to go through these the four
[1:20:55] points that have been raised in in the
letter tonight through you to uh Mr.
[1:21:00] Riley. Um so let's start with Gio.
[1:21:05] the geotechnical hazard. So I do
understand that a geotechnical
[1:21:10] assessment was done on the property but
a geotechnical hazard report is a
[1:21:14] separate matter. Is that correct?
>> That's correct. There was a high level
[1:21:19] report sorry through the deputy mayor
there there was a high level
[1:21:21] geotechnical report that focused
primarily on the flood plan exemption
[1:21:25] components um and recommendations for
building sighting and elevation of flood
[1:21:31] construction level of the habitable
space of the dwelling. Um so that has
[1:21:36] occurred. Uh staff were comfortable with
um moving forward as uh with with the
[1:21:40] recommendations although it wasn't a
substantial uh geotechnical report for
[1:21:44] hillside hazards due to just the size of
the property and also the fact that at
[1:21:48] building permit uh we would also be
asking for a geotechnical report to
[1:21:52] ensure stability of the foundation as a
standard procedure.
[1:22:00] Um, and sorry, ju just to add to that,
there's also um some specific sediment
[1:22:04] and erosion control uh measures that are
in place from the qualified
[1:22:08] environmental uh professional report
that's included and makes up a condition
[1:22:12] of the permit.
>> Um so the second point raises risk.
[1:22:21] » Hello,
>> please. Thank you.
[1:22:26] you've got the team doing this work now.
Thank you, Rachel. Um, yeah, so flooding
[1:22:31] risk that I believe was dealt with to a
degree in the um,
[1:22:38] let's see, we had an erosion and
stability assessment was done on this
[1:22:42] property environmental overview. The
flooding is a speak to that, please.
[1:22:47] » Yes. So the district of Souk has a flood
flood plane regulation bylaw uh which
[1:22:53] development must abide by um and it
requires uh there to be a 15 meter
[1:22:56] setback
um from the high watermark of the ocean
[1:23:00] [clears throat] and also a geodetic
elevation of a of a certain number is
[1:23:04] 1.5 meters or if there is flood uh
mapping data available which there is
[1:23:09] now just recently actually with through
the CRD um it must uh meet that uh
[1:23:14] minimum and that accounts for uh things
like wave action and sea level rise. Uh
[1:23:19] so we have confirmed that the proposed
geodetic elevation of the habitable
[1:23:23] space of the proposed dwelling is up is
3.62 meters which is adequate um and uh
[1:23:29] would be considered safe um for the for
the intended use as per the professional
[1:23:33] report that's attached to the permit and
report here.
[1:23:37] » Thank you. you you've spoken to all this
at the land use and development
[1:23:40] committee meeting of course back on July
7th but just to to final finish this
[1:23:45] foreshore and riparian protection and
environmental impact now I know there
[1:23:49] was a um a referral from hoo from the
ministry of water land and resource
[1:23:56] stewardship that very much spoke to
recommended compliance with
[1:24:00] environmental and geotechnical reports
is that about the the sum of
[1:24:08] uh through the deputy mayor, you could
say that. Um basically, we would ensure
[1:24:13] uh through a qualified environment
professional that all uh correct
[1:24:16] authorizations provinially and locally
are adhered to. This is not a riparian
[1:24:20] area by the way because riparians are
are streams uh rivers uh that exist that
[1:24:24] are fishing upland. This is proximity to
the ocean uh which is different. Um but
[1:24:29] we still do have development permit
areas which do look at development and
[1:24:32] ideally try to maintain a 15 meter
buffer from that 15 meters. But of
[1:24:36] course we're dealing with some
challenges on the site. Um just given
[1:24:40] the the historical context of of the
property um and uh we did our best to
[1:24:46] work within our guidelines as per the
recommendations of the QEP um to support
[1:24:51] this uh proposed development with all
those mitigation measures that are
[1:24:54] actually uh components of of the the
permit and its conditions.
[1:24:59] So very much sightsp specific um
application of the development permit
[1:25:03] guidelines.
Yes. Okay. And finally probable
[1:25:07] archaeological impact. Now there was a
referral as well from the uh archaeology
[1:25:13] branch which does note that there is a
very high likelihood of archaeological
[1:25:19] evidence at this site. and they noted
[clears throat]
[1:25:22] uh archae archaeologists recommended
prior to excavation
[1:25:27] is uh h how does that play out in this
project?
[1:25:31] » Yes. So um these referral comments um uh
and advisory comments would make it in
[1:25:36] their way to the development permit
itself. Um and we would uh follow the
[1:25:41] provincial guidelines through the the
heritage conservation act for chance
[1:25:45] fine procedures. So that's in all of our
permit language. Uh uh we do note that
[1:25:50] um there's high potential uh to discover
artifacts potentially around shoreline
[1:25:54] areas. So if they are found um and uh
there are correct professionals on site
[1:25:59] that would would stop work and and
follow the correct procedures.
[1:26:04] » Okay. And of course the S also
recommended that uh that as well. Okay.
[1:26:09] So thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you Baitman. Anybody else at
[1:26:14] this point? Otherwise, I have to back up
the bus a bit. But we'll start with
[1:26:18] councelor St. Pierre and then go ahead.
Uh I just want to clarify something that
[1:26:24] did come up that had not come up during
use committee uh through your go ahead.
[1:26:28] Okay. So my understanding now from the
questions that council Pearson made in
[1:26:32] the answers received is that um there
may actually be opportunity to
[1:26:38] completely separate the matter of the
frontage from the other for the permit
[1:26:42] to go forward. and for example for Mr.
Miller potentially to have time with a
[1:26:48] bit more leisure to look at what would
be a suitable cross-section for that
[1:26:53] area. Is that correct? And that's up to
anyone who
[1:27:01] Mr. Miller who wish to comment.
[1:27:06] Yes,
your worship to the counselor. Yes, it
[1:27:10] does give a little more time. Um you
have to remember we are amending the
[1:27:15] subdivision bylaw. So there is a
procedure we will have to go through to
[1:27:20] create this cross-section and through
that bylaw um it's either build it or
[1:27:26] cost in l. So there will be a cost um
associated with it. I mean, council
[1:27:33] could in its uh decision-making process
wave all fees, but then you could be
[1:27:41] setting up a precedent for the other
lots along that property line uh where
[1:27:46] they would ask for a similar exemption.
So, what the cost would look like, I
[1:27:52] have no idea at this point. It might
come out to be similar because of the
[1:27:56] train we're talking about. Um, it might
be
[1:28:02] the same or it might be less, but by how
much less, I wouldn't be able to tell
[1:28:06] you, but it would take some time to look
and come up with a new cross-section and
[1:28:11] add it to um the subdivision bylaw.
Sounds to me like it's possible, but may
[1:28:17] or may not come to fruition. Thank you.
>> So, uh, this is from the chair to Mr.
[1:28:23] Miller. So we you say we can wave or
alter that that figure uh but the danger
[1:28:30] is setting a precedent for the the other
lots in that area. Is that correct?
[1:28:36] » To do to your worship um it is council's
bylaw. they can you can make any changes
[1:28:44] you want to it but
>> and you're not necessarily constrained
[1:28:49] by the decisions you make but it will be
harder in the future if someone else
[1:28:54] okay
>> on that road comes along and says I want
[1:28:57] the exemption I understand that so thank
you for that clarification okay so uh
[1:29:02] the way I would like to proceed I
already gave uh that I was going to
[1:29:05] separate this uh but before I do that I
have to resend the old one right that
[1:29:10] hasn't been done So first of all that
the approval of item 8.6 as part of
[1:29:15] resolution 20 26259 development permit
with variances PLN01930
[1:29:22] floodplate exemption PL uh N02032
be rescended. So I'll need a motion for
[1:29:29] that. So St. Pierre Baitman or Pearson
any discussion to the motion? Go ahead,
[1:29:36] councier.
>> Through your worship to staff, if we
[1:29:38] vote against rescending, just
essentially go forward and we skip all
[1:29:42] this mess.
>> Um to the deputy mayor to councelor St.
[1:29:47] Pierre, I believe procedurally uh we
need this rescended because it
[1:29:51] challenges the enforcability based on
the advertising requirements.
[1:29:55] » Okay.
>> So no.
[1:29:56] » All right.
>> So hearing no other discussion, all
[1:29:58] those in favor of the motion. That's
unanimous for Okay. And then the second
[1:30:04] one is um I don't know. Oh, you're going
to put it up here. Oh my god. Um
[1:30:10] have you separated that one now?
>> There's a lot here to read.
[1:30:18] » Okay.
[1:30:26] » Oh, sure. Yeah.
>> Thank you. Section 14, Sue Land District
[1:30:29] Plan EP88370
to permit the construction of a duplex
[1:30:33] dwelling and a deck in accordance with
the terms and conditions of draft
[1:30:36] development permit PLN1930
attachment one. Second,
[1:30:40] » the council authorized issuance of
development variance permit PLN1930
[1:30:44] attachment one to vary section 3.21 of
zoning by number 600 2013 by reducing
[1:30:50] the required setback from the present
natural boundary of the seat from 15 m
[1:30:53] to 3.09 m for the principal dwelling and
1.2 2 meters for the deck. The council
[1:30:59] grant an exemption under section 524 of
the local government act and section 11B
[1:31:03] of the flood plane regulation bylaw
number 7732020
[1:31:07] to permit the proposed dwelling to be
located 3.09 m from the present natural
[1:31:10] boundary of the sea subject to
registration of a section 219 covenant
[1:31:14] under land title act to secure
compliance with the applicable flood
[1:31:17] construction levels 3.62 geodetic
elevation. the recommendations of the
[1:31:22] Ryzac Geotechnical Assessment dated May
6, 2026 as amended and related to flood
[1:31:27] hazard acknowledgement release indemnity
and safe harmless provisions to the
[1:31:31] satisfactory of the district. I think
there's one more
[1:31:35] » the other one is being in terms of the
block. I think there's one more a couple
[1:31:39] more sections.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah.
[1:31:43] uh that the flood plane setback
exemption does not take effect until the
[1:31:46] required section 219 covenant has been
registered entitled to the satisfactory
[1:31:49] of the district and the council deny
>> yeah okay we stop right there
[1:31:54] » okay so that that's the part that and we
have a motion
[1:31:58] and a second is councelor Pearson any
discussion to the motion hearing none
[1:32:04] those in favor and that's unanimously
four uh so now um we can discuss the
[1:32:11] last part of it is that correct
CEO.
[1:32:14] » Uh, correct. And just to clarify, um,
for this motion, if council, the
[1:32:20] applicant has requested a variance to
not, I believe, do any of the frontage
[1:32:25] requirements and staff is recommending
denying it. If council doesn't like
[1:32:29] either of those options, then the only
option at this time is to send this back
[1:32:32] to staff to report back to council at a
future meeting on what alternative
[1:32:36] options could be available at this time.
>> Nothing's ever easy. So if the applicant
[1:32:41] is in wanting to do this quickly, I
believe that's why initially as
[1:32:45] councelor St. Pierre referenced, he
agreed to the cash and loo amount and
[1:32:48] that uh in order to move this forward
quickly, this is the motion we need
[1:32:52] council to pass if um council can also
support the variance and require no
[1:32:59] frontage. I believe was the uh which is
against the land use committee
[1:33:02] recommendation. Um or council can send
this back to staff
[1:33:07] to work with the applicant. So we we can
pass it the way it is. We can send it
[1:33:12] back to staff which god knows when it
will ever get back. Uh or we
[1:33:19] can just say council take uh that we are
not going to request the frontage
[1:33:25] improvement cost at all. So I'll go to
councelor Pearson.
[1:33:31] Okay. So I have to through the chair.
Thank you. So
[1:33:36] in all in all of those options,
could council propose a different amount
[1:33:43] through to Mr. Miller?
That's kind of where I was going at the
[1:33:49] beginning of this.
Uh through the worship to the counselor,
[1:33:53] again, it's council's bylaw. They you
have the ability to change the bylaw to
[1:33:59] what you want. If you want to make it
$1, you can. Again, you're now modifying
[1:34:05] the bylaw. You're not just modifying it
this one. It's the whole cost system.
[1:34:12] » Yeah.
>> That you're modifying. So, if you say
[1:34:15] it's $1 for this one, it's $1 for the
next one coming through because you're
[1:34:19] modifying the bylaw.
>> Yeah. And and I have I have a couple of
[1:34:23] couple of follow-up questions on that.
>> Go ahead.
[1:34:25] » So, through the chair. Thank you. Um,
how many of these lots are left without
[1:34:31] a house on it? We should have an
inventory because these are the rarest.
[1:34:35] According to DFO and surveyor of general
of British Columbia, there's only eight
[1:34:40] or 12 of them that exist in British
Columbia. These are the ones through to
[1:34:45] Mr. Riley, I guess. I don't How many do
we have?
[1:34:48] » Uh through the deputy mayor. Um I'm not
sure. I think there are about a dozen or
[1:34:52] so.
>> Yeah.
[1:34:53] » Yeah.
>> And so, and we understand that the
[1:34:56] survey pins are actually out in the
water. Is that correct?
[1:35:01] the parcel boundary stretch out into the
ocean.
[1:35:03] » Yeah. So that they and somewhere along
the line 10 or 15 years ago, we heard
[1:35:07] that there's actual that's where the
property goes to. I don't know whether
[1:35:11] the ocean came in or whether somebody
well they survey I I don't know that
[1:35:14] part and I know it's irrelevant probably
but um so if any one of the other how
[1:35:25] vacant lots came along to build anything
on those tent lots and they could meet a
[1:35:32] building requirement would they be as
individual lots required road frontage
[1:35:39] » through the deputy mayor depends on the
trigger. The SDS bylaw triggers frontage
[1:35:43] improvements for certain types of of
dwelling types.
[1:35:47] » Yeah. But if the Okay, because we
learned last week it was a duplex. If
[1:35:51] they were SFR, single family residents,
each one not duplex, would they in fact
[1:35:56] have to pay road frontage?
>> They would not under the SDS bylaw. And
[1:36:01] also the uh applicant could construct a
single family dwelling as well and not
[1:36:05] pay frontage.
>> Correct. So, the applicant's application
[1:36:09] is triggered
to $107,000.
[1:36:13] Okay. Thank you. That's all my question.
>> Okay. Um
[1:36:18] I guess with me, um
I I don't feel comfortable modifying the
[1:36:25] bylaw number 9252 2025. Uh that is too
far reaching. Uh I am very sympathetic
[1:36:33] to the applicant and I'm struggling to
find a way to save him a few bucks on
[1:36:37] this because he's put his life and uh
soul into this uh development. He did
[1:36:42] say that he would accept it as it is,
you know, rather begrudgingly, but uh he
[1:36:48] did say that. Uh so I'm uh
I'm willing to deny the request for
[1:36:57] variance because it is too far reaching
to uh to make any further changes uh
[1:37:03] down the line. It affects too many
properties uh for for years to come. So
[1:37:09] at this point in time u I'm not prepared
to do that. There's another system that
[1:37:14] will find some relief for this
gentleman. I'd be more than happy to
[1:37:18] explore it, but I don't see it with what
we have here. Councelor St. Pierre.
[1:37:23] » Um, I agree that uh making changes to
the bylaw itself will have farreaching
[1:37:27] consequences. We know that the public
would like to have access to that area
[1:37:30] and that improvements at some point are
going to be needed and this is pretty
[1:37:34] much the only way the district has to
pay for it other than putting more taxes
[1:37:38] on residential taxpayers, which they
really don't need. So, that's why
[1:37:41] development is expected to pay for this
sort of thing. Having said that, I'm
[1:37:45] still struggling because the
cross-section that we observe and that
[1:37:48] is
um being suggested for this particular
[1:37:52] area seems to be
somewhat more than necessary. I don't
[1:37:55] necessarily know it's going to cost a
whole lot less even if it was a
[1:37:58] different cross-section. But having said
that, I would be interested to know from
[1:38:01] staff whether or not it's possible to
have um
[1:38:07] language that would allow once that new
cross-section because I predict we'll
[1:38:12] want a different cross-section for that
area. Once that's determined, could we
[1:38:17] have uh a refund or a different cost
attached for the applicant? Is that
[1:38:22] actually a possibility or is just too
challenging?
[1:38:30] Yeah, I kind of think we're going down
in the weeds here, but if you can answer
[1:38:34] that, fine. If not, I'm going to move on
>> to your worship. Um,
[1:38:41] it's not a route we pursue very often,
so I can't give you an answer whether it
[1:38:48] is or isn't possible. Um
I think when our regular corporate
[1:38:55] officer who is on holidays right now and
is more versed in these
[1:39:01] discussions uh I think he would be able
to provide you an answer but myself
[1:39:07] I have never gone down this road and
whether or not we could write an
[1:39:11] agreement to take the 107 and then
refund a certain amount we probably can
[1:39:19] but I don't know what that would look
like and I have no I don't have enough
[1:39:25] » so it could go on for months and months
and months. So with that being said and
[1:39:29] thank you staff for that. Uh we seem to
be caught in a sort of a catch 22
[1:39:33] situation here but I'm willing to make
the motion that council deny the request
[1:39:38] variant to exempt the proposed
development for the frontal improvements
[1:39:41] requirements under section 3.2 of
subdivision development standards bylaw
[1:39:45] 9252025.
That's my motion. Do I have a second?
[1:39:51] Councelor Stamp Pierre seconded.
Okay. Now, motivation. Um, again, I'm
[1:39:57] very sympathetic. Uh, but I just don't
see a way around this without just
[1:40:02] delaying this and delaying this. U,
the applicant did say he he woulding to
[1:40:08] pay it. Um, like I say, it doesn't quite
sit right with me, but I there's just no
[1:40:13] way that I I could vote for changing
bylaw number 925 2025 unless we uh had
[1:40:22] uh you know, a long staff report of the
consequences
[1:40:26] uh and a long discussion with council
and uh that clock is ticking. So, I will
[1:40:31] make that motion and we have a seconder.
Anybody else wish to speak to that
[1:40:35] motion?
[1:40:38] Councelor Pearson.
[1:40:42] » No, he said he Sorry. Oh,
um I think that the um So, you should
[1:40:50] have gone Yeah.
>> from the staff is is that the
[1:40:52] application on the single lot to build
the duplex triggers the uh triggers that
[1:40:58] that uh road improvement. So, um I
actually think we can't I think we have
[1:41:05] to I think that's if if the applicant
changes his his application from to to
[1:41:10] an SFR and doesn't trigger it, it's the
duplex which is triggering it which is
[1:41:14] throughout our entire community. So,
>> okay, that's I have to support the
[1:41:19] motion.
>> Okay. Thank you, Council Pearson.
[1:41:21] Councelor Baitman.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm having a bit of trouble
[1:41:24] with this. um look looking at that
roadway
[1:41:28] water street it it's a very narrow piece
of property and what we're talk with the
[1:41:32] local urban suburban crosssection in the
bylaw two sidewalks bio swale and two
[1:41:39] travel lanes now that that road is not
going to accommodate all of that
[1:41:43] activity and that we I would suspect in
future we will need a wildcard
[1:41:48] cross-section of some kind to deal with
the realities of roads in in the
[1:41:54] district. This is a very unique piece of
property uh that water street itself.
[1:42:00] And um so yeah, I'm knowing that Mr.
Miller said, you know, a few months he
[1:42:07] could tinker away and come up with a
unique cross-section for this water
[1:42:12] street um uh reality. Um
so yeah, I think I think I'm going to
[1:42:19] have to vote no on this, but that's
fine.
[1:42:22] » Okay, I'm going to call a question. And
all those in favor of the motion,
[1:42:26] all those against, please note that
councelor Baitman voted against that
[1:42:29] motion. That is passed. Thank you.
All right. I'm going to take a uh five
[1:42:36] minute uh health break. So anybody can
wash rooms or have a drink of water.
[1:42:43] That is
[1:47:12] Could
[1:47:24] I get council members to come back?
[1:47:31] Councelor Baitman, sit down.
[1:47:36] Yeah. Is it
[1:47:43] Okay. All right. Now we'll go on to 9.3
park use permit commercial use staff
[1:47:50] report
[1:47:54] through you to your worship. Uh this is
a parks uh parks use commercial parks
[1:48:01] use permit modification because there
will be a commercial component to this
[1:48:07] but it is also uh the harvest event that
the society has put on over the last two
[1:48:14] years. Uh so one I need council
direction to modify
[1:48:20] the uh agreement and they have also
requested that any funds or fees um
[1:48:29] associated with this permit be waved
which has also happened in the past.
[1:48:35] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Council St. Pierre like to move the
[1:48:41] motion.
>> Okay. Go ahead and move the motion.
[1:48:43] » Okay. The council authorized a
commercial parks use permit for soupuchi
[1:48:46] society for harvest festival and market
at the center of a community garden and
[1:48:49] orchard 2380 Phillips Road in accordance
with section 6.0 Know the community park
[1:48:54] regulation bylaw number 101 and subject
to conditions outlining the permit
[1:48:58] action one
>> and that council exempt sukfuchi society
[1:49:02] for ad ministry of fee commercial use
permit fee and deposit for the use of
[1:49:06] sun river community garden and orchard
for December 20th 2026 in accordance
[1:49:10] with section 8 of the community parks
regulation by law number 101.
[1:49:13] » Okay, I'm going to take these together.
So one second's good enough. So uh
[1:49:18] councelor St. Pierre made the motion,
councelor Pearson seconder. Any
[1:49:21] discussion to the motion? Hearing
none. All those in favor that's
[1:49:27] unanimous. Thank you very much. Uh next
one is 9.4 request for sponsor
[1:49:34] sponsorship soup music and arts festival
2026.
[1:49:38] Okay, that's moved by councelor Haldane
and that is council approve the sponsor
[1:49:43] request for soup music and arts festival
for the 2026 event in the amount of
[1:49:47] 1,000. Moved by
>> second.
[1:49:49] » We sure can. Councelor Baitman second
that. We'll fight over it. It's okay.
[1:49:53] Any discussion to the motion?
>> A question.
[1:49:55] » Oh, a question. Sorry.
>> Do we need to source like where the
[1:49:58] money's coming from?
>> I think uh uh to staff, we have money in
[1:50:02] the sponsorship still, don't we? That's
what it's asked for.
[1:50:05] » Yes, correct.
>> Yes, I just want to confirm.
[1:50:07] » Yeah, good.
>> Thank you.
[1:50:08] » Okay, then I'll call the questions.
Sorry, Council Baitman. You're in the
[1:50:12] visible zone.
>> I am in the invisible zone here. So, go
[1:50:14] ahead.
>> Rightly so. Um
[1:50:18] what was I going to say? Oh, yeah. So,
$1,000 has seemed to become a new normal
[1:50:23] in in these applications with the
exception of the pickle ball tournament.
[1:50:27] As councelor Haldane me mentioned some
six months ago, we need to to watch our
[1:50:32] our pennies. But these kind of events
like the soup music and arts festival
[1:50:36] and the harvest festival are are much
larger scale public events. All soup day
[1:50:42] as another example. So sponsorship
um is in my mind anyway this $1,000
[1:50:50] seems an appropriate amount. And yes,
there's 1362 still in the sponsorship
[1:50:55] budget and we also have $18,800 in the
council contingency.
[1:51:00] » So that will will cover this nicely.
Thank you.
[1:51:03] » I'm going to call the question. Oh,
sorry. Councelor Heline, go ahead.
[1:51:06] » Excuse me. Thank you. Yeah, because um I
always go against the whole idea of uh
[1:51:11] small user groups who you know it's
their own thing, but uh any of the arts
[1:51:16] festivals, music festivals, stuff like
that, they involve the whole community,
[1:51:19] so it gets people out. A lot of free
stuff at those things. I'm always for
[1:51:24] anything that families and everybody can
get to be involved in. It doesn't cost
[1:51:28] them any money or very much money at
all. And lastly, if uh the roofing is
[1:51:34] only going to cost us 230 grand, we have
250 budgeted for. We got a whole bunch
[1:51:37] of money we can call.
>> Okay. Councelor Pearson.
[1:51:42] » Yeah. Just a clarific question
clarification question through the chair
[1:51:46] to our CEO. What was the delegated
authority on sponsorship that we
[1:51:53] » uh 200 through the uh deputy mayor to
councelor Pearson? It was $250.
[1:51:57] » Okay.
>> I believe.
[1:51:58] » And so and and so have have you been
using that that delegated authority? Uh
[1:52:06] I can I'll double check with Miss Mo.
>> Oh okay.
[1:52:10] » Uh through the deputy mayor. I believe
we we've used it twice.
[1:52:14] » Um but generally the asks are greater
than 200
[1:52:17] » over in the CEO report.
>> So now that you've been using it, is
[1:52:23] there any feedback? I know this is maybe
because we're debating the question. Is
[1:52:27] there any feedback that you could give
us that on that amount? Is it enough or
[1:52:30] is it because like these thousand ones,
you know, we're doing these all the
[1:52:35] time. Should, you know, should that not
come to council? Like, in my opinion,
[1:52:40] this is sort of a, you know, a
no-brainer sponsoring this.
[1:52:45] » I I think we probably deal with that at
another time. We just have the one in
[1:52:49] front of us today and I think we get
this out of the way. I think that's for
[1:52:53] new business under another council
meeting.
[1:52:56] » But I I understand where you're going
with Well, it is it is kind of germanine
[1:52:59] to the question. This is, you know,
councelor Haldane actually summed it up
[1:53:02] pretty nicely. There's a lot of I think
council has the um discretion and we we
[1:53:08] rarely say no to these important events
here. So, I mean again it takes up
[1:53:12] council time, council minutes and things
like that when I think we have to tell
[1:53:15] the staff. Oh yeah, we got staff. Go
ahead.
[1:53:20] » Uh through deputy mayor to councelor
Pearson. There may be uh this discussion
[1:53:23] will likely come up through the newly
formedish uh MRDT tourism committee. One
[1:53:28] of the the items in the tactical plan is
events and festivals and grant funding
[1:53:33] through that stream. So there is a
mechanism to review this under that
[1:53:37] context and uh uh as MRD eligible
projects there's certain data that we
[1:53:42] need to collect through the event. So
this would be a conversation I am hoping
[1:53:46] uh to bring forward to the MRDT
committee. Thank you.
[1:53:49] » Thank you. No further question. Gray,
you got something more to say on it or
[1:53:52] » to the deputy mayor. That was the same
narrative I was going to say is uh with
[1:53:56] the newly formed tourism committee. This
is uh an item I know was going to bring
[1:54:00] forward to them for discussion.
>> Okay. With that being said, I like to
[1:54:06] call the question then. All those in
favor, that's unanimous. Thank you. Uh
[1:54:12] next 9.5 update on wastewater bylaw
development
[1:54:19] to council
in our June committee of the whole um a
[1:54:26] discussion was held with respect to a
new wastewater bylaw because the old one
[1:54:31] is coming to the end of its life and we
have to come up with a new mechanism in
[1:54:36] order to pay for the utility. In that
discussion, uh committee was presented
[1:54:43] with a model where partial was collected
through partial tax and partial was
[1:54:51] collected through user tax or user feed.
The report you see before you is fairly
[1:54:58] similar. Uh you might have noticed I
might have recycled some of it from the
[1:55:03] committee of the whole with some
deviation in there. Since the June
[1:55:08] committee of the whole, we've been
working with our consultant to try to
[1:55:11] find out how we can make that work. And
it was our hope that we would have been
[1:55:18] bringing back um first, second, and
third reading to council of the new
[1:55:23] bylaw, but we're running into
difficulties
[1:55:27] either with our data with the
interpretation and such to make sure
[1:55:32] that we're coming up with a fair and
equitable model um for our residents and
[1:55:38] the users of the utility. And because of
that, we've kind of there's an
[1:55:44] alternative way that um we could
possibly move forward with this bylaw,
[1:55:50] and that would be the abandonment of the
parcel tax portion and do it totally as
[1:55:57] user fees. Um
so
[1:56:01] the reason why this is coming forward to
council is so you're not
[1:56:05] » I'd like to know. Yeah.
>> Yes. So you're not surprised in
[1:56:07] September if you actually saw one that
was all based off of user fees.
[1:56:14] So again, we're trying to find this fair
and equitable model that will not
[1:56:21] produce too many heart attacks when
people see their bills um from what
[1:56:25] they're seeing for 625 parcel fee right
now. And so again, it's just trying to
[1:56:33] give council the heads up that you you
might see a different version in
[1:56:37] September.
>> So we have already received the report,
[1:56:40] but you're just warning us with this
that the report can change somewhat when
[1:56:44] it comes back to us in September.
>> Just on how we're going to collect
[1:56:48] » the uh the funds, right?
>> So I just need a motion to accept this
[1:56:52] as information bouncer St. Pierre.
>> Oh, go ahead. Go with the question. Uh
[1:56:58] my question is uh does staff want any
further clarification on whether it
[1:57:01] should be option one or two or are you
good to go for the next stage without
[1:57:05] any further clarification from council
>> to the mayor to the counselor? Of course
[1:57:10] it's council's final decision. If you
like the parcel tax and a user fee we
[1:57:16] can proceed that way or we can continue
to f again find
[1:57:22] massaging both the methodologies back
and forth.
[1:57:26] um to find the one that is fair and
equitable or and bring that one back to
[1:57:32] you. I mean, at that time, if you choose
to go back to the other one because you
[1:57:36] don't like the one presented again,
that's council's prerogative. Um it just
[1:57:43] uh we run into the election more than
anything.
[1:57:47] » Okay. I need to clarify a little bit
here. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah.
[1:57:50] » Okay. So, um, if I understand your
answer, at this point, uh, working with
[1:57:56] a consultant, you're looking at really
just taking it away from the parcel tax
[1:57:58] entirely and moving towards, you know, a
utility billing type of situation.
[1:58:03] » Yes.
>> Perfect. Thank you. Uh, and then in the
[1:58:06] report you have option one and two, but
both of those are actually referring to
[1:58:09] a parcel tax, which we are at this which
staff at this point and the consultant
[1:58:13] is considering moving away from. Is that
correct?
[1:58:17] I included the parcel tax as background
information for where we had started
[1:58:22] from and just for extra understanding to
how partial tax
[1:58:26] » but it's not necessarily even a front
runner for consideration at this point
[1:58:30] in time in terms of where we seem to be
moving. Correct.
[1:58:33] » It's one of two options that we're
looking at.
[1:58:35] » My my understanding is staff is still
working on this and it'll come to us in
[1:58:38] September.
>> Any further clarification on parcel tax
[1:58:41] » other just received this?
We we understand what committee had told
[1:58:45] us.
>> Okay. So, Mr. Councelor Peterson,
[1:58:49] » thank you chair. Um,
is there any or Okay. Question. What
[1:58:56] when is the debt retired
>> at the end of this year?
[1:59:00] » Oh. So, so it has to be in place because
and now my second question is there any
[1:59:06] ramifications from a portion of that
parcel tax? We have to make a decision,
[1:59:12] I guess, is that my understanding and
it's probably to our CEO is that $200 in
[1:59:17] interest, I think, or whatever it is
that's paid out of that partial tax,
[1:59:21] partial tax will have to be it'll have
to come off the bill if we don't do
[1:59:25] anything, right? Is that how
>> right now the way it sits, it would stay
[1:59:29] at 625 unless the bylaw was modified,
but also the bylaw was set up as a
[1:59:37] partial tax and they have finite lives.
So, it was set up till you paid off the
[1:59:43] debt and then the bylaw goes null and
void. That is why we're going forward
[1:59:48] with another bylaw.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[1:59:51] » Yes. Yes.
>> Okay. So, go ahead, councelor Bait.
[1:59:58] » Well, just a comment. Thank you very
much for this heads up on this minimum
[2:00:02] fixed toll, the asset management toll
and the consumption toll. Seems like a
[2:00:06] pretty interesting uh approach which
we'll hear about in September. Thank
[2:00:11] you.
>> Have a motion to receive this report for
[2:00:14] information. All those in favor? That's
unanimous. Thank you. Uh next one. 10.1
[2:00:20] short-term rental accommodation moderniz
moderate modernization zoning amendment
[2:00:25] bylaw number 947600120
2026.
[2:00:31] That council give third reading for the
zoning amendment bylaw. same one uh to
[2:00:36] amend uh zoning bylaw number 600 to
modernize soups regulation of short-term
[2:00:41] rentals. That's the motion. You make it
council St. Pierre or do we have a
[2:00:46] seconder?
I will second that. The only thing uh
[2:00:50] now we open for discussion. I'll go to
you first and then I'll comment. I've
[2:00:54] got a couple of questions and maybe a
comment. Uh my further question through
[2:00:58] your worship the staff is uh my
understanding is that the
[2:01:04] one property owner that has the two uses
that are at this point being stacked uh
[2:01:10] will be receiving what they requested
which was a legal non-compliant status.
[2:01:14] Is that correct?
>> Through the deputy mayor um they would
[2:01:18] be legal non-conforming. Sorry.
>> Yes. So just automatically legal
[2:01:22] non-conforming. Okay. um if they're
looking for uh written confirmation of
[2:01:26] that, I'd be happy to to provide that to
Mr. Hicks.
[2:01:28] » It sounds like they would very much
appreciate that. Thank you very much.
[2:01:31] Okay, so my qu second question uh is
more to do with uh the
[2:01:37] stacking. So, uh it's been mentioned
that other local governments are not
[2:01:41] actually in favor of actually having
these two usages on the same property at
[2:01:44] the same time. And there were issues
with stacking. I have no idea what
[2:01:47] that's supposed to mean and what the
actual
[2:01:51] negative implications of having those
two uses. Uh it seems pretty clear that
[2:01:55] at least one property owner has been
able to do it for quite a long time. Uh
[2:01:58] it seems useful to be able to actually
potentially invite a few guests for bed
[2:02:01] and breakfast and have something else
where you can actually have some for a
[2:02:04] longer period of time. I don't actually
understand
[2:02:07] what the risks to the district and in
general could be and uh if you could
[2:02:11] just explain why if you
>> Yeah. through the deputy mayor. So, um,
[2:02:15] stacking, I suppose, uh, could have a
negative consequence. Think about, um, a
[2:02:21] public nuisance. Uh, there's a
threshold, uh, you can imagine, uh,
[2:02:25] where you would have potentially five,
uh, bed and breakfast units, five
[2:02:29] different guests, as well as short-term
rental accommodations occurring where
[2:02:33] the property uh, does not uh, contain
these accommodation uses as accessory.
[2:02:39] they become uh basically the principal
use of the property that is uh generally
[2:02:44] better suited for something more uh like
tourist accommodation chalets or through
[2:02:48] a reszoning process would be more
suitable to have those uses. I think
[2:02:52] there are some unique properties that
are on larger lots that may be um uh
[2:02:58] less of a a concern um perhaps Mr. Hix's
property. But if you're looking at
[2:03:03] properties located in uh town center
areas or within community residential
[2:03:08] areas um that are a bit more dense um
then those uh uses proliferated um could
[2:03:16] could cause uh some concern from like a
bylaw and and public nuisance
[2:03:19] perspective. Parking as well it has to
be looked at comprehensively.
[2:03:24] » Okay. So, if I understand correctly, uh
the main concern is over areas that'll
[2:03:28] be in denser spaces where lots are
smaller and you could potentially
[2:03:33] looking at public nuisance issues. Uh
too many cars, not enough parking, that
[2:03:37] type of thing.
>> Yeah, that's my initial uh thought on
[2:03:41] that. Um, of course, those issues can
occur anywhere. Um uh but again uh
[2:03:47] depending on the uh uh like the the bed
and breakfast provisions right now are
[2:03:52] become quite um permissive uh with the
larger lot. So it's scaled uh by parcel
[2:03:57] area. Um so adding short-term rentals on
top of that uh again does have the
[2:04:03] ability to substantially uh alter the
the land use of that property. So, it's
[2:04:07] mainly a land use control measure that's
in place and and I would suggest if
[2:04:11] there are properties that are looking to
go that direction to have 10 uh you know
[2:04:16] short-term accommodation rentals through
a combination of bed and breakfast and
[2:04:20] um and short-term rental. Um then we'd
be looking at maybe potential commercial
[2:04:25] use um a hotel or or tourist
accommodation or chalet. Uh that's
[2:04:31] something we could look at potentially
at through our zoning bio update
[2:04:34] upcoming next year.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'd appreciate at that
[2:04:38] time that we just make sure that uh as
much as possible. Uh we're not actually
[2:04:43] constraining people from providing
tourism accommodations that we
[2:04:47] desperately need and you know making the
best use of the property that they can.
[2:04:52] Uh as long as we're looking at let's
make sure that we're looking at real
[2:04:55] risks as opposed to
um things that may never really happen
[2:05:01] much. Just thank you very much for the
answers.
[2:05:05] » Okay. As a seconder, my main concern is
that Mr. Hicks was uh grandfathered in
[2:05:10] and that's happened. You're going to
give a letter to that effect. And so, uh
[2:05:14] I think at this point in time, unless
there's no other questions, I'm going to
[2:05:17] call the question. I'll open. Oh, sorry.
I didn't see your hand there.
[2:05:23] » Okay.
>> Yeah. So, if modern means dissolving
[2:05:27] more property rights as we have done on
numerous bylaw housekeeping changes in
[2:05:31] the past, then I will not be in favor of
this change. Why do we care how people
[2:05:35] rent out extra units on their own
private lands? I'm of the belief that
[2:05:39] given these uncertain financial times
that we need to be coming up with more
[2:05:43] possible uses rather than less. It's my
belief that people pay a heavy tax
[2:05:47] burden and deserve as many options as we
can provide. I'm struggling to
[2:05:51] understand and now that I've heard some
of the things back because of
[2:05:54] possibilities of something down the
road. Well, Mr. Hicks hasn't had any
[2:05:58] issues in 25 years. So, I'm I'm having a
real tough time understanding why we
[2:06:03] think somebody's going to have some
issue at all anyway. So, I'll be voting
[2:06:07] against this as there's no compelling
reason at all for this housekeeping
[2:06:11] issue other than staff wants full
control as usual over people's property
[2:06:16] rights that I'm completely against.
Mixer Hicks and his family have proven
[2:06:20] there are no issues to this presence and
these uh double types of use. So
[2:06:25] therefore, I will be absolutely 100%
voting against anything like this. I'm
[2:06:30] not delegating any more authority for
this.
[2:06:32] » Pearson.
>> Yeah, I have a few questions that came
[2:06:36] up and starts off, I guess, with a few
comments. I following on councelor St.
[2:06:42] Pierre's words. The word stacking sounds
it's kind of like a negative word to me.
[2:06:49] Like the word's chosen to be negative. I
think mixed use on properties is clever
[2:06:56] because I think that um I I still think
it's a homebased business too as well.
[2:07:01] But but I think that given all the
circumstances of of people moving,
[2:07:06] people selling a house, relocating,
um coming to town for a short term,
[2:07:11] short-term rentals is an affordable
option for people. And I think that if
[2:07:17] you've got property and zoning dictates
the density, you've got property that
[2:07:22] you could have couple bed and breakfast
and a short-term rental on. I think
[2:07:26] that's advantageous not only to the
property owner, but to us as a
[2:07:31] community. It it puts an affordability
component in there. So there's options
[2:07:35] for people when they get into these
situations. Transfers, relocations,
[2:07:40] houses being renovated, flooded,
damaged, all these things that come up.
[2:07:45] And if we don't give options like or I
should say the the presenter today, Mr.
[2:07:51] Hicks, he gave a you know a very valid u
uh or compelling argument I think is to
[2:07:57] think that they can coincide quite
nicely on on a piece of property.
[2:08:03] I it seems like we're fixing a problem
where there isn't one. To me, I I I got
[2:08:10] that sense. Um so through to staff
I think you gave the explanation uh to
[2:08:16] Mr. to Mr. riding through the chair is
that the mixed use you feel could
[2:08:24] increase density somehow like I don't I
don't get that kind of in your
[2:08:29] presentation you talked about density
like a big piece of property having five
[2:08:33] bed breakfast and five short-term
rentals but we've only got one in our
[2:08:38] entire district that I kind of think the
risk is low for people on something
[2:08:44] » yeah through the chair so uh the
fundamental component here for
[2:08:48] consideration is the fact that these
accessory uses uh become primary become
[2:08:54] the primary use of the property. So when
you have a residential property
[2:08:58] residential zone
>> that is really intended for residential
[2:09:02] use not for commercial use.
>> So this is where uh the stacking or for
[2:09:07] lack of a better term um the combination
of uses operating concurrently
[2:09:12] » can exceed the intended use of the
parcel. So that's why we have zoning
[2:09:18] bylaws is to confirm exactly what is
reasonable where we have residential
[2:09:23] zones, we have commercial zones. So if
you want to say all residential zones
[2:09:27] can be commercial,
>> you know that that may be problematic
[2:09:30] for lots of people and has obviously
some negative consequences and that is
[2:09:34] why it is best practice and very
commonly uh restricted for those to
[2:09:38] operate concurrently.
>> It's not saying that they can't be
[2:09:41] permitted. Both are permitted, right?
those operating those uses concurrently
[2:09:46] right now there's only one property may
still operate as they are as they have
[2:09:50] been and their property is likely very
suitable for this use
[2:09:53] » right
>> um yeah and so if the secondary use is
[2:09:58] becoming the primary more of a
commercial lean uh property you know
[2:10:02] there's there's potential for reszoning
to permit that type of use as well if
[2:10:05] suitable to council
>> yeah okay and thank you um so I have two
[2:10:10] other questions um m if if we
grandfather you you said two things if
[2:10:18] the use discontinued for 6 months
that grandfathering would come to an
[2:10:24] end.
So what like I mean there's all these I
[2:10:30] thought about you know 200 things like
extenduating circumstances that could 6
[2:10:35] months is not very long like somebody
could have you know an extended vacation
[2:10:41] and shut down their bed and breakfast at
their house 6 months and go to go to
[2:10:46] stay in Mexico for six months well would
that constitute discontinuation of that
[2:10:50] use I mean I think we're kind of it's
six months feels slippery and what
[2:10:55] happens If
the question what we ask all what
[2:11:00] happens if one of those units burns down
is that used now discontinued.
[2:11:06] So two questions for you.
>> Thank you for the questions. Um so
[2:11:14] in terms of uh the legal nonconformity
it's a it's a local government act
[2:11:19] statute right. So this is
discontinuation of six months. I think a
[2:11:23] good evidence would be that there's a
business license that's existing on the
[2:11:27] property and if that continues to get
renewed, I think that would be adequate
[2:11:31] for our purposes. Uh we're not going to
be standing uh property side confirming
[2:11:35] that people are actually renting these
units. Um but if they have submitted a
[2:11:40] uh a business license year after year, I
think staff will consider that to be
[2:11:43] legal non-conforming.
um in terms of the actual uh the
[2:11:48] structure uh being demolished or burning
down through a hazard. Um the use itself
[2:11:54] can still remain as is. It just can't be
expanded upon. Um there's legal
[2:11:58] non-conformity when it deals with
structures as well. Uh that's a that's a
[2:12:01] different part of the LGA with legal
non-conformity. But yeah, this the
[2:12:05] structure and the use could could be
rebuilt in a sense as long as it isn't
[2:12:09] expanded upon or the operation isn't
seized for that period of of 6 months or
[2:12:14] for the duration of their their one-year
business license.
[2:12:24] Okay. So, uh we have another comment
from staff. Mr. Marshall, you had
[2:12:28] something to say? Yeah, thank you uh
deputy mayor um and council. I think the
[2:12:36] you have to think about this as in the
in the sense of would you want this
[2:12:43] business as a neighbor? If there was
five rooms in a bed and breakfast and
[2:12:48] they had several short-term rentals and
there was now eight cars coming and
[2:12:52] going on a nightly basis, there's
garbage cans, you know, strewn down the
[2:12:58] street. there's a lot of extra noise.
There's a lot of extra activity. And so
[2:13:04] I've certainly had experience in
communities where the public just
[2:13:08] absolutely gets up in an uproar when
these types of things start happening
[2:13:12] because it's that's not what I bought
into when I bought my single family
[2:13:15] house in a single family neighborhood
that I'm going to be dealing with all
[2:13:19] this noise activity and people coming
and going. So, I think, you know, that's
[2:13:24] what we try and do with zoning is try
and give people certainty as to what
[2:13:29] they can expect when they buy a home in
a particular neighborhood that they can
[2:13:34] expect that that's sort of activity and
commercial use isn't going to be
[2:13:37] happening, uh, next door. And so, um,
yes, there's lots of these types of
[2:13:43] businesses that aren't a problem, but
unfortunately, we as a municipality and
[2:13:48] many municipalities have to deal with
the one-offs where it's a real problem.
[2:13:52] And if you don't have the zoning in
place to enforce that problem, um, then
[2:13:58] there's no way of dealing with it. So,
um, that's the intent anyway.
[2:14:04] » Okay, here.
>> Yeah, over in the blind spot here. I
[2:14:09] know. I saw it this time. Little
>> Yeah. I I just want to be clear here.
[2:14:14] This is a modernization of our zoning
bylaw to align with the short-term
[2:14:17] rental accommodation act introduced by
the province of British Columbia uh
[2:14:22] designed intentionally to uh free up or
preserve long-term rental housing. Is is
[2:14:28] that correct? So really Okay, go ahead.
Answer that for
[2:14:34] » Yes, it is correct. So uh again we we've
mirrored uh many of the uh the
[2:14:39] provincial uh regulations in the act um
in terms of uh the permissions for uh
[2:14:44] the principal residence framework. So we
we've just basically mirrored that and
[2:14:47] build that into our zoning by or at
least in the draft amendments. Um in a
[2:14:52] lot of cases it's it's slightly more
permissive. Um but in some cases such as
[2:14:57] the extension of of the 30 days to 90
consecutive days and also the rental of
[2:15:02] the uh of this of the principal dwelling
and the ability for the host not to live
[2:15:06] on the premises. So that's where it's
it's is becoming a little more flexible.
[2:15:10] Um this one element here of the of the
amendments about it being more
[2:15:14] restrictive is is one small piece as
well. But then there's also a more
[2:15:18] broader modernization where we're
actually filling a lot of really needed
[2:15:23] gaps here. um just in terms of actually
providing regulations around short-term
[2:15:27] rentals which is completely lacking uh
in the bylaw and unfortunately has been
[2:15:33] uh uh considered under homebased
business regulations whi which don't
[2:15:37] which literally does not make sense in
terms of the the set of regulations that
[2:15:41] exist. One example is that a homebased
business must occur on a size of of no
[2:15:46] greater than 50 square meters. Um and we
all know that size of a suite they're
[2:15:51] all over 50 square meters. So, there's
just been these inconsistencies and
[2:15:55] interpretations that just have not been
clear for staff or or the public and and
[2:16:00] that those these are the gaps we're
trying to fill while also being as
[2:16:03] permissive as possible uh in alignment
with those uh provincial uh regulations
[2:16:09] and law um and also looking at other
minor forms of modernization that that
[2:16:14] happen to be this one in particular
being a bit more restrictive. So,
[2:16:18] hopefully that answered your question.
>> Yeah, it does. And I know you're you're
[2:16:23] this is advanced work on the new zoning
bylaw. Effectively, this is going to
[2:16:27] make the job easier when you get down to
the actual renewal of bylaw 600. Um
[2:16:35] yeah, I think that's good. Thank you.
>> Okay, councelor St. Pierre, you want to
[2:16:39] speak again?
>> Yeah. Uh first of all, I really
[2:16:42] appreciate the answers that have been
provided. Uh they've really helped a
[2:16:44] great deal, especially uh the
distinction in usage and that we're
[2:16:48] actually potentially when we're looking
not densification number of people but
[2:16:52] densifying commercial usage. So Airbnb
rentals looking more like a hotel type
[2:16:59] situation. Once you get to a certain
threshold realistically
[2:17:03] it's to the benefit of for example
residential taxpayers in the district
[2:17:07] but that property is on commercial. It's
going that direction so that the
[2:17:11] residential taxpayers aren't actually
paying for the services on the wear and
[2:17:14] tear in the community and the needs of a
commercial business. uh especially when
[2:17:19] our residents are being way too much. So
I think that's one piece that I'm
[2:17:23] feeling pretty strongly at this point.
That makes sense. Uh I also uh recognize
[2:17:29] that
the one exception and the one truly
[2:17:33] affected um
property.
[2:17:38] Our laws and bylaws are not actually for
the best case scenario when someone runs
[2:17:42] a business for 25 years and follows all
the rules. uh if everyone was like that,
[2:17:46] there's indeed any laws and bylaws. Uh
the bylaws are actually because if you
[2:17:51] actually make a neighborhood where
anybody can actually put as many Airbnbs
[2:17:56] and stack in as many STRs as they want,
pretty soon there's nowhere to drive.
[2:18:02] It's a little crazy now. I think that
there's a space in the future where we
[2:18:06] could be looking at how do we manage to,
you know, make that work. But I think
[2:18:10] what I'm hearing is that without
actually being very careful, you're
[2:18:13] basically opening it up for that kind of
thing to happen. And so I appreciate the
[2:18:17] answers and the discussion. I think I
was very firmly
[2:18:22] against not basically I I thought we
should allow this to happen together.
[2:18:26] But I see now that there's a need to be
more careful, especially with regards to
[2:18:31] making sure that our residential
taxpayers are not being punished while
[2:18:35] their neighbors who are having
essentially a business on their property
[2:18:38] are flourishing and that we don't
actually open it up so that we have no
[2:18:44] businesses in our commercial areas
because it's so much easier to open a
[2:18:47] business in our residential areas. Uh so
I I say that there's more to it and I
[2:18:53] appreciate the answers. Thank you. Any
other counselor before I call the
[2:18:57] question? Councelor Pearson.
>> Yep. Thank you. Um through the chair. So
[2:19:01] do we have an inventory of
non-conforming when we if if this passes
[2:19:07] do we have an inventory of where these
illegal non-conforming
[2:19:12] » through the chair of one property
>> one property
[2:19:15] » based on our data
Mr. Vixon.
[2:19:22] » Okay. Councelor Haldane, I'll call the
question.
[2:19:26] » My last [clears throat] thing would be
is that the province and both proposed
[2:19:28] bill 44, Bill 44, and this council here
before I got here was was against it.
[2:19:34] They didn't like it and the modernizing
of that bill into our rules that we have
[2:19:40] here now wasn't accepted very well. Um,
so I don't believe that provincial
[2:19:44] legislation necessarily makes it good
business or or good procedure. Um, bill
[2:19:50] 44 in most cases isn't even possible and
in most cases doesn't even work by
[2:19:55] design. So, I have little faith in the
provincial expectations in most cases
[2:20:00] when it comes down to expectations with
housing and and our little small bylaw
[2:20:05] changes and modernization. So, again,
not for it.
[2:20:09] » Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. Uh, do you want one more
[2:20:13] comment then? Just in response to that,
we are, as they say, a creature of the
[2:20:19] province. When when a legislation of
this kind comes down the pipeline, are
[2:20:23] we not duty bound to largely adopt?
Councelor Hollain, you're shaking your
[2:20:29] head. So through you.
>> Well,
[2:20:31] » maybe we're not. I' I'd like to ask
Chris Marshall that question.
[2:20:37] » Mr. Marshall, if you could answer that
and if not then I'll comment on.
[2:20:42] » Yeah, I mean there are is certain
legislation that is required for you to
[2:20:48] comply to. Yes. Um there's other
legislation
[2:20:52] such as the um they there's new
legislation around not legislation but
[2:21:00] guidance around how shoo housing could
be designed and built and they provided
[2:21:05] examples of different types of housing
and and to try and speed up the process
[2:21:10] of getting a building permit and just
provide generic forms of of screw
[2:21:14] housing. Um that's not required. That's
just something that is advisory to
[2:21:20] communities to help them to uh implement
uh the shimu legislation. So yes,
[2:21:26] there's legislation that's required to
be uh followed and then there's other
[2:21:31] sort of more guidance type material. So
>> okay, I'll comment now. Um
[2:21:38] I I'm in favor of of this. I see that
there is one property that was concerned
[2:21:44] about it and that person's concerns had
been met. Um there's not a great long
[2:21:50] list of people coming forward and saying
they're going to be affected by this and
[2:21:54] also that the uh this new modernization
uh expands a lot of time 60 to 90 days
[2:22:01] and a number of other things where I
think the average person dealing with
[2:22:05] these things would probably be happier.
uh we've dealt with the one that wasn't
[2:22:09] and uh I think we should move ahead. So
I'll read it out again that council give
[2:22:13] third reading to zoning amendment bylaw
number 947600120
[2:22:18] 2026 to amend zoning bylaw number 600 to
modernize suits regulation of short-term
[2:22:23] rental accommodations
and that's already been seconded but all
[2:22:27] those in favor
all those against. So that's 342 against
[2:22:33] that is passed and make a note of those
voting against please.
[2:22:37] Next order of business 10.2 zoning bylaw
amendment number 95612
[2:22:42] 2026 R2 housekeeping amendment staff.
>> Yeah, there's um no presentation on this
[2:22:49] one either, but it is uh was uh reviewed
by the LUDC on July 7th um where they
[2:22:56] supported staff recommendation. Um the
amendment addresses the ambiguity
[2:23:01] created through the February 2025 snow
amendments. Um the current wording could
[2:23:06] be interpreted as allowing each
permitted single family dwelling to have
[2:23:09] both a secondary suite and a detached
suite uh resulting in more dwelling
[2:23:12] units than was intended and it's a
change from the bylaw unnecessarily
[2:23:18] uh that existed prior to the smooth
amendments in 2025. So we're just
[2:23:21] basically correcting that. Um, yeah, I'm
I'm available for questions. Uh, if
[2:23:27] council has
>> somebody like to make that uh motion and
[2:23:30] then we'll go to questions.
>> Anybody willing to make the motion?
[2:23:37] » Well, we're giving first and second
third reading zoning amendment bylaw
[2:23:40] number 956121.
[2:23:46] » No,
no.
[2:23:51] So this is a housekeeping. I'll make the
motion. Somebody second it. Otherwise,
[2:23:56] it's dead. Okay. Councelor St. Pierre.
All right. Any discussion? Anybody any
[2:24:02] questions for staff?
[2:24:08] » No debate.
>> Comment. As as stated in the report, the
[2:24:11] proposed amendment to the RU2 zone is a
housekeeping correction intended to
[2:24:15] resolve an ambiguity created through the
February 2025 shoo amendments. So that's
[2:24:21] common sense and thank you for the work.
>> Okay, then I'll call the question all
[2:24:26] those in favor. I got three and
councelor Pearson, Councelor Haldane, I
[2:24:30] didn't see a movement. You want to stand
a yes or a no?
[2:24:36] » No. Okay. Councelor Haldane.
[2:24:42] Yay or a nay on that motion?
Yeah, I know. So, it's a nail. Okay.
[2:24:48] Thank you. I just want a clarification
to make sure I get it right. Thank you.
[2:24:52] All right. That passes three to two. Uh,
next order of business. Permissive tax
[2:24:57] exemption application from catalysts.
[2:25:04] Okay.
The council adopt the bylaw site
[2:25:08] progressive tax exemption amendment
bylaw number 949 2026. Somebody want to
[2:25:13] make that motion.
Okay. Councelor Baitman Counc St. Pierre
[2:25:17] seconded. Any discussion to the motion?
>> Well, go ahead counc
[2:25:24] were comments at the beginning of the
meeting. Normally with an adoption we
[2:25:27] just move it forward. But in light of
those comments, it's worth worth noting
[2:25:32] a few things here. Um, you know, this is
a five-year permissive tax exemption on
[2:25:39] those, I believe it was 30 units in the
building that are are considerably below
[2:25:45] market. So, we're not uh exempting the
uh at market or near below market units.
[2:25:53] Um this as as we discussed when we this
came up at first, second, and third
[2:26:00] readings, uh this council did struggle
over this permissive tax exemption. Um
[2:26:08] we we've looked at it for that five-year
phase out for nonprofit housing. Um, the
[2:26:14] permissive tax exemption remains in
place for a wide array of of uh local
[2:26:22] organizations.
Um, it just seems appropriate to me that
[2:26:27] we continue to uh do what we can to
attract nonprofit housing to suit
[2:26:34] knowing that they've just got a fiveyear
window here to uh to ease into the
[2:26:38] market. So, that's what that's it. Thank
you. Anybody else? Councelor Pearson.
[2:26:44] » Yeah. Um, thank you, Councelor Baitman.
You're you're correct. We did debate it.
[2:26:48] Um, I'm um happy that um it's actually
an accelerated rate. It's not going to
[2:26:55] be five phased out of after 5 years.
It'll be phased out by 2030.
[2:26:59] So, it's going to be compressed by it'll
be a fouryear. Um and I think we had
[2:27:04] robust discussion around, you know, the
portions of catalyst that were there. Um
[2:27:09] it's part of the project where hopefully
it uh breaks ground soon and we get our
[2:27:14] medical center as part of this. So okay,
no other questions and I'll I'll call
[2:27:20] the question. All those in favor? Okay,
that's unanimous. Thank you. Uh any uh
[2:27:26] new uh yeah any new business hearing?
None. Items removed consent agenda.
[2:27:35] Uh council verbal reports. Anybody have
a verbal report?
[2:27:42] I just have one. I attended the opening
of the horseshoe uh roof the pitch as
[2:27:48] deputy mayor and got cut the ribbon with
the big scissors. Uh and it was ironic
[2:27:52] that uh just as I was cutting the
ribbon, it started to rain and that's
[2:27:56] what we were cutting the ribbon for is
the cover so they can lay horseshoes in
[2:28:01] the rain. So it worked out really well.
It was a lot of fun and uh it was a good
[2:28:05] time down there. Anything else from
anybody?
[2:28:09] » Yeah,
>> go ahead.
[2:28:10] » We we skipped the verbal reports last
time, so we we didn't talk about Canada
[2:28:14] Day. Fred Milan Park was was a uh second
year in the park and um
[2:28:22] a number of us were there for that
event. It it was a it really works well
[2:28:27] in the park, I believe, as much as we
miss the flats. Um yeah, so I also there
[2:28:34] was a special meeting of the souk
homelessness coalition uh which I have
[2:28:38] been an informal um
representative uh on behalf of the mayor
[2:28:45] uh over the last six years and unlike
other groups such as the souk region
[2:28:50] food systems network which formally
appointed counselor St. Pierre to that
[2:28:54] role. I was never formally appointed. So
I have some concerns
[2:29:00] um
that uh that this may may
[2:29:06] have some problems going ahead
particularly with our other co-chair
[2:29:09] Melanie Cunningham stepping out. So, um,
we determined at the special meeting
[2:29:14] that we will go out to the council
candidates and seek, uh, seek their
[2:29:18] views and opinions on how, uh, the
district can, uh, formally create some
[2:29:24] sort of intermediary or body or
organization that will, and the soup
[2:29:29] homelessness coalition has served this
purpose, be a um, uh, a link, an
[2:29:35] accountable link between council, the
district, and the community at large
[2:29:39] with the souk shelter and with our
homeless population. So, that's
[2:29:43] something we'll be doing. I also uh
attended a number of CRD meetings on the
[2:29:48] mayor's behalf, including the
environmental services meeting at which
[2:29:52] a new um
climate action uh strategy for 2026 to
[2:29:59] 2030 was introduced, arising out of the
work that your task force, Tony, you
[2:30:05] were part of. And this is staff bringing
forward a very pragmatic approach. This
[2:30:11] is the key point. They've taken the
politics and the panic out of climate
[2:30:15] action and they're taking a pragmatic
approach to uh dealing with areas in
[2:30:21] which the CRD has some direct um
influence. So these are things like the
[2:30:26] home energy retrofit program, the
delivery of very strong climate data to
[2:30:31] to local governments,
um outreach programs, and then a lot of
[2:30:37] corporate emissions reduction policies
as well as development of a new regional
[2:30:42] transportation plan.
And um while I'm at it on the subject of
[2:30:47] climate action, I just want to note that
I attended the um the Fed Federation of
[2:30:52] Canadian Municipalities webinar
um implementing and integrating climate
[2:30:57] adaption plans which our CEO spoke to in
her last report. Um, it's worth noting
[2:31:04] this this presentation, as she stated,
um, emphasized the district's practical
[2:31:10] olive organization approach to climate
adaptation
[2:31:13] by aligning action with shared goals,
saving time, saving money, reducing
[2:31:17] risk, and protecting our environment
locally.
[2:31:22] So these are local actions done through
a whole of organization um
[2:31:30] uh action by the by the district of souk
and its staff and built into our master
[2:31:35] plans. So this the the FCM in its wisdom
chose souk and uh St. John's
[2:31:42] Newfoundland as the two two model
communities for how this climate action
[2:31:48] ad the integration of climate adaptation
plans into district business. So I just
[2:31:53] want to thank um our communications
coordinator for that work and I really
[2:32:00] do hope that FCM will be uh uh posting
that webinar I believe on its website
[2:32:08] and it it's well worth watching it. It
does sort of you know I know that there
[2:32:13] are concerns that the climate action is
such a wicked issue at such a dramatic
[2:32:18] level that we ensue can't do anything
about it but we can and that is part of
[2:32:23] this protection of natural environment
for future generations as is our this
[2:32:28] council's mandate from the get-go.
>> I could go on but I I'll stop now the
[2:32:35] early guy.
>> All right. Is there anybody else before
[2:32:38] I adjourn to a closed meeting? Hearing
none, then I'll adjourn to a closed
[2:32:43] meeting that council closed the July
27th, 2026 meeting to the public
[2:32:47] pursuant of the following subsection of
the committee charter 91 uh I uh
[2:32:53] received advice that subject to
solicitor client privilege including
[2:32:57] communication necessary for this
purpose. So, thank you. Uh do I need to
[2:33:03] have a vote on that?
No, that's good. Yeah, I I thought I
[2:33:08] just moved it. Okay, I will just have a
minute or so for the public to leave.
[2:33:15] » Yeah, we'll take five minute bathroom
break.