Council postponed the 420 Tamarack Road rezoning after staff disclosed that revised bylaws and a supplementary report had been left out of the public inspection materials; the Mayor said the application would return to a Committee of the Whole meeting so the public could review it first. Council approved a height variance for a 77-home mixed-use building at 3569 Ryder Hesjedal Way, despite nearby residents’ concerns about a lost breezeway, green space and openness; councillors also weighed the project’s plaza and commercial frontage against the risk of a less suitable future design. Other decisions included allowing wider shared driveways for two duplexes on Goldfinch Road and advancing several sewer and land-use bylaws. Council raised unresolved concerns about the City website’s staff directory and development information, and asked staff to bring back a more detailed 2027 budget process rather than endorsing the current outline as-is.
Generated from the recording's captions and the agenda (minutes not yet published by the council).
What was discussed
AI summary · check against sources
3 MAYOR'S MESSAGE
parks environment1 public speaker20:53 Watch · Read
The Mayor welcomed residents back from the summer break and said only two regular meetings remained in the council term. Councillor Grove reported that the Colwood Garden Society was exploring a community garden at Lagoon West Park; its location, size, design and public engagement still need to be worked out. The Mayor also celebrated Colwood’s win at the West Shore lawn-bowling challenge.
Agreement
The community garden idea is at an early stage and needs public engagement and further decisions about its design and location.
5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
parks environment2 public speakers25:12 Watch · Read
A couple from Triangle Mountain asked the City to distinguish trees being removed for safety from removals for development or profit. They said two diseased firs posed a risk to the road, power lines and their home, and that the required arborist, permit and tree fees would cost about $4,100 upfront, including $1,500 in City fees that could be refunded if replacement trees survived. Council also heard comments on the Tamarack proposal; those are summarized under the deferred rezoning item.
Agreement
The residents valued Colwood’s tree protection policy but said the current costs did not account for the safety reasons for removing the trees.
6 DELEGATIONS — West Shore Chamber of Commerce
community services2 public speakers43:09 Watch · Read
The Chamber reported on its City community-service agreement and business support. It said its membership had risen from 333 in 2021 to 425, though member departures had increased since late 2024; its email list had about 930 subscribers and it had 361 Colwood businesses in its database. The presenters suggested joint business walks to hear directly from local firms and offered to brief the next council on the Chamber’s strategic plan. Council members asked for more local business feedback and data on referrals and services. The Chamber said it could share more information, but that it did not yet have a consistent direct channel to all Colwood businesses.
Agreement
Council members welcomed the Chamber’s work and saw potential value in business walks and better information about local business needs.
The Chamber agreed to provide its strategic plan to the incoming council.
Disagreement
Councillors wanted more specific information about what Colwood businesses need and the benefits they receive; the Chamber said its current data on individual local businesses was limited.
7.1 Development Variance Permit - 3615 Ryder Hesjedal Way
Council approved the consent-agenda variance to increase the permitted fascia sign height at 3615 Ryder Hesjedal Way from 1.2 metres to 1.5 metres. No separate discussion of this item was recorded.
9.2 (deferred matter) 420 Tamarack Road rezoning
zoning development3 public speakers13:43 Watch · Read
The Mayor said revised bylaw materials and a supplementary staff report for the 420 Tamarack Road rezoning had not been included in the public inspection binder, despite notice that the materials would be available. Staff apologized and said the omission meant the public and council might not have had the complete record. Council voted to defer consideration to the first available Committee of the Whole meeting to allow more time for review, input and discussion; staff had not confirmed the date. Three members of the public who spoke supported the proposal, citing a planned playground upgrade at Gamble Park, 153 homes near Colwood Corners and the need for housing for people who want to stay in Colwood.
Agreement
Council and staff agreed that the complete record should be available to the public before council deliberates.
The Mayor said the application should return to a Committee of the Whole meeting for fuller discussion, with a later council meeting to follow as needed.
Disagreement
The application’s timing and venue changed: the Mayor said a Committee of the Whole meeting would allow more open discussion and avoid burying the item on a long council agenda, while a councillor asked why it was not simply being rescheduled to council.
8.1 Development Variance Permit No. DVP00019 – 3569 Ryder Hesjedal Way
zoning development2 public speakers1:02:57 Watch · Read
Council approved a variance for a 77-unit mixed-use building, allowing its maximum height to rise from 15 metres to 24 metres. The applicant said the four-storey commercial frontage would be set back to create a public plaza, with the residential part stepping up to six storeys; the project would include about 2,600 square feet of commercial space. Staff described the height issue as largely a technical result of the bylaw’s lower limit for mixed-use buildings, and said the building’s upper portion remained below the 24-metre apartment limit. Two nearby residents objected to the added building, saying it would remove a planned breezeway and green space and create a more enclosed wall of buildings. Councillors also debated whether the design preserved the area’s intended commercial character and whether rejecting it could lead to a less beneficial alternative.
Agreement
The site was planned for dense development, and the proposal included ground-floor commercial space and a public plaza.
Councillors recognized the nearby residents’ concerns about the changed outlook and the importance of scrutinizing each variance.
Disagreement
Nearby residents said the added building and its massing would reduce openness and green space; some councillors considered the design an acceptable fit, while others questioned whether it lived up to the area’s intended town-centre character.
Some councillors favoured the proposed stepped design and plaza over the possibility of a different, less suitable development; others were uneasy about six-storey buildings and the limited share of the building devoted to commercial uses.
8.2 Development Variance Permit No. DVP00023 - 446 Pelican Drive
Council approved a variance allowing the existing upper-floor area above the garage at 446 Pelican Drive to be used as part of the principal residence, overriding an older permit condition that limited the highest floor to the highest street level. All other conditions of the older permit remain in force. Staff said a building permit had been issued before the old variance condition was noticed because the proposed work was interior and met the land-use rules. Staff estimated that about seven lots had similar older height permissions, and said one had already sought a related variance. A neighbour who had raised concerns later wrote to say they were no longer concerned.
Agreement
Council accepted that the old permit condition needed to be considered alongside the otherwise compliant interior work.
A councillor stressed the importance of retaining and documenting the City’s history of older permit conditions.
8.3 Development Variance Permit No. DVP00018 – 221 Goldfinch Road
Council approved a variance to allow a combined driveway width of 22.8 metres, rather than the 7-metre limit for a corner lot, for two proposed duplexes with secondary suites. Staff said the shallow, irregular lot and setbacks limited the available layout, and that two shared driveways were preferable to the original four-driveway design. Staff will work with the applicant on permeable paving through the development-permit process. Council also asked about parking and pedestrian access; staff said vehicles could fit without blocking the sidewalk. A 2-metre road dedication and frontage improvements are part of the project.
Agreement
Council members supported consolidating four proposed driveway crossings into two shared driveways.
Staff and council agreed that permeable materials should be considered to reduce the effects of the larger paved area.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned why permeable paving was left for staff to work out rather than written as a more explicit condition; staff explained that the details would be settled before the development permit was issued.
A public speaker said the City had not completed council’s direction to restore a staff directory, that the bylaw repository still lacked search, and that the public motion tracker appeared to be missing decisions. The speaker also called for old website policies to be updated. Councillors shared concerns about the lack of a usable staff directory, outdated or hard-to-read website information and gaps in the development tracker. Staff said this was an interim report within the 90-day work period and that it would adjust its approach. Staff cited cyber-security requirements as one issue to balance and said it would consider adding clearer explanations of what users should expect to see for different types of applications.
Agreement
Council and staff agreed that the report was interim and that further work and a later update were needed.
Councillors said public-facing information should be clear and current, and staff agreed to consider improvements to the tracker and its explanations.
Disagreement
Councillors rejected the view that existing limits in the City’s systems were a sufficient answer for missing public information; staff said development-permit plans were not posted until permits were issued because applications could go through several revisions.
8.5 2027 Budget Approach
budget finance1 public speaker2:32:47 Watch · Read
Council discussed the proposed principles and timeline for the 2027 budget but did not endorse the outline at this meeting. A public speaker supported its direction but said the framework needed more detail, including what a “light touch” review meant and how the incoming council would retain room to make choices. Councillors asked how service reviews would be triggered, whether annual service plans and staffing totals would be provided, and how to account for existing costs as well as new proposals. They debated whether affordability and expected revenues should be set out before new spending is considered, while another councillor said council first needs to know the minimum cost of maintaining core services. The Chief Administrative Officer said staff would return with a more detailed process for council to shape, including public feedback, service information, operational plans and financial data; a new Questica system is also intended to help track budget changes.
Agreement
The outline needs more detail before council settles the budget process.
Council should receive information about staffing, service levels, ongoing work and the financial impact of proposals.
The incoming council should have a role in shaping the 2027 budget process.
Disagreement
Councillors differed on the starting point for budget decisions: one favoured setting an affordability or tax-increase limit early, while another said the cost of maintaining core services must be known first.
8.6 Age Friendly Community Plan Review - Engagement Strategy
After Councillor Day pulled the item from the consent agenda, she urged council to connect the engagement work to a small funded project in the budget, such as a bench, picnic table or intergenerational event, so the plan leads to visible action. Another councillor cautioned against defining age-friendly needs mainly through active transportation, pointing to practical needs such as benches on hills, accessible parking and nearby washrooms. The councillor also urged the City to reach older residents who are isolated or not connected to local organizations or online channels. The report was received for information.
Agreement
The engagement should lead to practical improvements that older residents can see and use.
The City should make an effort to hear from older residents who may not be reached through online channels or community organizations.
Disagreement
Councillors differed in emphasis: one proposed reserving a small amount in the budget for a project arising from the plan, while another stressed that the engagement must first capture a wide range of accessibility needs.
Council gave first, second and third reading to the bylaw delegating some development-permit decisions. The Mayor specified that 1764 Island Highway should remain under council’s approval authority. A councillor asked about wording that lets council designate future master-plan communities and about the four-unit threshold; staff said new areas would require a bylaw amendment and that the threshold was a delegation limit, separate from the existing pause on some small form-and-character permits.
Agreement
The four-unit threshold sets which applications can be delegated; it does not remove permit requirements for sites in environmental or hazard areas.
Adding future master-plan communities would require a bylaw amendment.
9.2 Colwood Land Use Bylaw No. 151, 1989, Amendment No. 227 (SSMUH) Bylaw No. 2091, 2025 - Adoption
Council adopted the land-use bylaw amendment on small-scale, multi-unit housing. The transcript’s numbering differs from the supplied agenda: the Mayor called this item 9.3, although it appears as 9.2 in the agenda.
Council adopted the land-use bylaw amendment for the CD45 zone at 221 Goldfinch Road. A 2-metre road dedication had been registered before the adoption vote.
9.4 Sewer Local Area Service Enlargement Amendment Bylaws - First, Second and Third Reading
Council gave first, second and third reading to sewer local-area-service enlargement bylaws for 605 Hallsor Drive, adding the property to the Colwood Central and Colwood Main sewer service areas.
9.5 Sewer Local Area Service Enlargement Amendment Bylaws - Adoption
Council adopted sewer local-area-service enlargement bylaws for 3110 Wishart Road, 3155 Woodpark Drive and 3112 Woodpark Drive.
Decisions
Colwood has not published the minutes for this meeting yet. Councils post minutes only after a later meeting adopts them, usually two to six weeks afterwards. We check weekly. We last checked Fri, Oct 2, 2026. Votes and decisions are taken only from the official minutes, so this section fills in once Colwood publishes them. Anything above about motions comes from the recording and is preliminary.