Transcript: Regular Council Meeting - 2026/08/10

Speaker A · May I have your attention, please? Councillors to your seats.

Speaker B · I didn't name anyone.

Speaker C · I just, you know, got their attention.

Speaker A · All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome. It's Monday, August 10th. We're here for the regular council meeting this evening. I'll call it to order. We began with the territorial acknowledgement at our previous meeting, so I won't repeat it. We have approval of the agenda as amended by adding late presentation to item 10. 1, late correspondence to items 145 and 15 11, a late report to item 163 and the correspondence to item 18. 1. Could I have a motion to adopt

Speaker C · the agenda as amended?

Speaker A · Thank you. Is our seconder. Any discussion? Any opposed? None. Motion carried. We move to adoption of the minutes of July 27th. Special open and regular council meeting, please. Moved and seconded. Seconded. Thank you. Any errors or missions?

Speaker C · Changes to the minutes as circulated.

Speaker A · Seeing none. Any opposed to adoption?

Speaker D · None.

Speaker C · Motion carried. Oh, sorry.

Speaker A · Business arising from the minutes, if any. Seeing none. We have no rise in report. We have an opportunity for public questions or feedback. Just want to let the public know though, that agenda item with respect to 7054 Brentwood as statutory hearing was already held under the procedures, bylaw 15. 3bi.

Speaker C · We are not able to take further input, although we have taken it in terms of correspondence. But if you're getting up to speak on that, just know that I will

Speaker B · have to politely ask you to refrain otherwise.

Speaker A · We welcome any speakers who wish to come forward. We ask that you try to contain yourself with two minutes or less and

Speaker C · just tell us your name and address or neighborhood.

Speaker E · Eric Johnson. Eric Johnson. 1632 Keating Crossroad. So I wanted to speak briefly just in regard to the rezoning of the Butler Pit and the Makati properties, specifically in support of the overall rezoning, except for the northern part of 1681, Keating Crossroad. You know, in service, in canvassing a little bit the community and talking. We would really like to keep that as a buffer to the residential areas that we have today. We understand that it's RE2 zoning today and the proposal is that it's going to move to light industrial. Unfortunately, we believe that a development permit and the necessary input is not adequate. That we would like to require the community have a buffer for industrial, especially one proposed as a three stories. So I would ask council to direct staff to remove that portion of the northern lot.

Speaker E · I understand that the existing southern portion is being done for extraction and heavy industrial today, and I don't have an issue with that. But we'd ask council to Propose staff to remove that from the proposal so it can proceed. Thank you.

Speaker C · Okay,

Speaker A · Looking if there are any other speakers in the gallery who wish to come forward.

Speaker F · Good evening. My name is Kathleen Zimmerman. I live in Brentwood Bay. And I'd like to speak to the same agenda item again. It relates to the rural agricultural zoning on the northern part of 1681, Keating Crossroad, and the property right beside it, Lot M, which is completely rural agricultural. I'm wondering if Councillor staff are aware that both of those properties had agricultural production for many years as recently as 2025.

Speaker G · Just to answer a question, I'm aware that there had been some tax collection and some activity, but I also make sure the public's aware that those had actually been mined as gravel pits in the early 1900s as well. So I think it's gone back and forth on that specific property.

Speaker A · Factually, what has happened with the tax

Speaker C · status of properties in the past is of no consequence.

Speaker F · Okay. I'm wondering if you're aware that as of today, both of those properties, Lot M is completely assessed as agricultural by BC Assessment, and 1681 also has some agricultural land assessment on it as of today.

Speaker C · That's a very interesting fact. I'm not sure what point it makes,

Speaker F · but I'm just trying to say that it has agricultural capability. I'm trying to reinforce that. And then, of course, you're probably aware of what's been happening globally as well as nationally and locally. The European Union estimates that this summer They've had over 3 billion euros in losses of agricultural production due to drought, heat, wildfire. The Colorado river system, which is extremely important for agriculture in California, Arizona and Nevada, is at its lowest level in 90 years. And of course, we've seen what's happened, unfortunately, in the Okanagan over the last few weeks. But even prior to that, farmers in the North Okanagan had their water reduced by 70%. I'm just asking, given all of these things, is it imperative to protect land that has agricultural potential?

Speaker C · Okay, thank you for your input.

Speaker A · Any other speakers wish to come forward?

Speaker H · I'm Larry Skaggs and I live at 1620 Keating Crossroad. And I just wanted to concur with everything that Eric had said about the importance of maintaining a buffer between different zones, zonings. We dealt with this up at the other end of the rural residential a few years ago. We owned the duplex that was next to the property that was rezoned for 42 townhouses with no type of buffer between the rural residential and the townhouses. So my Tenants have had to deal with that change, which has been an increase of 42 homes.

Speaker C · I'm not sure where you're speaking.

Speaker H · I'm talking about up where the fire was, where the Smitty's burned down. Next door to that there was an enormous townhouse development that was approved. It was right on my property line.

Speaker C · Yeah, there's 24 homes there.

Speaker B · Not four.

Speaker A · I'm sorry, 24 homes.

Speaker C · Not four.

Speaker H · 24. Okay, I'm sorry. Only 24. Anyway, they're all right on the property line and they all look into my tenant's backyard. And so there's no buffer. And I think you're heading for the same thing at the other end of the rural residential area there, where we live at 16:20. I also think that council hasn't considered 60 new businesses with trucks and cars are going to put an enormous strain on Keating Crossroad, which is a two lane rural highway. I think you recognized in the past that it was made four lanes over in the industrial area on the other side of the S curve. But that will be an enormous increase in traffic when you approve all these new businesses. And it will completely change the character

Speaker I · of where we live.

Speaker H · So that's it.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you for that.

Speaker C · Councillor Thompson, some of these issues are

Speaker J · addressing an issue that's on the agenda. Would that be the more appropriate time to address these issues specifically with reference to the Keating rezoning, for example?

Speaker A · I mean, we have received a number of letters.

Speaker C · Not all of them were properly submitted to mayor and council. They seem to have gone individually to some of us, and so it's hard

Speaker B · to sort them out.

Speaker C · But nonetheless, I suspect some of these

Speaker B · are submissions to council that have already been made.

Speaker C · There is an opportunity here and now for some people to provide feedback, and

Speaker B · that's why I'm allowing it.

Speaker C · But if council resolves otherwise later, that's

Speaker B · the prerogative of council.

Speaker D · Councillor King, I was just thinking we could make a motion now for two minutes for a speaker per speaker at that part of the agenda.

Speaker A · I mean, I think it's most appropriate if council wants to do that at

Speaker B · the agenda item when we get there, as opposed to doing it now.

Speaker D · Although then that would not resolve the issue of people speaking now.

Speaker K · Anyway.

Speaker B · I have no issue as chair of this meeting letting people get up and speak for two minutes.

Speaker D · But if it helps, I'll move that we provide an opportunity for two minutes, up to two minutes per speaker at that item, just for clarity.

Speaker B · All right, you want to move that now?

Speaker C · If there's a second or Otherwise, we

Speaker B · can consider it later. Councilor. Okay.

Speaker J · My concern is by the procedure. My concern is by the procedure's bylaw, Council cannot engage my understanding during this time and therefore it makes it a bit awkward.

Speaker C · I mean, Councilor's not.

Speaker B · Council's not really supposed to engage regardless,

Speaker C · but unless it's to ask questions.

Speaker B · Yeah, you're not. Yeah.

Speaker L · Apologies. Did it have a seconder?

Speaker B · It did.

Speaker C · Councilor Thompson seconded.

Speaker A · The criteria was.

Speaker C · Sorry, Councillor, just to make sure I had the clarity, was it cons contingent on a letter being written or not?

Speaker K · No, no, we're not having a public hearing on this. I think that if people want to

Speaker D · get up and speak, I don't think we need to have people repeatedly coming up, but I think giving an opportunity, because there may be, as you've said, some people that wrote a letter, but it was to an individual or something, and then it wouldn't be fair to

Speaker K · that person if they had something to say.

Speaker A · Just so that I have clarity, that's

Speaker C · the direction the Council will take at that time. Is there any other speaker to this? Councillor Graham?

Speaker M · Just if it does pass, which I expect it probably will, that we just direct the gallery to hold their comments until that section. So we're not duplicating.

Speaker A · Certainly that is implied, but worth reiterating.

Speaker C · I'll call the question.

Speaker A · Any opposed? None. Motion carried. So, to the Gallery, we're going to

Speaker C · give speakers an opportunity for two minutes at that agenda item, which is 15. 1. 1 this evening. So if that's the basis of your

Speaker A · comment, I would say pause until that time. I see a speaker at the microphone.

Speaker C · I assume it's unrelated to that agenda item, so.

Speaker N · Good evening. Over the last couple weeks, two or three weeks, I've sent in a couple of requests to staff looking for information regarding an item on the 2025 financial statement. First item, under suppliers of goods and services. It's a numbered company. We paid out the district paid out approaching a quarter of a million dollars to a numbered company. I'd like to know what services received for that quarter million dollars and I'd like to what the trade name was of that particular supplier.

Speaker A · I see, that's an interesting request. Obviously I don't have that in front of me, but I will have a discussion with staff after the meeting and see what we can.

Speaker N · Okay. I've sent it in over the last two weeks to two different staff members, so just a heads up on that regard.

Speaker C · Appreciate that.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker J · I wonder if we could just request. Oh, he's done. So that's okay, it was hard to hear.

Speaker N · I'll repeat the question. I'll repeat the question. The first. The first listed item under suppliers of goods and services on the 2025 financial statement lists a numbered company that approaches quarter million dollars. My question is, what services did the district receive for that quarter million dollars? And what was the trade name used by that particular company for the services when they delivered them?

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker B · I think we've all heard the question now. Excellent.

Speaker C · Okay.

Speaker A · I do not see any others coming

Speaker C · forward, so I'm going to move to

Speaker A · the next item in our agenda. This is a presentation, item 10. 1 with respect to water quality testing for contamination in Brentwood Bay. And it's a presentation by Michael Simmons of the Saanich Inlet Protection Society.

Speaker C · And I see other members as well of sips, so welcome.

Speaker O · Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to be talking about a program that San Diego Net Protection Society undertook in the last six months to test water quality at various places around Brentwood Bay. I'll explain why we decided to do this in just a moment. Before I do that, let me introduce myself. I'm Michael Simmons. I'm vice president of cips and I have with me Roger Hubert, who some of you may have met. Roger is, apart from being a SIPs board member, is also the president of the Brentwood Bay Marine Community Society, which is basically for those who don't know the liveaboards on the bay, plus some.

Speaker O · And he's also involved on the board of the new Pompty Dumpty operator, which is a Sanitin Lake clean water Society. So, and Roger has been involved with the testing on the water that we have done through his boat and we have one other boat also on the bay that has been doing testing. So with that, let me get into it. Our partner, as you can see on here, is Surfrider foundation of Canada. Surfrider is a North American wide, not for profit organization that tests beaches for safety throughout North America, Canada and United States. Can I do this? Oh, I can do this. Can I? Okay, so let me explain then why we decided to do this program and then I'll tell you what we found and how we've done it.

Speaker O · So you may know that there are a number of organizations that have been testing water quality for a number of years around Brentwood Bay and including other areas. So first of all, Island Health, as you know, does the beach surveys. They have found a number of unbelievably high rates of contamination. And I list two of them here. But There are many others and they're in the report that the council has. So Clark Road, this was in two years ago, is over 50 times the safe limit at Clark Road, at Stella's Crossroad, and again just recently, seven times over the safe limit. And I have to tell you, no one knows why. So there's an ongoing survey. Island Health only tests for three months in the summer and it's only at three beaches.

Speaker O · It's only Stella's, Clark and the new beach in Todh Emet. The CRD does continuous round of surveys of all the stormwater drains on the Saanich Peninsula and elsewhere in the capital region. They have found they test not for enterococcus, which is what we have been using as an indicator, but they test for E. Coli. E. Coli, everybody's heard of E. Coli, has different safety thresholds, but they have found, testing the storm drains, for example, Sluggett Creek, 15 times the safety threshold. These are numbers all from this year and last year, Port Royal, 10 times the safety threshold, and Clark Road. These are all storm drains at these locations, seven times the safety threshold. Unbelievable numbers.

Speaker O · And those numbers go back for a number of years. I have traced back the island health surveys for 10 years, and 10 years ago they were still having these really high numbers. Raincoast Conservation is doing a special project which I won't spend a lot of time on. It's publicly available. It's a Todd Creek watershed. And they have found by testing for sucralose, which is an indicator of sewage from humans because only humans consume sucralose, that there are leaky septic fields, fortunately for us, not in central Saanich, or maybe unfortunately for us, not in central Saanich, but in Saanich, which are draining down into Todd Creek, into Todd Inlet and hence into Brentwood bay.

Speaker O · And finally, UVic has been doing another type of survey where they test for caffeine, which is another indicator of human sewage contamination. And they've taken three sets of samples along Brentwood Drive from different locations on Brentwood Drive. And all of them have shown caffeine, every single one of them. And of course, it's us, it's the district that owns these sewers and owns the stormwater drains, even though other people are testing them. We have no testing program. And we used to have a really quite robust monitoring program for our sewers. We don't anymore. There has not been a camera survey for at least the last three years of any of the sewers. And we used to have it on a rotational basis. So that all the sewers were tested.

Speaker O · And of course, it came to light last year with the big sewer overflow in front of the Brentwood lodge. Nothing to do with the lodge, but the sewer was blocked by willow tree roots that had managed to penetrate the pipes, blocked the sewer and the manhole cover. The pressure lifted the manhole cover off the sewer and flooded it all down through the foreshore in front of the marina. Let me move. Oh, sorry. Got one the wrong way. Beg your pardon? Okay. So we looked then at Brentwood Bay, and we said, well, what are all the possible sources of these contaminants? So, obviously the storm drains, of which there are many, as you can see, the streams and the creeks, but also the mooring fields.

Speaker O · And because of our association with Roger Hebert, who I just introduced the mooring fields, we decided that we would test the mooring fields too, because many of us had assumed that they were contributing to the contamination in the bay. Okay, so I'm not putting up all the sites that we have tested. We've tested 15 sites, and we've done them repeatedly January through June this year. These are the ones that have had what I called euphemistically, perhaps troublesome results. So if I go around through them just to orientate you to where we are, although you can probably figure it, the storm drain below Port Royal bottom left the creek at Daphne Creek in Ravine Park.

Speaker O · Two different sites on Sluggett Creek, which drains a big chunk of Brentwood, the Clark Road access that we've talked about already, and the big drains that are on either side of the ferry wharf. And although you can't see it there at the top at Stelle's crossroad, we did not sample at Stella's crossroad because it's been dry. Even in the winter, it was dry. The storm drain there only drains a very small area. Island health actually goes into the water and tests the water, hence their numbers. We tested three of the mooring fields, as we call them, one at the entrance to Todd Inlet, which, of course is a very popular one with liveaboards because it's so sheltered in there.

Speaker O · We called it the White lady north, but right off Brentwood Drive. And then again, it's obscured at the top, but still it's down from Sellers, a little bit off Saunders Lane. So we call it the Saunders Lane. And I have to tell you, I think because of the dilution effect, we didn't find any very significant contamination at any of these sites. But the White lady north one, the one off Brentwood Drive did have some traces of contamination, but nowhere near the levels that we were talking about. How do we do it? So these are volunteers that do this. It's exactly the same procedure as used by Island Health. We use the guidelines. When we say above the threshold level. Those guidelines are set by Health Canada.

Speaker O · The lab that we use is the Surfrider Lab downtown in Victoria, which is run by volunteers, as I said. And we're just looking for enterococcus, nothing else. So these are the results. You have them in your report so you can see them. I don't want to go blow by blow through all of these, but anything that is red is above the threshold. The tests, if you can see along the top, January, February, March, May and June or the beginning of the month. And we can come back, if you have questions, we can come back to that. But as you can see, there's a lot of red. So what do we conclude from all of this? Our testing has shown that the contamination, which goes back at least a decade in its origins, is still happening today.

Speaker O · It's not going to go away. It's not something that's going to clean up itself. It has to be attended to if we're going to have clean water in Brentwood Bay. The most troublesome locations. Just let me read them one more time. Sluggett Creek, Port Royal storm drain, Clark Road, Daphne Creek, the Ferry Wharf storm drains and Stella's Crossroads. Now you say, well, why don't we know, why haven't we corrected this? Why don't we know where it's happening? And your staff have tried, with the help from CRD staff to try and figure out why this is happening, where the sources are. But so far there's no actual answer to it.

Speaker O · The long term persistence of these problems to me and to cips suggest that the maintenance of the sewers, as I referred to earlier, with the overflow in front of the lodge and the monitoring of the sewers is not actually, first of all, is not being done satisfactorily and it's not adequately budgeted.

Speaker O · The other part of it is that while the swimming advisories are well posted, they're well posted on the entrance to the beaches where it happens and when it happens. And that's done by the district, not by Island Health. But the results from the CRD storm drains, which are equally alarming, are not publicized at all. You can get them, but if you go online now, you can, I think, get now the 2024 results. So it's hardly timely and they should be Publicized in a timely manner, the same way as the Island Health ones are publicized. So these are our field volunteers. You probably can't read the names from back there, but there are a lot of them. These are dedicated citizens.

Speaker O · These are people who care enough to go out actually on a Sunday afternoon because that's when we have to do it to make these tests and sometimes in rather unpleasant places. So we have a lot of people who really care around here. And then let me conclude with our recommendations to you. First of all, we clearly need a long term action plan to deal with this. It's not something that is done tomorrow. This is something that's going to take some time to correct. But the first thing that we have to do before we can do anything else actually is to identify the contamination sources. And CRD have said they have a unit that deals with these sorts of things that they will help. Your staff here are keen.

Speaker O · Engineering staff are keen to find it out, but I think it should be done right now. I know that you've only got a couple of months left as a council, but I think you should direct staff to do it to start on this right now as a matter of urgency. And I'd also ask you to refer to the new council when it's inaugurated to carry on this work as a matter of urgency. As I said before, the sewer and storm drain monitoring and maintenance, our way of thinking has been neglected. It's probably budgetary, but we don't know. But it does require adequate funding by the district, which of course you have control over.

Speaker O · And again to go to the publication of the results so that the public knows when it's unsafe to involve themselves or their animals in water contact is to publicize the results from the CRD as well as the results, results from Island Health. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker C · I'm going to ask that you stay there because there may be questions.

Speaker B · I certainly have a couple, but I'll look to members of council first. Councillor King.

Speaker D · Well, I'll begin by expressing our.

Speaker K · Well, my gratefulness for the work that is done by the society. And I understand you have somebody who represents the liveaboard population, as was stated. That's nice. And before the meeting I went up

Speaker D · and asked a question which was essentially the question you have back to us. And that was what with regards to bacteria counts recurring at same sites, who is responsible for tracing the source and what is the trigger for public knowledge notification.

Speaker K · And I guess that's really a crux

Speaker D · of an issue here. It's been mentioned that the District has

Speaker K · shown some, some leadership on this. But I'm really curious about all the

Speaker D · various levels VIHA crd.

Speaker K · I mean this is serious stuff. This is health issue. You would think it would be a priority that there would be maybe not just an advisory but don't swim kind

Speaker D · of thing, don't go in the water, you know. So I guess

Speaker K · I'm a little bit frustrated as I imagine other members of council are who have been around the table for longer than 10 years or everybody would be regardless how long this keeps on persisting. And we all know that elections come around and it's a priority at that moment. It's just so frustrating that it's continuing and I guess I'm going in a direction where I'm wanting to know what staff would suggest council do even though it may not be technically our jurisdiction, etc. But the various options we could have to do further pressuring, lobbying. However you want to put it to the right authorities to take this as a priority issue for them, given the health and safety around it.

Speaker K · Would that be something staff could provide to council and particularly all the recommendations from SIPs and provide us with some, a host of options for council through the mayor.

Speaker P · Yes, we could come back with a report. We also have our manager of infrastructure who's here if you had any direct questions that you wanted to ask about our current processes. But if you'd like, we can come back with a report in response to the presentation that we've heard today.

Speaker K · And I would think that the report wouldn't, wouldn't take on responsibility in terms of the jurisdiction we don't have, but it could suggest what we could do to use our voice to get the attention of authorities that do have jurisdiction. And so I think that would be helpful. I would be happy with, with the report. Now I know that doesn't address the short term issue that should be addressed, but it's, it's more of a, in addition to Mr.

Speaker P · The mayor, there are some processes and we can bring that forward as part of the report that we are responsible for and there are processes around notification we are working responsible for. So we would bring that forward as part of the report as well, so that we could talk about the different jurisdictional responsibilities and maybe it could, in

Speaker K · addition, where there isn't our jurisdiction, we can see what options council might take in terms of everything from letters to meetings and stuff.

Speaker I · Certainly.

Speaker K · But I, I'll move that as a, as a motion for that,

Speaker B · That there

Speaker C · was a great deal in there, but I got the summation of it and

Speaker B · I just want to make sure the

Speaker C · corporate officer has a reasonable facsimile of that.

Speaker L · That Council Request act report on the potential actions identified in the Cips presentation of August 10, including how to get the attention of the organizations or levels of government that have authority for these issues and where there are issues within the district's jurisdiction.

Speaker K · Brilliant. Thank you.

Speaker C · Is there a seconder for that? Okay.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker C · Councillor King, did you have anything further?

Speaker K · I think I've preloaded that with a lot of my argument and I do really appreciate what CIPS has provided. I want to get some specifics that could be turned easily into motions from that. And I suspect there may be motions after this that could be more immediate. Immediate as well.

Speaker Q · So.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker B · Councillor Riddle. There's a second or anything?

Speaker R · Yeah, no, I'll echo the gratitude for your work. And I found myself just thinking I need a briefing note on this because I think it's important. It's something. We have taken steps, tried to work on Pumpty Dumpty trying to tackle this. But I do feel like I personally would need a level set and good recommendations and information to take further steps.

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson.

Speaker J · Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Simmons and the group for what you've given us. I would think any report should include budget impacts. For example, item 2 does refer to adequate funding. So I think that should be part of the report and for consideration for the 2027 budget.

Speaker C · To be clear, at the moment, 2 is sort of tangential to the motion.

Speaker B · I didn't hear it captured in the motion. This was to do with priorities and perhaps other levels of government and more information, but not necessarily the district's own system maintenance. So that might be the subject of a follow up motion.

Speaker A · If there are no other speakers on

Speaker C · this motion, I'll put the question. Are there any opposed?

Speaker B · None. Motion carried. Councilor Thompson.

Speaker J · Thank you. Then I would move that the reports include information on potential sewer and storm drain monitoring and maintenance, including budget implications.

Speaker B · Thank you. I'll second the motion.

Speaker C · Just to check with staff. Is that reasonable for the September 8th meeting?

Speaker P · So September 8th, probably. I would suggest that the first report would be at the subsequent meeting, not September 8, to gather adequate information with respect to the sewer and storm drain monitoring and maintenance. We are. I'm looking over there to make sure I'm saying the right things. But we're currently updating our sewer master plan and I believe that that will give. We'll have important information to be able to answer that question more adequately. We expect to get a draft in October and So it would be part of the next budget process. We could answer it with the information that we currently have. But I think that it is going to be a significant piece of work that we're going to be looking at over once we receive that information.

Speaker A · Yeah, I just. The question I have then is, is

Speaker C · there interim information that could come to council towards the end of September or beginning of October?

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker C · It doesn't have to be exhaustive, just

Speaker B · that it gives us some sense of where we're at. Councillor King?

Speaker D · Yeah.

Speaker K · I was just wondering if there could

Speaker D · be two separate reports. Is the one in September and then this other.

Speaker C · It is two separate reports because it's two separate motions. That was how I understood it.

Speaker A · I'm pretty sure that's what I heard

Speaker C · from staff that they were going to bring forward one.

Speaker P · It would be better for us to do it, although we couldn't talk about our current state and what we currently do in our report that we're bringing forward in September.

Speaker C · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · I will call the question then on the second motion.

Speaker C · Any opposed?

Speaker B · None are opposed. Motion carried. So I probably will hold off on questions and I would ask that perhaps SIPS return. We'll try and give you a heads up to make sure that you're aware so that you can come back and at least observe.

Speaker O · Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker C · Thank you for the presentation.

Speaker B · And I will echo the words that other members of council said, which is that the Senage and Protection Society has done enormous work on the back of volunteers working on weekends and off hours diligently and even eagerly to address these issues. And there was a time where I counted myself among some of the volunteers tangentially and maybe after I retire I'll rejoin.

Speaker O · You're very welcome to come back and volunteer again, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker C · I thought that might be the case.

Speaker A · Talk to me after October.

Speaker C · Okay,

Speaker A · moving on to item 11. There no business item 12. No business item 13 13.

Speaker C · Three is council member reports, if there are any.

Speaker B · Councilor Thompson, thank you.

Speaker J · Briefly, I attended the recent ARTC board meeting as Central Savage reps. And it's just a reminder to the community that the wonderful lantern festival is happening on August 22nd. I've participated for a number of years and it is quite a neat community event to participate in. You do not have to live in Sydney in order to participate. It's a lot of fun and some of the lanterns are quite extraordinary.

Speaker B · Wonderful.

Speaker A · Any other member reports seeing None.

Speaker C · We'll move to item 14. 1, the Q2 Strategic Implementation Plan update.

Speaker B · And I'll look to our business Analyst for this report, which is for information through the mayor.

Speaker S · The 2026 Q2 update outlines the progress made on the Strategic Impact Implementation Plan, demonstrating ongoing work that aligns with council's 2024-2027 strategic plan. As of Q2, 48 of 54 projects were either underway or completed. Progress advanced across several areas including employee engagement, first nations relationships, planning initiatives, climate action service reviews and master plan work. A consistent theme across this reporting period is the development of stronger evidence systems and planning tools to support future decision making. There are six projects not yet started that are scheduled for later in the year or they are dependent on related work advancing. Several completed projects are now moving into operations including the Occupational Health and Safety Program, the departmental application of the Climate Risk Framework and an evaluation of Accessibility Plan outcomes.

Speaker S · Overall, the Q2 update reflects the steady progress across the portfolio with completed projects transitioning, transitioning into regular operations and many active projects are moving toward completion in Q3 and Q4. Staff are available for questions.

Speaker C · Thank you, Councillor King.

Speaker D · Okay, thank you very much for the report and I'm just wondering about. I think there are a few that

Speaker K · are paused few projects.

Speaker D · One is is the North Keating Land Use Options project,

Speaker K · is that right?

Speaker C · Staff?

Speaker I · Thank you through the Mayor. That hasn't commenced yet is why we're transitioning that into next year. Staff just haven't got to that as a direction from council to initiate that report and report back to Council on what that process could look like.

Speaker D · Yeah, and that was of interest to me particularly because of what we have have this evening. I think in a sense we have the cart before the horse Council with pausing that and yet has moved quickly to advance rezoning in the large swath of land which we'll talk about later. That broader work of course would help with understanding how industrial uses, rural lands, buffers and transitions should fit together before we start looking or locking in individual zoning decisions. So my concern is that proceeding tonight at that later point while this is still paused, we are deciding part of the future of the North Keating before we have done the broader planning intended to guide those decisions.

Speaker K · Not a question, just a statement.

Speaker C · Others who wish to ask questions or make statements. Seeing none, we'll move to the 2026 Q2 financial report.

Speaker Q · Manager of Finance thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Q2 financial report is before you relatively early in the year. There's no unusual variances or unusual transactions specifically to point out to Council. Expenses are being managed within the budget for this year. No unusual trends in revenues. Happy to take Any questions?

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker A · Questions from council, seeing none. Move to the next item. 14. 3 is the Q2 2026 Traffic Safety

Speaker C · Committee update and our Manager of Parks,

Speaker A · Facilities, Fleet and Manager of Infrastructure available

Speaker B · for questions if there are any.

Speaker R · Councillor Riddle, thank you and thank you very much for the report. I just have a couple questions. The first is it's a very impressive close rate. Nice work. So I'm just wondering if when items are closed, if that's communicated back to the person who wrote

Speaker T · through the mayor. Items are considered closed after the committee delegates them to the appropriate group, whether it be police, engineering, bylaw or fire, or in some cases communications. And then each department is then responsible for managing from there on.

Speaker L · Okay.

Speaker R · Yeah. So I'm just wondering if we could potentially insert a step in there where we communicate back to the person who raised the concern. Because this is something that I see people coming back and I take a look at the report and I'm like, oh, okay, this is what's happening and it would be nice if that loop was closed ahead of time. So maybe I'll just offer that. The second question I have is around the. There's a reference to a potential raised crosswalk at Wallace and Sluggett. And I know this has come up multiple times at Council. I believe the last time it was here we were talking about potentially implementing that this September and I noticed the report references next September.

Speaker R · So I'm just wondering what the situation is with that for an update because I know that was raised recently by a community member

Speaker T · through the mayor. Apologies for your last question. We do have our engineering assistant reach back out to the residents to let them know that we've addressed it and that it's with the appropriate department and fill them in if there's any other information to know regarding the crosswalk at Wallace Drive and Sluggett. We are actually right now pursuing enhanced flashing beacons for that location and, and then further next year, which is the piece that I think you're referring to is we are hoping, budget dependent to pursue a sidewalk extension that goes on the north side of Wallace basically in front of the park and moves east, connecting to the existing sidewalk.

Speaker T · So with that project we would like to incorporate perhaps a raised crosswalk or maybe a raised intersection. But we are working right now on getting flashing beacons at that crosswalk this fall, ideally before school starts, but depending on lead times, of course.

Speaker R · Okay, thank you. So that's the phased approach. Reduce the speed limit, flashing beacons, then maybe raised crosswalk down the road. Okay. And then My last question is there's a few references to the Tanner Ridge process project, so speed reduction on Tanner and Central Sanich Road. Do you mind just reminding us what that is?

Speaker T · Through the Mayor? We have been working on speed reduction in that area and I believe it was at one of the more recent Council meetings where you reviewed lowering central Sanich road to 40km an hour. Recently with police, we were looking at lowering stock speeds on Stell's Crossroad and Tanner Ridge. So police were supportive of lowering Stelli's Crossroad. We would still like to lower the Tanner road section to 40 km an hour and we'll be bringing that back as part of Phase two speed reduction. The project that you are referencing is probably the Tanner Road water main replacement, which has some modest pedestrian improvements including bus stops, new flashing beacons and a new crosswalk as well.

Speaker R · Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay. Do not see any other questions, so we'll move to the next item.

Speaker C · 14. 4 Development Permit Area Design Guidelines

Speaker B · Introduction

Speaker C · to the OCP Amendment bylaw number 2281

Speaker B · and I'll look to our Community Planner.

Speaker U · Through the Chair. The report tonight introduces OCP Amendment bylaw number 2281, which contains a proposed update to the District Development Permit Area Design Guidelines. The report also responds to Council Motion passed on June 15 and July 13.

Speaker U · Staff or seeking counsel consideration of first and second readings, direction to undertake the required referrals and referral to the proposed bylaw to a public hearing. The Development Permit Areas DPA Design Guideline Update begun in March 2025 and reflects more than a year of technical review, policy analysis, committee input and engagement with the public, First Nation and environmental organizations. The proposed guideline have been refined in response to feedback received through two phases of engagement and Council directions throughout the process. The motions shown on this slide were passed by council on June 15 and July 13. In response, staff evaluated the potential process cost, timeline, implementation and policy policy implications associated with the proposed update, which is provided in the report.

Speaker U · The update is intended to modernize the District DPA framework, implement OCP policies, reflect current legislation and best practices, and provide clear and more consistent direction for applicants, consultants, staff and Counsel. Of the 12 proposed DPAs, 10 are updates to the existing DPAs that primarily reorganize, consolidate and clarify current requirement by identifying site constraints and submission requirement earlier in the process. The updated guidelines are intended to improve application quality, reduce repeated revisions, and support a more predictable and efficient review process. Two new DPA designations are proposed for the protection of development from hazardous conditions, the Hillside DPA and the Wildfire Interface DPA the hillside DPA would generally require geotechnical assessment.

Speaker U · However, much of the area overlaps with the district existing erosion permit area where geotechnical assessment are already commonly required during the building permit stage. Addressing these matters early in the development review process may improve coordination and reduce the potential for redesign and delay later. The Wildfire Interface DPA would introduce a new requirement for an assessment prepared by a cooperation qualified professional forester in areas with significant forest cover. This assessment would identify site specific wildfire risks and appropriate mitigation measures early in the planning and design process while providing staff with qualified professional expertise to support informed decision making. Where more than one DPA applies to a property, only one development permit application and one application fee would be requ required. Staff would review all applicable guidelines concurrently through a coordinated process.

Speaker U · Where competing environmental, wildfire, agricultural and development objectives arise. Staff would identify the potential trade offs and provide analysis and recommendation to Council as part of the development permit review. As part of this update, Staff several DPA maps have also been revised using technical analysis, LIDAR data, provincial requirements, OCB direction and engagement feedback. The proposed changes include revisions or organizations to existing environmental, environmental and farming character DPAs as well as new mapping for the Hillside Protection of Farming and wildfire interface DPAs. The protection of Farming map reflects the agricultural land reserve boundaries for applicant ease. Overall, the mapping changes are intended to improve clarity, reflect current information and support consistent implementation of the Guidelines.

Speaker U · The staff recommendation is shown on the slide. If Council gives the proposed bylaw first and second reading, staff will initiate the referral process in accordance with Section 475 of the local Government Act. Following consideration of the feedback received, the Bylaw would proceed to a public hearing. It would then return to Council for consideration of third reading and adoption. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any question you may have.

Speaker D · Councillor King, thank you for the report.

Speaker K · And I'm just wondering if there's any places where the the guidelines would reduce

Speaker D · Council's ability to provide a buffer between

Speaker K · industrial and agricultural or residential uses.

Speaker U · Sorry to confirm, increase or decrease decrease

Speaker D · the ability of Council to provide the buffer.

Speaker U · The guidelines are just setting the expectation, but the actual buffer for the for the requirement of the buffer is provided in the zoning bylaw.

Speaker V · So it's it gives us flexibility based on the requirement that we need for

Speaker U · the zoning from the zoning bylaw so we can actually apply to that.

Speaker D · So if the zoning bylaw provides the

Speaker K · buffer, that's satisfactory, but this doesn't provide the buffer?

Speaker V · Yes, this.

Speaker U · This just set the context for the buffer.

Speaker V · But the zoning bylaw set the requirement for the buffer.

Speaker K · Thank you.

Speaker C · Any other members of council have questions?

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson,

Speaker J · There's a couple of items that will come in this, but following up on Councilor King's comments, really a question for the planning department and it will come up later as well. If one wanted to have greater limitations

Speaker A · on

Speaker J · industrial development adjacent to residential areas, could that be done? Specifically, for example, example, building height might be lower. Would that have to be done through the zoning bylaw? Could it be done through covenant or could it be included in development permit?

Speaker I · Thank you through Mr. Mayor. I guess the answer to that is it could be all three. The zoning bylaw establishes a hard rigid setback. So if there was an additional setback between industrial and residential properties, the zoning by that could say that's 10 meters and that's in order to not have a 10 meter setback, you need a variance granted by council. So that's a very clear way of doing it. The development permit guidelines can establish guidelines. So if a development permit comes before council and the guidelines contain be sensitive to residential development or step building heights down or do increased landscaping, that's something that development permit guidelines can do.

Speaker I · Covenants are also a tool, but they're usually application based instead of all encompassing.

Speaker J · Understood that was one issue and I'm sure we'll go back to that. I had some questions about the Wildfire Interface development permit area which I am generally supporting of. Although I do have some questions which hopefully could be answered. The guidelines look good, but there's a statement in there, the guidelines that refers to covenant that requires maintenance of the original conditions. How would that be monitored?

Speaker J · So I go through, I'm building a new home in a Wildfire development permit area. I remove the broom, other constraints. But after I built that house, the permit, Development permit guidelines suggest that it's going to be perhaps monitored.

Speaker J · Who would be doing that monitoring if that's the case?

Speaker U · Through the chair.

Speaker V · So by the time the development application comes through, there is a portion of the fee, it's for the landscaping deposit

Speaker L · and

Speaker V · within one year staff goes and do the site visit to make sure that the implementation of the landscape is aligning with what has been provided at the beginning. By the time they are going to kind of do the inspection, that's the time we can make sure that they are maintaining the site. But afterward it will be on the owner's responsibility that they take care of the maintenance of the property.

Speaker J · Interesting. Do we have the other question I have for going back to that? There's a number of areas in sort of higher residential areas. For example, in Brentwood Bay in South Sandichton the guidelines look great but we're dealing with very small lots. So how would it be applied to those small lots and how would it affect someone's building at a new home in that part of Brentwood Bay, for example? What would the cost impact be in terms of the requirements to meet that development permit? Do we have a sense of what that might be?

Speaker I · Yeah. Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor, Councillor Thompson. Thank you. The way the application of these DP guidelines applies, it's to new construction. So the new house comes in and we would apply a development permit area. So we wouldn't be regulating this on existing homes in existing neighborhoods. And the applicable area around the house is. We went 10 meters. Is what's proposed common practice in areas that are I would say more fire prone is 30 meters. And you get into things like pruning trees and removing ground cover. Landscaping. We wanted to focus knowing that the risk isn't quite as high here, we wanted to focus on that immediate area. So it really is about building materials and landscaping immediately around your property.

Speaker I · So don't have cedar chips adjacent to your property. Have perform some pruning. But it is really within that immediate area of the building, really around just helping to ensure that buildings don't catch on fire. That's obviously the purpose of that. And so things like instead of using cedar shakes for roofing, use either metal roofing or non combustible type of roofing. So that in terms of cost there would be a cost for a study done with by a consultant who specializes in this. Probably the range of I would guess around 5,000 for something typical. I've seen like that. And then cost of building materials it's really. We're talking about traditional building materials anyways. People are using either metal roofing is very common or plastic composite type roofing and hardy board paneling.

Speaker I · So the cost of construction I wouldn't anticipate being substantially different. But it would be some assessment being done that would have a cost. So I don't know if there's anything to add.

Speaker J · The interesting thing is a comment that watching the fires in Spokane and in Summerlin that someone made and it's a challenge because you can't force people to do things. But the comment was that you can have two or three houses on a street that meet those requirements or meet the wildface interface needs. But if you've got 10 or 20 houses on that street that aren't safe Then in fact, what's the benefit of having two? I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm just saying it is a challenge in terms of the cost of new housing, for example, and with respect to protecting neighborhoods, it's not just one or two houses. It's a challenge. I'm not opposed to it. Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay. Councillor King.

Speaker D · Well, having learned that the, the guidelines could be a tool to help create a buffer between industrial, agricultural and residential use, I'd like to float a motion, task staff to provide a range of options to consider assist establishing that type of buffer using the guidelines for again, agricultural and industrial, residential, between agricultural, industrial and residential uses.

Speaker B · Is there a seconder you seconding?

Speaker J · Yeah, if I'm assuming it's simply at this stage asking for recommendations or consideration.

Speaker K · That's right. So even with a range of options in that regard.

Speaker D · So it would be focused on guidelines

Speaker K · being used in that way because there

Speaker D · was some learning I was doing about how that could be done. And if I, if council was provided with could be a range of options

Speaker K · in that regard, council could embark on

Speaker D · the guidelines being a, as I mentioned,

Speaker K · a tool for protecting the

Speaker D · transition between agriculture, residential and industrial.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor Thompson.

Speaker J · I guess the one, the issue, the question that I asked earlier was what's the best tool? I would hope that that motion would cover more simply than the development permit areas, but also would there be, you know, through covenant or would could you make changes to the light industrial zone, for example, in order to what's. What are the best options?

Speaker D · That makes sense to see what the staff recommendation.

Speaker I · And I can make a comment on the zoning bylaw. So in the new zoning bylaw that council adopted in the industrial industrial zone where the building Height is over 11 meters, there's an increased setback from the property line, which, you know, much of our industrial land is abutting agricultural property. So that was one, one mechanism that is. Sorry, when it does abut industrial agricultural property. So we do have that in our zoning. Certainly we could look at our guidelines as well.

Speaker K · Yeah, this, this motion was started as

Speaker D · being about the guidelines if it included

Speaker K · covenant because there was broad discussion about it. If there was more specifics that could be considered for motions, I'd be happy to then start selecting motions and proposing those.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker C · Okay, any other speakers on this motion?

Speaker B · I'm just going to speak briefly as chair, I'm not supportive of the motion. I think we've already covered this in other respects and I think it's unnecessary at this point. So I'm going to Vote in opposition, call the question and look for those in opposition opposed. Councillor Graham and myself are in opposition. The motion carries. Okay.

Speaker C · There is of course the recommendation.

Speaker B · I did have a question, but I want to give other members of council an opportunity if they had questions, just staff.

Speaker C · With respect to a couple of the new areas, fire protection and

Speaker B · hillside or slope.

Speaker C · There are different portions of the district

Speaker B · obviously that contain this topography. Some of them are indeed already built out. We see that on the map. I think it is. I want to say it's map or schedule L, I guess.

Speaker C · First question, is this in the gis?

Speaker B · Well, this wouldn't be in the GIS because it's not yet adopted. But this would be in the GIS system.

Speaker I · Thank you. Yes, it would, Mr. Barry. Would be on our development permit mapping. We could add that.

Speaker B · Yeah.

Speaker C · The reason I ask is because while

Speaker B · this PDF is loading, every time I zoom in it's, you know, gets really chunky to read as opposed to GIS where you can get a little bit more granular on, on a property specific basis.

Speaker C · There's really three areas of the district or three different segments of the district. One is.

Speaker B · Well actually four. There's residential.

Speaker C · There's obviously the north side of the

Speaker B · district which is a lot of rural. I think that's rural forest.

Speaker C · That is probably the biggest predominant area.

Speaker B · There's the south side of the Keating area is a predominant area. And then there's pockets of agricultural land around the area thinking like Martindale Valley, Oldfield and Mount Newton Crossroad. There's going to be segments of agricultural.

Speaker C · I'm curious specifically on the agricultural component

Speaker B · because in parts of the world like Asia, FH Kings farmers of 40 centuries,

Speaker C · they did a lot of terrace farming

Speaker B · on steep slopes and I can think of places in Europe that they've also done that. And so I'm curious about how this bylaw impacts on areas of the district where land is within the ALR could be farmed using slope practices that involve terracing and how this would allow or not allow for that.

Speaker U · Yes, through the chair.

Speaker V · So there are some exemption for each development pyramid area, including hillside. As far as I remember all the environmental. If there is, if there is any farming activities that is under protection of farming BC legislation and they are included under that, it's going to be exempted from, from the dp. So they can still have the farming activities following the ALC regulation but it doesn't trigger the DP from our end because it's related to those activities.

Speaker B · Okay, so it would apply to farmland, but really Only in relation to consumers construction of buildings.

Speaker V · That's correct. So at the beginning of each design guideline, again including hillside, it says what it applies to, which is mainly structure or any structure of the building or something related to that, that it's going to be habitable.

Speaker C · Yeah, I was sort of reading that, but I just wanted to confirm that

Speaker B · it's really structural as opposed to anything else. If it's. If it's not structural, it's probably not applied.

Speaker C · Okay.

Speaker B · Yeah, I think that satisfies my questions for now.

Speaker C · There is the recommendation.

Speaker B · If council so wishes don't all leap in at once. Councillor Thompson.

Speaker J · Well, before leaping, I had one more question and that refers to. To engagement on the development permit areas. As we often understand or run into. The public may not be aware of their properties being included in these areas and what the implications are. Is the staff confident that in fact the public is aware of these changes? And if we go to a public hearing at some point, either this council or the next council, are we going to run into a buzzsaw? Do we need to do more education prior to going to a public hearing?

Speaker J · If this is adopted.

Speaker I · Thank you through Mr. Mayor. So we have engaged, I would say substantially on this project, even leading back to the official community plan, because it was part of that engagement in 20, 22 and 23 and on these guidelines in particular. Every time we went out for the zoning bylaw, we had this as part of that project as well. So we have boards up for the zoning by the. And for the development permit guidelines. I would say the. The most controversial component, the zoning bylaw, was the agricultural in the rural areas and in the forested areas. With that, that tied in heavily to the development permit guidelines.

Speaker I · So those property owners were engaged on that as well during that time. So in terms of. Is staff confident that. That we have done the engagement, as you know, informed. We were informed, council, we were doing and followed that plan. Yes. I certainly cannot speak whether individuals know or don't know about this. I would be reluctant to do that. But I think we've done our best through every avenue that we have and normally do. If there is a public hearing for this, there will be advertisements for it as well. So to inform people. We've had our website up for, I would say over a year now as well. So that information has been. Has been present. We've gone to PAC APC multiple times.

Speaker I · We've engaged with both first nations and have written letters from both in the package and the what we heard report has all that in it and it's included in your package as well.

Speaker J · I think that part of the challenge is even if we get a couple of hundred people involved, it still represents probably less than 1 to 2% of the population. So we don't really know until we run into some severe challenges. That is my concern. Do people know what development permits are, for example? So if we go forward with this, then it could be an exciting public hearing, potentially.

Speaker B · All right, well, without injecting my own thoughts on this, I will look, if there is a motion to move the recommendation. There doesn't have to be. But if there isn't, then it sort of sits until a council at some point does something with it. Nobody. Okay. Councilor Cram.

Speaker M · Well, perhaps we should just forward this on to the next council for their consideration. I'll make that as a motion.

Speaker B · Okay. Does someone wish to second that motion? Are you seconding Councillor Thompson? Okay. I think he's made his point, but he doesn't appear to have his hand up. Your floor is yours.

Speaker J · My question simply is in terms of the timing, often we run into provincial requirements that we update things by a certain date. If we did refer it forward to the incoming council, does that create a potential problem from timing perspective?

Speaker I · Thank you. No, there's. There's no legislative deadlines on this. It's really following up from our official community plan work and. Yeah, just that project. So certainly nothing like that that would impact this project.

Speaker B · Any other speakers? Councillor Riddle, did you want to. No. Okay. I guess I'll weigh in because it's probably my last opportunity.

Speaker C · I'm going to say it's laudable work,

Speaker B · but I was struggling with it. While it's not the same work necessarily done by the district of Saanich a few years ago, I'm always a little leery when you. You're this broad and it covers so many segments of the district in so many ways. And because there's no timeline requirement, I was going to be hard pressed to move this forward at this stage. But I'm comfortable with the idea of the next council looking at it and perhaps. Stewarding it along for however long it takes the community to determine what they want to do with it. And probably they will want to refer it out further. It's not a reflection by staff. I think staff have done good work.

Speaker B · I just think this is quite a large piece and I think the word buzz saw was used, so there's always that potential.

Speaker C · So anyway, I'll call the question to

Speaker B · ask for any opposed to forwarding this to the next council. None Motion carries.

Speaker A · Okay, the next item is 14. 5. This is 7 0.

Speaker B · Do I have that right?

Speaker C · Yep.

Speaker A · 7054.

Speaker B · Did I skip one? No.

Speaker A · 7054 Brentwood Drive Development permit.

Speaker B · We have our acting manager of Development

Speaker C · services available for questions as well as the applicant. There is a recommendation.

Speaker B · I'll turn it over to council. What do you wish to do? Ask questions, give direction or move on. Councillor King.

Speaker D · Okay, so this is our 7054 Brentwood Drive.

Speaker B · Yeah.

Speaker D · Right. We've had I believe at least two new pieces of correspondence on this.

Speaker C · There were late correspondence.

Speaker B · They've been added to the agenda.

Speaker D · Right. And so the Reagan's raised concerns about the H Vac, I believe. And I think one of the. So the heat pump equipment, where will it be located and what noise standards apply at the neighboring property lines?

Speaker B · That's one question you're asking. Steph.

Speaker D · Yeah.

Speaker B · Steph, what say you about noise at the property line?

Speaker N · Thank you.

Speaker W · Through the chair, the district recently updated the regulations to do with what he pumps. I believe it was last year or early this year. So we do have requirements for a certain decibel level to be maintained. And should the heat pumps exceed that level, there'll be a requirement for acoustic screening.

Speaker T · Thank you.

Speaker D · And one of the questions from the Hadfields was why has the response to reducing the north side variance to move resulted in moving closer to the southern neighbor rather than reduce the width or the overall size of the building?

Speaker W · Through the chair, the applicant wishes to maintain the overall size of the building. So in order to address the setback on one side, they moved the building approximately about a meter south.

Speaker K · Yes.

Speaker D · That's just stating what I just said. So it's not reducing the size, it's just moving from one neighbor to the next neighbor. And is there a rationale for. Why is the proponent here?

Speaker C · Is the proponent present?

Speaker D · Maybe the proponent can answer because it's probably more of a decision of the

Speaker K · proponent rather than of Stephen.

Speaker C · Staff did indicate that the willing or the desire to maintain the overall building size.

Speaker B · But I'll look to the applicant.

Speaker Q · Oh, we just moved it to the other side because we got the Brooks park in between. So it's a way bigger setback. And then. So then the north side will have the 2 1/2 meter setback and then the other side has the park in between and the meter while maintaining the

Speaker C · size of the building.

Speaker Q · Yeah, and then if we shrank the building, it would make the units too small.

Speaker D · Like too small for like the.

Speaker Q · Well, when you see it on the.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker Q · Yeah. Thank you,

Speaker B · Councilor Riddle.

Speaker R · Thank you very much. So a question through you to staff. I'm just want to confirm that if this was a residential parcel, how many units would be permitted and what height?

Speaker W · Through the chair, under a different zoning, the residential neighborhood zoning, the property could have up to four units in two buildings.

Speaker R · Okay, thank you. I will move. Staff recommendations 1, 2, 3, second

Speaker C · discussion.

Speaker L · Okay.

Speaker V · Can I speak to it? Yes.

Speaker C · The floor is yours.

Speaker R · The floor is mine. Okay. I think this application has been on quite a journey. It is, it is zoned for short term rentals and I appreciate the dialogue that's happening. The compromises that have been made to land on an application that I do think is reasonable. It's a commercial property. I think there's potential that these short term rentals may actually be less disruptive than they would be if they were residences. The parking need won't be constant. The marina won't be active anymore. So there may be less people actually out on their boats on the waterfront. And I think a lot of work has been done.

Speaker R · I appreciate the process, I understand the concerns and I think this has landed in a reasonable place. Let me just add one more thing. Short term rentals, I have come to know that there really is a need currently we aren't allowing them more broadly. And this property being zoned for that purpose, I think is an opportunity to contribute to that.

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson.

Speaker J · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I continue to struggle with this, but I did want to point out the C6 zone does not allow for single family use and therefore in order to build residences on here, it would require a rezoning. One of the questions I have, and part of it requires both staff input and the applicant, is that the staff report refers to a covenant being registered to restrict boat moorage at the marina to hold guests and property owner and caretaker.

Speaker J · My understanding is that there is an interest in allowing moorage for local folks who are, and I quote, within walking distance, unquote. Would that be a violation of the covenant?

Speaker W · Staff through the chair. It's allowing the marina to be used as such, even by one or two residents in the neighbourhood would necessitate a parking variance as marina has a separate parking requirement in addition to the parking requirement for the short term rental building.

Speaker J · So that's a problem for me because if the intent is to allow others to use the marina, even if they, quote, walk, unquote, we have a conflict between what the applicant wants and what the covenant requires. The other thing is really in terms of setbacks. A number of years ago we approved

Speaker F · A

Speaker J · in effect, what's a short term rental in Brentwood Bay at the foot of verge on a piece of Property? Property zone C6. What I've noticed is that the C6 zone in itself is probably most useful for marinas that have a large lot area. The challenge is I see these small lots with C6s with a C6 zone with these big variances that make it extremely difficult to develop anything. In fact, there's still a couple of lots in Brentwood Bay. I think the lot size would preclude anything going on there. So maybe one has to take a look at the C6 zone in reference to lot size.

Speaker J · That one building that council approved many years ago, judging from my estimates, did maintain larger variances. They. I mean obviously some variances were allowed. I haven't been able to find the original documents, but judging by diagrams from the CRD website, North south variants, sorry, setbacks are about 4 and a half, 5 and a half meters. It looks to be over 8 and a half meters for the front you but only 4. 37 for the back. So obviously a variance there. That's what concerns me about this is we know there's a challenge. Some variances are reasonable to ask for given the shape of the lot. But I still don't think that the variances that are proposed on North south at 2 1/2 and 1 1/2 meters is adequate. That's it.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker C · Any other speakers?

Speaker B · Councillor Paltill, thank you very much.

Speaker G · I think that as has been mentioned, this is a very existing property with a lot of history from the cannery, the marine marina and ultimately a lot size that is challenging. Like much of Brentwood Bay, however, there's a lot of infill that probably would have required a significant great number more variances than what we even would appreciate today within our existing zoning bylaws. The applicant has responded to both the council feedback as well as that that's come from neighbors reducing height, twice reducing the roof decks and ultimately moving the setbacks to a location that I think is generally more acceptable. Especially when you think that we typically push shade north within shading when we consider exposure and those side yard setbacks.

Speaker G · As has been mentioned, while it would take a rezoning to contemplate a neighborhood zone, we can look towards what the rest of the neighborhood is designated and assume that that would be a logical question if this was to fail on its fourth attempt at hitting the mark.

Speaker G · I do think that this has come up with a modest enough scale that it is supportable while also Ensuring that the unit layouts are generally habitable and also accessible. Because I believe that if we did reduce the building size smaller, there would be a lot of questions about whether or not you could maneuver adequately from that standpoint. So again, I think that the. The concessions and the enduring nature of coming forward with this plan set. I think that generally, given the feedback we've provided, I think it has been listened and I think about motions from council and notices of motions from members of council. And I think that it's consistently been requested to pare back. And ultimately that's what I see here in this application.

Speaker C · Any other speakers?

Speaker B · Okay, I will put the question on

Speaker C · the motion and look for those in opposition, please.

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson, Councillor King.

Speaker A · Opposed.

Speaker B · The motion carries.

Speaker O · All right.

Speaker A · The next item of business is under

Speaker C · section 151511 Keating Business District Extraction, lands rezoning.

Speaker B · And I do recognize that we did have a motion at the outset to afford people two minutes to speak to the matter.

Speaker C · I see staff are available for questions at this point.

Speaker B · There's no further presentation. So if you wish to come forward

Speaker A · and speak to the item and didn't

Speaker C · during the feedback section, please do so.

Speaker X · Hi, My name is Anneliese Brown and I live at 1642 Keating Crossroad. We have a farm, Willoway Farm. And I just wanted to say we're right across the street from this proposal. It's going to greatly affect us. I think we're the closest to this proposal. I concur with all of my neighbors. I'm very worried about looking out my window and looking at the industry that's going to take place. We need the farming. We have very good land. We grow our own food. Our son has a medical condition. We. We eat all of our own vegetables right across the street. Great land for farming.

Speaker O · That's.

Speaker X · That's all I have to say.

Speaker T · Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you,

Speaker Y · Mayor Windsor and members of council. My name is Peggy mcatty, and together with my sister Jean Christon, we are the executives of our mother's estate. Our family has been part of the central Saanich community for 99 years. Our ownership of the Keating Crossroad lands dates back to 1927. And these properties have been part of the rural industrial and community history of the peninsula for generations. We are here tonight to support the first and second reading of bylaw number 2278 and. And the transition of extraction lands within the Keating business district to light industrial use. We also want to acknowledge one of the main concerns we have heard, how future industrial development will transition into the residential and agricultural lands to the west and north.

Speaker Y · We understand that concern and in many respects we also share it. The four Makati parcels south of Keating Crossroad total approximately 28 acres. However, only 1681 Keating Crossroad and Lot 1, Verling Avenue, approximately 14 acres, are within the urban containment boundary and the Keating business district. The remaining lands to the west, including Lot M Keating Crossroad have always been residentially zoned and are intended to remain so. In addition to the BC Hydro's 20 meter SRW at the urban containment boundary line, which is a natural buffer, we see the 10 acres of lot M Keating Crossroad as an important transition and buffer between the Keating business district and the residential and agricultural lands further west and north.

Speaker Y · We have also consistently told staff that the western frontage of 1681 Keating Crossroad should be treated as the gateway to the Keating business district. We do not want the first impressions of the industrial area from the west to be a blank industrial wall. We want thoughtful architecture.

Speaker C · If I could ask you just to.

Speaker Y · Yes, I'd ask for three minutes and I'm almost finished. We want thoughtful architecture, landscaping, setbacks and site design that create an attractive transition into the business district and respect the surrounding community. Our family has already spent years discussing these issues with planning and engineering staff and intend to continue to do so. Importantly, first and second reading does not approve every development detail tonight. Approval of first and second reading will allow that detailed work to continue almost a century in the community. We care very much about what these lands become and what are what we ultimately leave behind. We respectfully ask council to approve for and second reading to bylaw 2278 and allow the district, staff and landowners to continue working toward.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker Y · The completion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker B · Councelor.

Speaker D · I'd move that we extend it to three minutes per speaker.

Speaker B · Then I accept that.

Speaker C · I've seconded it as I'm accepting it. So if there's no objection, we're at three minutes.

Speaker B · Go ahead please.

Speaker Z · Hi, my name's Lori Morgan. I live at 6502 Hilltop Road at the corner of Verling. Hilltop. Our big concern up there is the access to that Makati property because it's a terrible intersection now and that's our concern up there. We don't mind the development, we just don't want access to Verling for trucks, cars, industrial up there. So we've written letters to you all and as you know, Verling's like a highway now. And we would just like you guys to really seriously think about the access off of Earling at that intersection. It's very dangerous. We nearly get killed up there every day by cars, speeders. It's, it's really awful up there now. So if this does go through, which I'm sure it will, we just would like to see no access on verling to those properties. Everything from Down Below or Sean Heights. Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker AA · Mr. Chair, members of council, my name is Dean Strongarthur, I'm 814 Broughton Street. I wasn't going to speak tonight, but there was a comment that, that Councillor King made. I'd just like to respond to. I'm here representing the Butler Pitlands. As you know, the Butler Pitlands in terms of aggregate extraction is coming nearing the end and in fact the western sides of that would be the earliest stages for redevelopment for light industrial use. There's been many discussions with staff over the course of the last couple of years. Part of those discussions has been always to ensure that any includes the realignment of Keating Crossroads, the access to servicing and so on.

Speaker AA · And also what I refer to as the Northern lands, which means those lands that are on the north side of the crescent shaped portion of Keating Crossroad, which is kind of north of what's often referred to as a school district lands. All the conversations with staff, they've always made comment on their assurances that recognizing that there will be some potential planning of the northern lands, which will take some time because there's policy issues, there's UB urban containment boundaries issues, there's consolidation issues, and there's servicing issues. And I suspect that's going to be a five year process. And so one of the things the staff have made and that will be contained in a covenant is assurances that there will be access made to those northern lands through the Butler lands.

Speaker AA · And so that any future planning that takes place, that access to those lands will be accommodated. So I would just like, like to ensure that the application before you in terms of the zoning bylaw goes through is now and not held up for planning of the northern lands because there will be opportunities to do that and the safeguards in place to allow for future access. Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker C · Just looking to the gallery in case there's anyone else who hasn't yet had

Speaker B · an opportunity who would like to come forward. Okay,

Speaker A · you had two minutes earlier. I'll give you an additional minute or so now, just for fairness.

Speaker M · Okay, thank you.

Speaker E · I was just gonna make a further comment there. I, you know, I respect the process the Makatis have gone through. I know They've been trying to redevelop this land for quite a while. But I just wanted to reiterate that 1681, the northern portion, we still believe that is a nice buff to the community because without that the lands essentially start abutting to residential houses of which my wife and I have a home there. And just a little bit of background. You know, I grew up on Kersey Road. I've been in this community for almost 40 years as well. And most of our neighbors has as well.

Speaker E · So we do, you know, believe that the Butler Pit development and support industrial growth in the community. I myself also own an industrial building and facility. So I understand the process and the procedures quite well. So we're not anti development of this. We understand the tax impact to the district and we are quite pro. But we still believe that northern part of 1681 provides a critical buffer to the community and the residential areas. Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you. Just checking a final time. Okay, I don't see anyone. Councillor king.

Speaker D · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we all know that at the previous meeting I not been supportive of proceeding without the public hearing.

Speaker K · But that was resolved with a vote 5 to 2.

Speaker D · And then I also was proposing that we ask staff to look for area for a food hub. That too went to a a 25 vote and was defeated. Those decisions are made. That's resolved. So tonight just focusing on what we have before us for first and second reading, I guess I still have the concerns and as was pointed out in terms of the pause with the North Keating land use options project, it seems to me that there's value in getting the information from that to inform decisions rather than the large scale rezoning at this stage.

Speaker D · I also support the transitioning the exhausted extraction lines to productive new uses. But my concern is that we are being asked to do more than that. We're being asked to to remove the existing rural zoning on the northern edge of the site. And there are a number of people who wrote letters that we know of. And I just want to honor those who have written letters. I'll set my timer. I should have set it when I started speaking because I know I only have 10 minutes, so I'll do my best. Eric Johnson wrote that that of course who also just spoke that he lives across from the property and asks us to convert the pit but keep the edge. I noted that.

Speaker D · And so my question would be, is there a planning problem that we are creating if we leave the existing zoning

Speaker K · in that area

Speaker D · on the northern portion and consider that portion south Separately, is

Speaker K · there any planning concern with doing that

Speaker D · I. I may not know of.

Speaker I · Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor. The district's official community plan designates out land as industrial and it's within the urban containment boundary. The edge is just to the west of that property. So really this zoning bylaw is implementing what's in the official community plan that was through that process. So is there a planning problem with not doing that at this stage? At this stage, I would say no. There's no. No legislative or legal planning problem with that as it stands. It's just something that is following council policy.

Speaker D · Yeah, it could be done in both cases.

Speaker K · It's just matter of choice of council. Right? That's my understanding.

Speaker D · So it could be done omnibus or

Speaker K · whole list bolus like this versus specifically

Speaker D · at a later date. Okay, thank you. Susan Riddell wrote and asked why there appears to be urgency and are there any development applications expected shortly and is there a practical reason that this rural portion must be rezoned now?

Speaker I · Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, the landowners certainly do have plans and we've been working with them under council direction for almost two years now. So that's where that is sitting in terms of that piece of land.

Speaker C · My understanding is also that council initiated

Speaker B · this through a motion over two years ago.

Speaker I · That's the direction that this project was undertaken. That's correct, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker C · Yes. So one can be subjectively arguing urgency,

Speaker B · but council initiated a process two years ago. It's continuing with that process. It's at its discretion.

Speaker K · Right, of course.

Speaker D · But there's no practical reason on the horizon that we know of beyond that. I suppose so. Elizabeth and Lawrence Skaggs ask why neighboring property owners were not directly notified and why they're was no rezoning sign given. Council has chosen not to hold a public hearing. What meaningful opportunity have immediately affected neighbours had to participate.

Speaker I · Thank you through Mr. Mayor. Neighbors were notified through a letter that was is required legislatively at first reading. So that's. That went out to all properties within 100 meters of the property.

Speaker D · So they maybe just haven't received it. That might be why. No, of course not. Bruce Johnson asks what? Oh, something about a 1987 decision that apparently removed this portion from industrial zoning. Have staff reviewed that and do we know the rationale of that?

Speaker K · I've never heard of it.

Speaker I · Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor. The property owners presented that to the district that it was changed at a time by motion of council and they have their understanding of that. So the district if it was changed by zoning. We didn't have a planning Report or rationale for that or council rationale. But the zoning was changed back at that time.

Speaker D · Denise Hogue asks what are the most intensive uses that the aisle zoning would permit on the northern portion as of right in the future, even if they are not part of the current concept, which could involve night operations, noise, odor, lighting, vibration or heavy vehicles.

Speaker I · Sorry, was the question which uses could be permitted on that under the proposed zoning?

Speaker D · What are the most intensive uses in the IL zoning that would permit would be permitted by Wright?

Speaker I · Yeah, it would be. It would be the same zoning that applies to the rest of the Keating business district. So light industrial uses. It doesn't allow heavy industry or, you know, things like smelting or metal. Metal works like that. But. And our bylaws would apply. So think of what's in the Keating business district, Ravens Landing. It would be that exact same type

Speaker D · zoning, exact same type things that could in terms of noise, odor, lighting, vibration,

Speaker K · those things that would be in the other areas.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker D · That helps to answer that person's questions, I think. Ken Stevenson and David Hosking ask the district confirmed. Has the district confirmed with the province what obligations remain under the active mine permits and does the rezoning affect those obligations in any way?

Speaker I · Thank you. Under the mines permit, what would be required is at the time of subdivision and land development that we would have all the appropriate reports and sign off from the ministry a geotech study saying the land is safe to be constructed on, so they would have to make structural soil and whatnot before we could issue any permits and have any land development occur.

Speaker D · I note with only four minutes left, residents have reported past flooding and they attribute it to runoff from the lands. What do we know about existing draining conditions and the ability for future development to avoid worsening those impacts?

Speaker I · Thank you. So we, we have been conducting two studies, all three so far on drainage and stormwater management for the area. One of the issues and matters we're trying to address is the district has two stormwater outflows that go into the Butler lands. And we have to, as a district, as a manage that water. It comes from above. So we're working with the landowners to address that and have a stormwater management system for our own water. It'd be equivalent to turning on a garden hose to your neighbor and spraying it on your neighbor. And we're not permitted to do that. So that's part of what we're working towards in terms of other stormwater management.

Speaker I · We have our stormwater management bylaw and that would apply like it does to all Other properties where stormwater has to be managed on the site, as well as quality of water. So we are still in discussions with the property owners about that, the best solution for stormwater management. We have a consultant working with us in that regard as well.

Speaker D · Thank you. And then there's Steven Salter and Fernanda Oliveria Olivira. And they ask that no vehicle access to the extraction lines that was pointed out before be allowed from Verling in terms of.

Speaker K · Because they've had some challenges with regards

Speaker D · which we know of the parking in that area. Can staff confirm whether any future vehicle access from Verling is contemplated?

Speaker K · I don't know how it would be,

Speaker D · but could you address that question

Speaker Q · in

Speaker I · terms of the properties up there or changing the road design and layout that hasn't been contemplated in terms of the property up on Verling. Having access to Verling is the only option there due to the slope to the south or to the north. If those lands are to be developed, they would have to use Verling Avenue. There's no other options in terms of traffic volumes. Staff could explore any implications on our. On the existing Verding and Shawn Heights area that could be part of this, if so directed. We do have an engineering consultant engaged. And I, to the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been identified as a problem area at this point. But we could certainly ask them to look at that.

Speaker D · Lastly, I'd just say, I note that the argument in favor has been that it's inside the urban containment boundary. But I would just suggest that being inside the urban containment boundary doesn't necessarily mean that every piece has to be industrial.

Speaker K · Is that fair?

Speaker I · I don't even know how to answer that, sir.

Speaker C · Mr. Barris, I do not need to respond to that. That is a statement, not a question.

Speaker I · It aligns with the official community plan.

Speaker D · I guess that is certainly inside the urban containment boundary. But I think it goes without saying that the urban containment boundary, of course, includes Brentwood, other places, and not all that's industrial.

Speaker K · And so, no, it doesn't require it

Speaker D · to be industrial, but thank you. I have more. But I think that at least help gets to some of the major questions

Speaker K · that the public has raised in their letters.

Speaker D · And I wanted to make sure they were asked and covered.

Speaker Q · Covered.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker C · Other speakers. It should be questions, actually, but there's

Speaker B · been a bit of latitude given. Councilor Graham. We don't yet have a motion on the floor is what I'm trying to say.

Speaker M · Well, I guess I would move towards a motion unless there are other questions. If there's other questions. I'll hold off.

Speaker A · I have no other hands.

Speaker C · If you want to move the recommendation one or something else, let me know.

Speaker M · Yeah, I'll go ahead and move the staff recommendation to proceed and if there's a seconder I'll speak to it.

Speaker B · I will second that Councillor Thompson. That doesn't preclude questions.

Speaker M · Obviously if there's a seconder I'll just quickly speak to it.

Speaker C · Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker B · I'm just letting Councillor Thompson know that it didn't preclude questions because he did in fact have his hands up. Go ahead, Councillor.

Speaker C · I seconded it.

Speaker M · Okay, thank you. Just in this area, I mean I appreciate the point that has been raised about the agricultural current use of that property and it is unfortunate because probably the best agricultural land has already been developed in Keating. The Keating Valley was of course known as a very active loganberry farming area amongst other fruit crops back in the 30s and 40s. And it's all been of course developed into industrial land and unfortunately that's settlement pattern where best agricultural land is frequently used in that vein. It's a challenging property and I think it's really important that we consider that fact in the sense that it wasn't that long ago that council and I was one of the prevailing votes to not extend the urban containment boundary.

Speaker M · There's. It has been recognized that there's an industrial land shortage across the region and this property has been identified within the urban containment boundary for quite some time for future development such as this. So from an OCP perspective this zoning application is consistent and I think it's important to recognize how challenging this area is because there's been with the Keating West Saanich plan that went to was defeated on fourth reading. There's been. There was another plan to extend the urban containment boundary that I believe was defeated on third or fourth reading and there's been a number of. So it's a very contentious area and from my perspective I'm content to hold to the urban containment boundary in this area because I think it provides stability and an expectation that of what will happen in the future to all the residents.

Speaker M · And I understand that there's unfortunately going to be impacts to some of those neighboring residents and that's unfortunate. But it has been identified for at least 40 years that this would eventually be playing out, which is what's occurring now. So at least there's some consistency there and there's been some expectation that this would happen. So I'm comfortable moving this forward at this stage.

Speaker K · Okay.

Speaker J · Councillor Thompson, thank you Mr. Mayor, I do have some discomfort not with the conversion from i2 to i1. I think that is consistent with all our plans. But we have heard some concerns and I would like answers before we or certainly suggestions. So for example, we've heard concerns about industrial traffic. I would like to hear some answers in terms of how do we mitigate that.

Speaker J · What are the options? We've heard about the RE2 parcel on Keating and adjacent areas too. And so what are the possible options to modify the i1 zoning for example to buffer industrial use from industrial areas from rural?

Speaker J · I'm checking out the bylaw. Perhaps staff could enlighten me because I don't see anything specific in the light industrial zone to that. So you know I would be supportive of temporarily removing the RE2 property from current bylaw to allow council to move forward potentially with the i2 to i1 or I light then bring it back to council for review.

Speaker J · The other one that came up recently is a conversation with someone from Tartlip was the discussion that the district would consult with Saanich peoples in terms of what the potential impact in drainage would be on the on Tikal in terms of its long term viability and restoration.

Speaker J · So couple of things then in summary before moving forward because I don't think think a couple of weeks is going to make a big difference. One that we perhaps have some ideas from staff with respect to addressing neighborhood concerns of access on Verling Avenue. I would like the opportunity for Wisanich Land Trust to be engaged in terms of if they have any concerns and if there are adequate protections they see in the bylaw to protect their long term goals. And secondly, I've already mentioned that I'd like to hear some ideas from staff in terms of the potential to enhance protections of the buffer. I think that would be best incorporated within the zoning bylaw, although perhaps in development permit areas. So those are my concerns.

Speaker J · I won't make a counter motion at this point but I find it difficult to proceed to second or sorry to approving first reading without having answers to these questions and responding to the concerns that have been raised.

Speaker B · Councillor Riddle, thank you.

Speaker R · So I'll say I share basically all of Councilor Thompson's thoughts and remarks. So I'm wondering and I guess I'll through you to staff ask if it's possible to give first and second reading excluding the lands that are currently zoned rural.

Speaker I · Thank you. I would look to our corporate officer but I believe so through just council giving a direction to amend it so as amended and it would be an alteration to the map.

Speaker L · Apologies, I'm not sure I understood. So you would rezone part of it by amending the bylaw, not another part, which would have to follow in a subsequent bylaw and.

Speaker I · Thank you. It would be removed from this bylaw, and then.

Speaker L · Yes, that's fine.

Speaker R · Okay, so I'll propose that amendment then, that we remove the lands that are currently zoned rural.

Speaker C · I think we need more specificity than that. It's specifically the property address, 1681 Keating, because people have been referring to this northern portion, but I have looked on the map several times, and that runs from Keating crossroad to the base of the slope. It is, I think, 10 acres.

Speaker B · And I want to make darn clear that that's what we understand is being excluded by this amendment.

Speaker C · And can you bring that up on a map

Speaker B · and put it on the screen, please?

Speaker D · So, just for clarity, you're saying there's more rural than.

Speaker A · I want it to be clear to everyone visually what the subject property actually is.

Speaker K · Are you saying, though, that there's more

Speaker D · rural beyond what was.

Speaker C · Well, let's just have the map in front of us.

Speaker D · 1681. I think there's only 1681.

Speaker K · That's rural.

Speaker D · And it was in the motion.

Speaker C · Okay, if I look at my laptop screen here, this blue is half of this property.

Speaker A · So this portion, which runs all the

Speaker C · way to the base of the slope is probably about 10 acres, if that is the subject property.

Speaker L · Just looking to the director of planning, I have the GIS open. Is that the address? 1681.

Speaker H · Thank you.

Speaker I · Yes, it is 1681. It's half of that property, essentially aligns with Caddy Road.

Speaker A · Can we put that on the screen,

Speaker C · please, and select it as I have done?

Speaker I · The GIS would be the best to do.

Speaker C · Clear. Yeah, the gis.

Speaker B · That's what I'm using.

Speaker R · Okay. And maybe while we're doing that, I can speak to it if there's.

Speaker C · There was a seconder.

Speaker B · I believe so.

Speaker R · Okay. So I mean, I think I've heard general. I mean, definitely some concerns, but mostly consensus around the i2 to the i1, but more concern around. Around the rural rezoning. And I think that makes sense because the change is a lot more significant when you look at the land use. And I think we could probably spend a little bit more time to explore some of the concerns that that Councillor Thompson has raised and consider that piece a little bit more slowly.

Speaker C · Any other speakers to the. So I just want to be clear. This is an amendment.

Speaker D · That's my understanding.

Speaker C · The motion made by Councillor Graham that

Speaker B · would remove this from the bylaw.

Speaker K · Can we have the motion either read

Speaker D · out or written out so that we're very clear? Because I think the. The mayor needs clarity on what it says. And I do too. Now I would like to know if it in fact does refer to the rural.

Speaker L · So the motion as I have, I'm just confirming that that's the right blue square I have on the screen.

Speaker A · The western.

Speaker C · The western half as well is outside

Speaker B · the urban containment boundary. So it can't be.

Speaker L · Okay, well, Director of planning is doing that. So we do have the motion on the floor. Previously was to move the first and second reading. And then there was a proposed amendment at second reading to remove the current rural zone lands known as 1681. Keating. The northern half.

Speaker K · So it specifically said which property?

Speaker D · 1681.

Speaker J · There's a map included in last week's agenda package that clearly indicates what the RE2 property is.

Speaker K · Yeah, right. I just wanted to be clear that it's not the school or the northern or something.

Speaker D · It's the 6. 1681 in the motion.

Speaker L · So the yellow portion on the map is that council's understanding.

Speaker I · So pardon me, Council. It is. This is the line. The rest of this is I. This is ie. This is our ua. This portion is. The only portion that I believe council is speaking about is this northern half of this property slope is roughly here. This is the parcel that Fronton de Verling.

Speaker C · So there's a split zone.

Speaker B · There's a split zone, yeah.

Speaker K · It seems straightforward.

Speaker D · In the motion it recurs to 1681, if I'm not mistaken in the motion, not all the other properties that were suggested. So by reading back the motion, we get really specific about what we're talking about. We don't need to mention the other ones.

Speaker A · I disagree, counselor, but I think we have clarity. Now showing the split zoning on the

Speaker C · map on the screen, which is the northern half of the Property. That's address 1681. So it's not all of 1681, it's

Speaker B · the northern half, which is Rua. Right,

Speaker C · but the property is.

Speaker A · Has a.

Speaker B · Even though it's not divided, it's got a split zoning.

Speaker C · Correct? Yes, that's what I was trying to

Speaker B · get clarity on so that people understood. Yeah.

Speaker C · Okay, so that's to. We've got clarity.

Speaker B · Who wish to. Who I should speak?

Speaker C · Who wishes to speak?

Speaker J · Councillor Thompson, just a brief comment to. For Councillor to consider whatever motions we're looking at. We are an even number of councils Councillors, and you might want to consider collecting some information before voting because you if I'm just saying be aware of the fact there's potentially a 33 split on some of this stuff.

Speaker B · Oh, I'm very aware of the potential math. Whenever there's an even number of councilors.

Speaker C · What is before us is an amendment to remove, not get more information, but

Speaker B · to remove this for the time being.

Speaker D · This might be unanimous

Speaker K · favor

Speaker J · clarification. Could we get the motion out up? Because to me, I think what this is to temporarily remove it from consideration and to come back to council.

Speaker C · So we, we heard from staff that you. It's either in the bylaw or not in the bylaw. Is that correct?

Speaker B · Staff this bylaw?

Speaker I · Certainly, yes. It's either in the bylaw or not in the bylaw. That could be separate direction.

Speaker C · Yeah. So a future bylaw or amendment could change that again, but for the time being it's excluded if this passes. Okay. So that point is clearly understood.

Speaker A · There's no deferral motions I'm hearing or

Speaker C · any of that nature. So what is before us is an

Speaker B · amendment to remove what was on the screen.

Speaker C · Councillor Graham,

Speaker M · thank you. And I'm with you on this particular point. I think that perhaps council may not be considering what. Because if it's just. I thought the nature of the motion was to remove just the portion that's re2 now, which is that small piece. Sorry about that. It's that small piece that fronts onto Keating. Correct? That's what we're talking about.

Speaker C · 5 acres.

Speaker M · 1881. The 5 acres that fronts onto Keating.

Speaker O · Yeah.

Speaker M · And what's bizarre about this to me is that the piece that the concern that was raised about Verling is already has the industrial zoning. So that's not going to be affected by this motion. So those Verling comments are not relevant. And the, the, the accessibility or the piece that would be probably least accessible is also in the i2 on related to Keating. The, the part below. So that's not going to be affected by this motion. And the piece that's going to be most easily serviced is the piece that we're excluding. Just so that I'm clear that that's what we're talking about.

Speaker C · Councillor. The northern portion that is accessed by Keating crossroad is the subject of this

Speaker M · amendment to exclusion of this amendment. Yeah. So I guess just to speak to it, I don't think, I'm hoping that. I mean geographically it just doesn't make. It doesn't make sense to be excluding that portion. I mean if we were to take a piece out, it would probably make more sense to the i2 perhaps, and along verling it to have that changing the zoning to re2. But I mean, it seems also in my mind punitive to the Makatis because they really have, you know, they've been. This is something that they've been doing for a long time and had an expectation that this would be happening. So I think it's very disappointing.

Speaker B · Councillor Peltiel?

Speaker G · Yeah, I'm just curious about the mechanics of this. I've got like the implications of this and in fact the notion that you're going to have a property that's half designated rural and then the other half designated industrial. To me, I don't think from. Well, it's contrary to our OCP and I don't quite understand the planning. And so my preference would be being that this is coming up this evening would be, if there is a mechanism to just as opposed to zoning certain properties this evening and breaking out others would actually be to. To wholesale move this discussion until we have some of the information that Councillor Thompson has requested from staff back to us at a later meeting. I just, I don't think like. And so I don't know.

Speaker G · Am I correct in suggesting that would be a deferral motion asking for the points raised by Councillor Thompson regarding ideas around placement of properties, setbacks, et cetera, to come back to us? I just. This to me, just. Again, we were. We were going down a path of adopting what the OCP and the Urban Containment Boundary supported, utilizing the 15 acres to the west as a buffer. And now we're. We're zigzagging, trying to create a buffer, I guess, because Keating is not considered a buffer either. So I just. I don't quite get all this and I appreciate staff's feedback on the requests and I don't. With this taken out, I don't know if I'm comfortable adopting the remainder of the industrial zoning this evening.

Speaker C · We have what we have before us until council moves a deferral motion to get more information or for some other reason.

Speaker G · I'll move Deferral then to September 8th. September 8th in RACI or whenever we can. Received the points raised by Councillor Thompson

Speaker B · through staff about access from Verling, et cetera.

Speaker C · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · Moved and seconded on the deferral motion only.

Speaker B · Are there any speakers? Councilor King,

Speaker D · forgive me, but this is

Speaker K · not just deferral of the special section of

Speaker D · that we're talking about at. What is it, 1681. This is deferral of the whole item until that date.

Speaker B · Correct.

Speaker C · It captures both the amendment which was

Speaker B · in process and the main motion. Okay.

Speaker C · Any further speakers?

Speaker B · I shall vote. Councilor Graham,

Speaker M · I guess because I mean hearing Councillor King's point earlier, if we're going to be deferring this to September 8th, perhaps we should be trying to schedule a public hearing for the first part of that meeting to get a sense of. To give that the community that opportunity to provide further impact, to see input, to see what all the issues are surrounding this particular.

Speaker A · I'm going to pause you there.

Speaker C · To staff, we have a. The motion to defer, which is the

Speaker B · public hearing is tangential, but previous council direction was to proceed to give notice of first reading without a public hearing. So this would be contradictory. Would it not have to.

Speaker I · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That was counsel's motion. Certainly the council does have opportunity to alter that. One thing council has to be aware of is they would have to at least give first reading in order to hold a public hearing.

Speaker K · Just for clarity though, on the motion

Speaker D · that we have is a deferral.

Speaker K · It's a deferral.

Speaker D · So we.

Speaker K · The idea of a hearing would be

Speaker D · quite different than the deferral.

Speaker K · We should address the deferral and I suppose another motion could come after.

Speaker A · But at the moment, if the deferral passes, any decision by counsel Council would

Speaker K · be on September 8th or a public

Speaker D · hearing motion, if Councillor Graham wished to could be made. That could be considered in a weird way and no.

Speaker K · On the 8th, could it not stick

Speaker A · with me on September 8th?

Speaker C · Yes, but not this evening.

Speaker D · Of course we couldn't have the okay

Speaker A · because we have moved first reading. If we defer first reading to September 8th, you have to have moved first

Speaker C · reading in order for a public hearing

Speaker B · to then be scheduled. You see what I'm saying? So the earliest that would be able to happen would be September 8th.

Speaker J · Councillor Thompson, just to get clarity on the deferral motion. So traffic in general, I guess we're talking when we say setbacks, it really my intent was we're looking paying at buffer the placement of properties. I didn't understand that.

Speaker J · Placement of properties.

Speaker L · Apologies. I just didn't want to say as Bob said. So I was trying to list the items. If there's clarification, I'm happy to take that.

Speaker J · I've got my notes here. So as long as it's understood those three items. The other aspect of this that I mentioned was my understanding is there is interest from first nations in terms of having some assurances, I suppose that their project would not be impacted. So that's. I would like to hear from. I Expected we would see a letter tonight, but we haven't.

Speaker L · Apologies, Councillor Thompson. There was a late letter received that was attached to. To the agenda. It was only received this morning, which does speak to, I believe it was the Wasantic Land Trust Society.

Speaker J · Okay. So if we can include that, if that's okay with the mover, it would just.

Speaker C · It would carry forward with this agenda item.

Speaker J · Absolutely.

Speaker C · To September 8th?

Speaker G · That's correct.

Speaker C · Okay, Councillor Graham and then Councillor Riddle,

Speaker M · because I think we're getting ourselves into a really deep quagmire, I would suggest we table this deferral motion so that we can deal with first reading. And the reason the rationale for that is so then we can refer this to a public hearing on September 8th and have these additional questions that are part of the deferral request come back to that public hearing.

Speaker D · Sec. Do we need a seconder to table?

Speaker K · Yes, and I'll second that.

Speaker B · No.

Speaker C · Any opposed to tabling? Councilor Thompson is opposed.

Speaker B · Mayor Windsor is opposed. Motion carries.

Speaker C · What? You are opposed to tabling.

Speaker B · The motion is defeated.

Speaker C · Sorry.

Speaker A · Okay, so be clear.

Speaker C · I called for those opposed. Councillor Thompson is opposed to tabling.

Speaker A · Councillor Paltiel is opposed to tabling.

Speaker C · Mayor Windsor is opposed to tabling. Because there are six of us.

Speaker A · It is three. Three on a tie vote.

Speaker C · The motion is considered to be defeated.

Speaker M · So there will be no public hearing for clarification.

Speaker A · Well, just right now, the motion to table the deferral was defeated. What you're talking about is the result.

Speaker C · And I don't agree with your assessment, Councillor. It just simply means that counsel could not direct a public hearing at this evening's meeting. It could do so at the September

Speaker B · 8 meeting because at that point it

Speaker C · will be considering first reading and it can decide it wants to hold a public hearing after it's moved first reading.

Speaker B · So it just means it doesn't happen tonight.

Speaker M · Okay.

Speaker B · Councelor Riddle.

Speaker R · Okay, thank you. So the deferral is still on the table. That's what I'm understanding.

Speaker A · Correct.

Speaker R · It was defeated. Okay. So just a question for you to staff then. I got the sense that there was urgency to move forward. The I, I 2 to I 1.

Speaker Q · I'm gonna.

Speaker C · I'm gonna interject here.

Speaker A · Councilors have been using the word urgency. Council committed to a process two years ago.

Speaker C · Staff have brought back information. Council has given direction to proceed. At a previous meeting, it said give notice of first reading. That brought us to this meeting.

Speaker A · So I'm going to politely but firmly

Speaker C · suggest that the notion of urgency is

Speaker A · a fallacy in which subjective opinion is being given.

Speaker C · If councillors wish more time, they can direct more time.

Speaker A · If councillors do not wish more time, they can proceed. And so where we are at the

Speaker C · moment is opting to defer because we feel there is something that we wish to get that is the lay of the land. So I'm going to ask members of council to avoid using the word urgency

Speaker A · because the previous motion that gave direction

Speaker C · that got us here did not have the word urgency written in it.

Speaker A · It simply said, do this.

Speaker C · Councillor Riddle has the floor after you.

Speaker A · Unless you wish to make a point

Speaker B · of order, Councillor Riddle?

Speaker R · Okay, I am. I won't preface my question with any remarks. Then I'll just ask what is the implication on the timeline for the proposed rezoning if this deferral goes through?

Speaker I · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In terms of the timing for the district, there's no implications. We will just follow council direction. I know the owners may have a different perspective. They've been working with us for about two years on this. But I think you're quite. Questions for the district and the implications. There isn't. There isn't implications.

Speaker R · Sorry. Just a follow up then to clarify when would be the soonest date that the lands could be rezoned.

Speaker I · Thank you. Staff could bring a report back on the 8th addressing the. The items raised if directed to. And if council gave first and second reading to that at that time, staff would then work with the applicant to develop a covenant which generally takes, I would, I would say a month or plus to do that and bring back the bylaw for first reading.

Speaker M · It would be.

Speaker I · You'd be into October at the earliest, very earliest.

Speaker C · Okay, thank you, that's helpful. Councillor King, did you want to add something?

Speaker D · No, I think the question was fair, adequate, and as long as it's using a word that's in the Webster's dictionary, I have no problem with the word urgency.

Speaker Q · But,

Speaker D · you know, it's fairly clear that it's, as the mayor has said, staff driven process. I mean council driven process.

Speaker K · And

Speaker D · so council has the ability to set the pace. And what council has previously decided in the past, whether it was 1987 or today or more recently, council still in the driver's seat. So there is no urgency, it seems. Hence, I think all those valid questions and thoughts and concerns of the neighborhood should be addressed. And I agree with Councillor Graham about the need for a public hearing. Happy to hear it.

Speaker B · On the deferral,

Speaker C · are there any opposed? Councilor Graham is opposed to.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councilor Graham. The motion has carried.

Speaker C · We will proceed then to

Speaker A · item 16.

Speaker C · Point 1.

Speaker A · This is a notice of motion submitted

Speaker C · by Councilor Paltiel previously. Would you simply like to move your motion?

Speaker G · Yeah, I'll just move my two be it resolves.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · We accept that given length.

Speaker C · Save everyone me reading as printed.

Speaker A · Is there a seconder? Thank you. Any further discussion on the matter?

Speaker B · Councelor King?

Speaker D · I think it's a well worded glorious motion. I wouldn't even mind if we heard it.

Speaker K · But if he doesn't want to read it out or sing it, that's fine,

Speaker D · we can just vote.

Speaker C · I assume since we've all funded the library for so long, that we're all in fact literate and can read it.

Speaker A · So it's been moved, it's been seconded.

Speaker C · I shall put the question.

Speaker A · Any opposed? None.

Speaker C · Motion carried.

Speaker A · Fire smart Community grant. There's a recommendation as printed in the agenda.

Speaker C · It's got two parts.

Speaker B · Someone like to move it please.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker A · Councillor Thompson.

Speaker C · Is there a seconder?

Speaker J · The recommendation. Sorry?

Speaker C · The recommendation. Yes, yes,

Speaker A · moved and seconded. Any discussion on the matter? Any opposed?

Speaker K · None.

Speaker C · The motion carries.

Speaker A · Item 16. 3 is a late 2027 permissive tax exemption renewal. It does say to be introduced by

Speaker C · the cfo, but it's fairly self explanatory.

Speaker R · It is so.

Speaker A · So we shall simply ask for the recommendations to be put to that the 2027 permissive tax exemption rule process with no change to tax Exemption bylaw number 2157 58, 2203 and 2210 be approved.

Speaker C · Do you want to move it first or ask the question first?

Speaker B · What's your preference? Ask your question,

Speaker C · Go ahead.

Speaker K · So we're fairly close to a 1. 5%

Speaker D · policy ceiling, I think. And the question is, are there any expected pressures between now and applications for 2028 that council should keep in mind before the next cycle?

Speaker C · I don't know of any application.

Speaker R · Any additional applications?

Speaker C · There was one this year but it didn't qualify, so no.

Speaker D · Okay, thank you.

Speaker C · Right.

Speaker B · It was moved and seconded? Yes. Good.

Speaker A · Sorry. You did move it.

Speaker J · Sorry, it was the previous motion.

Speaker C · Yeah, there was a question before.

Speaker A · Okay. Yeah, that's right.

Speaker J · This one just to keep double check.

Speaker A · Is there a seconder?

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker C · Any opposed? None. Motion carries.

Speaker A · Item of new business for the next meeting is a notice of motion submitted by Councillor Newton.

Speaker C · He's not here, so we'll just carry

Speaker A · on any items of correspondence that anyone wishes to raise. Okay. Motion to close the meeting under section 90 sub 1 1, sub C, E, E, G B.

Speaker C · Sorry.

Speaker A · C E G B. 92B.

Speaker B · Sorry.

Speaker M · Yeah.

Speaker B · Can't speak anymore.

Speaker A · So moved. Seconded by.

Speaker C · Perfect.

Speaker A · Any opposed?

Speaker C · None.

Speaker B · Motion car.

Speaker Q · It.