Transcript: Regular Council - Jun 15 2026

We're going to call the June 15th regular council meeting to order. We acknowledge once again we're meeting in the traditional territories and cent and welcoming and speaking First Nations with whom we are committed to building stronger working relationships. So, uh, tonight's meeting is being livereamed, as you heard, and recorded enhancing transparency, inclusiveness, accountability, and efficiency. Members of the public can watch live or view the recording later through our meeting portal under tonight's agenda page or on the District of Highlands YouTube channel. Information and links to access the meeting were provided on tonight's agenda. So, with that being said, um I'm going to ask if there are any members of the public who uh wish to uh talk to discuss other items that can't discuss the public hearing, but if you have another item to discuss in petitions, delegations, um please uh give your name.

We have a we have Mr. Cardinal. Anybody else about anything else? We're not discussing anything to do with the public hearing. Yeah. Or the bylaw. That's right. This will have to be uh on any other items. So with that addition, if there's no one else to add, I will uh ask for approval of the agenda. So move to second. Moved by councelor Anderson, seconded by councelor Mlan. Discussion. Seeing none, I'll call question. All those in favor? opposed. None opposed. That carries. And that brings us to conditions and delegations. Then I'll ask Mr. Cardinal if you'd like to approach the mic. Interesting bit on this side of the mic.

Um, unfortunately, you're probably going to shut me right down because I'm speaking to something that's on the um on the um agenda tonight. And uh given the fact that there has been as much push back on this bylaw, I'm really disturbed that uh on the agenda is the recommendation for third reading and adoption of this um agenda. Well, I got it in anyways. [clears throat] So that brings us to adopt. We have a two minute. We have May 19th public hearing report and June the 1st uh regular council meeting. Okay. Discussion all question. All those in favor opposed. Not opposed. That carries. And the staff got that was councelor Bar and councelor Ste. All right. And then uh we have a set of minutes. One from the Capital West Accessibility Advisory Committee February 25th and on June 3rd the Emergency Planning Committee.

All right. Discussion seeing none. I shall call a question. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries. And uh reports of committees and commissions. I have uh mine online there if there's any questions, but also we have councelor Mlan wishes to speak. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so I just have a quick verbal uh update. Victoria Family Court youth Justice Committee held a meeting on June 2nd, 2026 um uh during their fourth annual openhouse reception for any resource agencies within Greater Victoria uh to help uh identify further gaps and services as well as any updates and introductions. Also [snorts] a presentation uh from some of the Victoria Youth Empowerment Society outreach workers was provided. Some police introductions and updates as well as uh Thrive Westshore and Need to um provided a brief update and needed 2s council their appreciation for uh their grant and aid for 2026.

And um uh this uh open house uh has been a great opportunity to touch base with some of these organizations. They work very hard uh a lot and with very little financial help. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Henderson. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a quick update. the um South Island Reconciliation Advisory Committee met this morning and I just wanted to alert uh staff and council and anybody else who might be interested that they uh have just issued a request for proposals. It's on BC bid right now looking to replace the consultant who supported that committee for many many years. So if you are um aware of individuals who might be interested in that um I can share the link or we can perhaps have it in the minutes or something. I haven't shared it with anybody because I just found it this morning. Um, but it would be terrific to make sure we had as much awareness as possible for people who might be able to support that work. Um, and that's all I was going to say. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. So, uh, seeing no more hands up, I'm going to, uh, there are no introduction of late items. That's item five. And gets us to correspondence. And uh we have our capital regional district 2025 annual report. All right. Discussion. Seeing none. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries. And uh we also have a letter of support for reimagine West Shores 2027 community gaming grant application. Councelor Mlan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I would just um like to uh move that a letter of support um for uh Reimagine Westshore uh for their 2027 BC Gaming Grant application be um sent from council through staff.

Discussion seeing none call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries. And that brings us to 7.1. This is the Highland Zoning bylaw number 1998, amendment number 47, limits to principal dwelling unit size bylaw 484 2026. Would the planner please introduce the item? Thank you, mayor. So, bylaw 484 would uh set a size limit in zones where there is no limit currently. Um that limit would be 700 square meters. It is also proposing to add um the word the um expression principle in front of dwelling unit in um sections where it isn't clear and it could be um confusing. Staff held an open house. Uh the purpose of the open house was to provide information to the public um about the bylaw. There were there was a map and some information. Uh it was well attend 30 people attended um and staff answered questions as best they could.

Okay. Thank you. Barrett. Yeah. Thank you, M. May. I do have a question for staff. Um uh with regards to our member municipalities, does staff have a an idea whether the other rural municipalities have put size uh limitation bylaws in place? Uh through the mayor? No, I do not. Thank you, Councelor An. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh I have a question for staff, too, through the mayor. Um, are is the district aware of how many principal dwellings are currently over 700 square meters? Uh, through the mayor through meeting people at the open house. Um, I suspect there is one. Um, beyond that, we we don't know. And it would what's critical is whether a a dwelling unit has an occupancy permit.

The the 700 square meters was chosen um with the with the with um thinking that most properties would be caught and would not or would be captured under that limit. Yeah. Thank you for that. So I just so I understand the rationale for 700 square meters was that every existing house that we know of in the district is under that amount. So there would be that we know of that have occupancy permits to the mayor. My apologies for not speaking very well. Um yes, the the properties we we looked at properties at um occupancy permits of properties where we knew homes were larger and all of those were under well under the 700 square meter limit. Thank you.

Any uh further questions councelor staff? Thank you. I just want to clarify for councelor Anderson. You were said three. No, 30 is what she said. Councelor Anderson. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, if we're still in the phase of questions for staff, so I'll limit my comments at this point to that. Um, one of the comments that was raised in some of the material presented to the to the public hearing uh related to concerns about impacts for property assessments. And um it's not my understanding that that uh that this would affect property assessments, but I was just wondering if staff might have a comment that would help me understand um whether or not it this particular uh bylaw would have that impact through the mayor.

So, there's other zones that have smaller limits on dwelling units. Um, limiting dwelling unit size is not a down zoning. I've heard that term offered um as a planner. It's that's not what a downzoning means. Downzoning means changing reducing the use and the ability the use of a property. So, um I don't think and again I'm just a planner. I'm not an assessor or an appraiser. I don't think it will affect the assessment in my capacity. That's my opinion. Council Gord B. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, that was one of my questions, so I appreciate you saving me some breath on that. Uh, I did have a question, and I think this, uh, comes from one of the things that we listened to tonight.

um what would be the implications around uh bringing in sort of a draft business license? Staff hasn't or council hasn't seen anything yet, but I'm just wondering about uh the implications about developing a draft business license versus with not having uh addressed this particular item around house size limits and homebased business. Uh chicken or the egg? I guess that's where I'm I'm trying to come from at. So through the mayor, I think the business licensing bylaw is going to be much more complex than what staff originally thought. Um certainly this process has um we've heard that there are concerns that now people's homebased businesses will be limited. Um and that was a one of the intentions in this bylaw so that there was a limit. Um it's my opinion that it makes sense to limit house size first. Um we've received some very valuable feedback that people are concerned that this will limit their ability to continue their homebased businesses. Um, I've people have said, "What does Highlands not want my taxes that I pay as a result of my homebased business?" And I think

absolutely not. I'm pretty sure the homebased businesses um providing they're operating under the the usual regulations. I think Highlands wants them because they certainly provide um a rich flavor to the community. It speaks to sustainability, all kinds of stuff that the OCP talks to. So, I think this bylaw just looks at house size. It's not it's not it's not looking to do any more than that. It is setting it's setting a ground. It's setting a basis upon which a a business regulation or business licensing bylaw can then start [clears throat] to be looked at. So, it's my opinion that I think I'm it makes much more sense to consider this level of regulation before you start looking at business licensing.

All right. Next in the queue is Councelor Mlan. Okay, thank you. Um, so have a question through the chair to staff. Um, I heard some comments this evening regarding um perhaps if people people's homes end up being destroyed for whatever reason, 75%. and um the possibility of um coming to uh the council for uh a variance to potentially I guess rebuild in that same location perhaps if there's not a another suitable location on the property. So I just wondered if you could um uh comment on the realities of that for us please. Thank you. Uh through the mayor. Sure. So I think so my understanding is that the concern is that folks have built structures larger than 700 square meters and so certainly if this bylaw were to go through um they would then be could only rebuild to 700 square meters. There is always the opportunity to apply for a variance which is considered and approved or denied on an individual basis. I think um yeah so the development variance permit

process permit application process would be the the [snorts] way to go. Um, I will say that there was one home that burned down and the people chose, they didn't come to council for a variance or anything, but they chose to build in their exact same footprint. That was their choice. Um, their zoning wouldn't have limited limited them. meaning. So just to clarify then um because usually we don't usually council doesn't receive a variance regarding well I guess we do a building location but not like I don't ever just as you've mentioned I don't ever recall coming to council a building that's been destroyed or whatever and then seeking to be built on the exact location because variances are usually for dimensions in size, right? Or setbacks. Um so as long as it's within the setback, then they should be able to rebuild in the same um spot. Can can you comment on that through the mayor? So I think that so certainly they can build in the exact same spot. It's my understanding that the concern with bylaw 484 is that they won't be able to build back to the size.

And so in a lot of communities, size of home is related to density. So if that were and that is not the case here. Highlands um home size is not a measure of density. So this is something that can be varied. Were it a measure of density, it could not be varied and that would require a whole that's much more complex and that's a reasonzoning. Mr. Gord. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I guess my question to staff is, is there any room or what would be the potential of having uh a modification to the bylaw that would exempt? So if a house were and it might be one house and I'm I'm again this is probably a little bit of mental football but if we've got a a house that burns down that is over it and it has received an occupancy permit and all that sort of stuff. Uh is there any way of building in a grandfathering clause or any wording to

say that uh there would be support to replace in essence what was existing. So through the mayor, not not that I'm aware of. Um that's um so the short answer is no because once a bylaw is changed um it's changed and so the the correct process is really a variance. Um and they are discretionary. Um that's why we you ask for rationale or the application asks for rationale. A lot of variances that council has recently seen are with respect to riparian areas. So those um need some proof that you're not damaging the riparian area because the regulation was put in place to protect the riparian area. In a case of house size, it's it's it's really more about the um the applicant stating their case. It's like we want a bigger house because because we want a bigger house or because we have um three generations living in our house. The one piece of information I would caution on that is your house is defined by a kitchen in our zoning bylaw. And so most of the zones in

Highlands are allowed one main house and then an accessory dwelling unit. So, um, if you're having multi-generations living in one structure and it has multi- kitchens, it's probably multiple dwelling units, which is different. Um, and certainly, uh, yeah, that's that's a whole different thing. I'm sorry if I've gone on. No. Um I just my thought is that if somebody has a if somebody has a mortgage uh they've got a large house it burns down and they've got sort of a commitment to that mortgage. um the discretionary nature of the variance to me um if I was in that position I would be concerned about how the council would be and whether they would I think that I can probably think that council wouldn't have an issue with allowing that but um I also hear the the concerns about rural rules and regulations and personal choice. So, I'm just I'm I'm curious as to how that looks and I see your hand up, so I'm happy to listen

uh through the mayor. So, I think I at this point would like to some of the concerns I've heard is that folks who have homes that are larger than the 700 square meters, it's because they've added on um to the homes garages or parts of their homebased business. And so through the business regulation bylaw, we're hoping to be able to tease out, okay, well, what's home, what's residential use, what's your homebased business use? right now it's all meshed together and so for so some people are this is the way it it's been um it has worked. There is always the risk that some people will bend the rule to their favor and have very large structures which are predominantly businesses and not homes.

And so this takes the first step to start thinking home. Your residence can be 700 square meters. Your homebased business can be part of that. But how big is that going to be? Is that going to be 500 square meters on top of that? And so that's those and maybe maybe that's what it is. But it's it's starting to parcel out uh what is what so that people can be safe um and for for fire reasons and for neighborhood reasons. So does that make sense? It's more um Yeah, it's I hear you. Thank you. I appreciate them. All right. Any more questions? We have a uh staff has a a recommendation on here. I don't know if there's anybody willing to to move that.

Councelor Baird. Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I I am going to move it and then I will speak to it if it's seconded. Second discussion purposes. Okay. Moved by councelor Gord Bear, seconded by councelor Mcclan. Go ahead, counselor. Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um, I I hear the values around the appreciation for the strong bylaws that we have. and I sit at the table and see how our bylaw enforcement has been stretched [gasps] um and not necessarily uh as effective or as efficient as I think that it could be. And it's not because of it's not because everybody within the Highlands has got the ill intent to break bylaws.

Um, I've heard about the regulations that put personal choice uh and property rights at risk and that that is that that is an issue and that and that is a value that is a absolutely it's a it's a valuable it's a valuable argument and I hear that um I hear about the importance of multigenerational living and not potentially impair that. That is a super important I've been there and I also don't like to live with uh some strife on multigenerational living. Um, in the public hearing, I think councelor Mlan made a note that council was not to attend and there also with regards to the the the other open house that was put on by some applicants, we were suggested that we don't attend. So that's not out of disrespect to the community.

Um I look at this and I partly conflicted. uh many years ago I would have looked at it under an ecological lens but I I think what I I see and what I'm concerned about is not the impact it's going to have on the mass number of people. I see it as um is a back door that is being seen in some other communities and in particularly the large lots um we've got many many large lots and I I remember when I first came to council um and I think it was Mayor Cardinal at the time that said build build a mud house do you go for it you know that's that's your right and I appreciated that at the time very much and I think [sighs] where my thoughts are is not to try and impinge on the the rights the property rights and the values around regulation but I think that we also heard that Machosen had has been moving in a direction of pushing more regulations and it's tougher to do some of the

things that we would have done or could have done when we were younger or when communities were when we didn't have some of the things that were facing us that we face today. And one of the things for me that is critical is that we have [sighs] we have seen and this probably goes back and I think it was three or four years ago the OMBbuds person's uh presentation to Mitchosen and all the the regional partners and that was that there was very there was a couple not very many but there was a couple of actors that were choosing to come in through the back door to run a commercial business.

And that made it very very difficult for those municipalities to navigate, very expensive legally, very hard to uh try and address. And I think that everything I've heard tonight was actually extremely respectful. And I think we see a lot of shared values. We probably have different views and values on many things, but certainly there's a shared values of of being able to have free and access to our property. That's important. And I guess my view is that um I agree with many of those things about rights to property. My property would be affected. Um, but I'm also cognizant of the one, two, or three people that may try and and do things through the back door. And that's where we have a front door. And the front door can be a a variance permit or it can be a spot resoning.

And I recall that we've had a spot reszoning here before for someone that was doing some carpentry uh had a carpentry shop and that seemed to go through council just fine. It was a good homebased business and I think it was quite supportable. Um so we managed to navigate that. I think about the variance permit we had for Nick's mechanical shop that seemed to fly through just fine. And so I see that there is definitely support for homebased business. There is some concern about trying to use a back door versus a front door. Councelor, we're not talking about a homebased business today. I understand that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

But it's it is something that I I look at when I'm assessing what we have in front of us is that um to me all the other things that have been discussed in the public about equity, equality, personal rights. To me, I think that for me the biggest thing is coming down to trying to tighten up a couple of the things that that we are seeing our neighborhood our other regional neighbors sort of struggle with. And so I am happy to have my colleagues convince me otherwise. Um I am certainly I'm certainly conflicted. So I'm I really do want to hear from from my colleagues.

Secondary councelor Mlan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I've certainly read all the letters and and uh communications and given it great thought and listen to folks this evening as well. And um uh I always try to look at things from multiple aspects. but also um I just felt I needed to make this point in respect to Highland residents in an existing neighborhood and um and how they might perhaps feel or respond to maybe hearing about a a home that's proposed to be 700 m being built next door to their property. and um you know based on uh the um maps that I believe were at the uh open house which I just saw them today.

uh you know there's quite a few properties that bylaw 484 um could potentially impact. And so say you for a person who might be rather upset or concerned about a very large house going in next door, what what is their what is their recourse? Um, so we have I assume this is up at the uh open house where we there's really only one that's close to 700 square meters and that looks it's it's less uh but it's the Calire um building. And if I can just ask staff a quick question while I have the mic. Um the apartment down by the co-op that 8,000ish square feet is that just the footprint or is that vertical as well?

So so all the measurements in that are just footprint. Okay. Um, so the one I get the best vision, aerial vision from is is Cal Ky. And so I can't uh, you know, I can't help but think that uh, it's obvious a lot of um, disturbance would be done on the property. a lot of trees would come down and I don't know was it is it really necessary? So, um I haven't made up on my mind on this. I didn't come here this evening with my mind make up made up on this for the record. Um anyway, I just wanted to make that comment. you know, so there's also residents out there that we have heard from that are not in support of this and they gave their reasons. Um, there may very well be obviously other residents that are totally oblivious um to to to this uh bylaw, draft bylaw at this time.

and you have to give it first and second reading in order to have it to go to a public hearing. And so that's what was done in order to hear from from the public. And um and so we did take steps back and requested that staff hold an open house, which they did. We did a staff did a mail out to all the property owners that might be sorry the the actual property address that might be impacted by this and everything was readvertised and um that that cost a fair bit of money but uh it's worthwhile to do. Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you, Counc.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm I'm glad we had another opportunity for public engagement and the open house to share information and more time for neighbors to connect with each other and talk about it and another public hearing to listen from our community members on this. Um I've been on council now 12 years and these are very difficult decisions to make. They are not fun at all. And we have to weigh everything. And there's a lot a lot here. There's a lot of really good points that have been spoken to tonight that I've made notes on. And I actually agree with a lot of them and I understand.

you know, we all want our privacy, our rural lifestyle, our property rights and and I really started to think about this idea of the case by case evaluation because all the properties are very unique in the highlands. We all know that there's no very few that are have anything in common from their vegetation to their shape to everything. It's even hard to know most half the time whether what's the lot what's a back a rear lot line and a side lot line. It's not straightforward. [snorts] We know this. [laughter] Um, but so then I started going down that rabbit hole of what it would look like case by case. That would mean every single building permit would have to come before these zones that would uh have a 700 square meter new maximum principal dwelling limit on them.

[snorts] And you just start to see how expensive that would be. It would be time consuming. It would make a lot more staff time. So, we'd have to hire more staff members. We'd have probably double the number of council meetings. And then all of the public would also see everybody else's business because it would be in the public meeting of what everybody was doing. And that in and of itself started to be, wait a second, that's almost like a violation of your your right to do this. Go to the district office and get your permits. and nobody knows what you're doing. You got your permit, you're doing it by the rules, but it would make it public for everybody then. So, how could we possibly do that case by case? And so, I thought, no, that doesn't make any sense. Taxes would go up, everybody would know everybody's business, and it's just that wouldn't write work either. So, so then I started to look at it more through uh you know, could we

grandfather the 700 square meters in and we heard from staff, no. Uh and those are rules that Highlands doesn't make. We have to follow how we operate in these meetings. Everything from higher levels of government. There's certain and that takes a long time to learn on council. It's like why can't we just do it? You know, why why do we have to do that? It doesn't make any sense. Well, we have to do it because it's higher levels of government that give us our power. And so then I started thinking about all this back again. Okay, what does everybody in Highlands have in common? Water, you know, on-site, you know, septic treatment and that sort of thing.

We all have that in common. You know, we have a lot of other views and values and but there's so many things that impact water. And if we and we're starting to really learn that water in the highlands is probably our most precious resource. And whatever we do to the land, we do to the water. And then you think about all these different lots that could in the future have 700 square meters. And that really starts to concern me. If more and more people are living on the land and using more water and having more septic, that's going to that's going to cause some serious issues.

I certainly share the values about families being able to live together. My parents lived with us for quite a while. And uh and uh we have rules in the Highlands for that as well. We have secondary suite policy now that we didn't have for so long. And we and that means we're allowed two dwelling units, one principal dwelling and not over 700 square meters if this goes forward and one accessory dwelling unit. And the accessory dwelling unit could be within that 700 square meters or it could be a separate and that doesn't change at all with this. There's most of the things that you're allowed to do or not allowed to do and all the rules do not change with this bylaw.

So at this point I'm unless I hear something from my colleagues, I'm going to be supporting this. Thank you, Councelor Anderson. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, first I just wanted to thank those of you who came out to speak to us tonight or who were participating in some way and in particular those of you who took the time to talk to your neighbors and uh and to you know go through and try to learn as what you could about this. Um I think that's really helpful and I do really appreciate people bringing forward their ideas and opinions. Um it is a weird format uh this this when can you speak when can you ask questions? It creates this kind of stilted divide. it's not the most comfortable place for us to try to engage. Um, you know, I am listening to the questions or the concerns as they come up. I'll probably try to answer a few of them if I can here on the way through. But I think in part one of my summary feelings is some of the issues that are, you know, causing people

concern or coming to mind um are not [clears throat] in fact, as I think and counselor was just mentioning, they're not necessarily the issues that are raised by this bylaw. they are other kinds of issues or things that are already limited in some other fashion. I don't think the impact um of this bylaw is what it has been purported to be. Um you know, so for example, the idea you can only have a certain number of kitchens is already the thing that is going to decide how many houses you can build on your property. Uh not this particular restriction. Um, and there's other, you know, zoning or subdivision or um, density type type considerations that are already in play. And, you know, the questions of of referring to it as a sort of blanket, probably people don't mean to refer it to that way because they know it's not applying everywhere. Um, this is a very large limit that only applies to to properties or to zones that do not already have one. And this this particular uh limit

is double and in some cases closer to triple what's already in place for other zones in the highlands. Um so when I came into this conversation today, I don't have my mind made up for sure on where to go with this. I know that I understand and I do support in principle what this bylaw is trying to do and I don't mind standing behind that and letting you know that because you have a right to know what I'm thinking. Um some of the concerns that were raised though do trouble me a little bit and it is because they refer to this perception of process um or things being sped through and that sort of stuff or us not being approachable to talk about it or people not having a chance to hear. Um I I'm not fond of that being the perception that we would leave behind on uh a topic that is obviously got got people's interests and I'm not wanting us to um

to create this impression that we're not interested in hearing or that somehow minds were already made up because I it's certainly not the case with me and in in my experience working with the folks around the table with whom we often disagree. I know not everybody watches all the meetings and I wouldn't even suggest you go back and check out all the YouTube but um we don't agree with each other uh on in many different combinations quite regularly. Um but it is typically done with a great deal of respect. So I'm I'm seeing that continue including with our um public participants tonight. So I'm appreciative of that. But one of the other considerations that comes to mind for me is that you know the idea of saying okay what if we took more time?

what um what what might we want to try to accomplish with that more time? For me, the motivation and taking more time is in part the idea that people are actually interested in listening and learning and that the issues that are raised are ones that might change what we what this bylaw would ultimately do. So, I'm not absolutely sure that um that because of the the fact that they were dealing to some extent with a little bit of misinformation or confusion on some points, not all. I'm not trying to say everything that was raised in opposition is somehow just misinformed. But there's a certain amount, I think, of um concern and distrust out there about what this bylaw does that I don't believe it does. Um and so we could take some time to probably consider what kind of communication is it communication we do to support having made a decision or communication we try to undertake in advance in order to help people um come along with that conversation. So that's

more of where I'm kind of concerned at this point. I do feel like the sort of basic intent and the content of this bylaw is something I can support. whether it should be supported tonight in this fashion is something I'm still feeling a little um unclear about. So I'm happy to hear further from others on that as well. All right. I don't have any names on the list, so I'm going to weigh in here. [clears throat] I'm very uncomfortable with this bylaw. I'm uncomfortable because I hear concern from the public. the public that uh wants to be involved, a public that wants to communicate with council, a public that's asking for more process, a public that wants to contribute, and and I appreciate members of the public coming in and giving giving their statements tonight. Um, we're having that conversation now. I think this bylaw and its effect, it's a big deal.

We're covering a lot of different properties and highlands and it's something that needs a lot of discussion, a correct discussion over over a longer time frame and you know I I really feel that uh one size may not fit all. I I think um many in the highlands is a very unique and it's a beautiful place and uh we want to all protect our rural lifestyle and I've I for one been watching ever since I've been here these large properties and the owners on these properties these lots this is what's saved the this is what's made the Highlands great and it's not something that should be changed easily. It's not something that's arbitrary.

This is something many Highlanders like the way it is in Highlands and uh you have to appreciate that. So I can't support this by line by any shape or form. And just just to be um just to add a few things to that, it's um the bylaw restricts property rights without meaningfully improving affordability, envir environmental protection or royal character. The existing zoning setbacks, DPA, septic regulations, and environmental rules already manage the real impacts. The one-sizefits-all floor area cap is an imprecise tool that reduces flexibility for rural land owners while offering very little measurable public benefit. And uh I'll leave it with that if anyone else has anything more to say. Council councelor uh Anderson here for this more. There you go.

Uh thank you, mayor. Just a quick comment on uh some of the points you've raised. Um from my perspective and I possibly for some the idea that this was uh about affordability um that that may have had some appeal and perhaps it even accomplishes that, but it's not part of my sort of frame of reference here. it's not part of what is driving this conversation for me. Um, so I don't I don't expect it to accomplish that. So to say this bylaw doesn't create affordability, it probably also doesn't create, you know, new trees. Um, I don't expect it to. So that's that's one aspect of it. I think the other aspect and it's I tried to get at this but poorly before is that I I appreciate that there are quite a few folks and probably a lot of them on the larger properties in the highlands who just would really prefer we didn't have more regulation. Anything that that is imposed upon um abilities or what feels like it's going to be an imposed, you

know, restriction on abilities to choose to use your property how you want. Um, it won't matter what that number is. It it may not ever be acceptable. And it's really about that that I think a number of of people who spoke tonight, and it's been in a few of the letters at least, that sense of I come to the Highlands because I I want to have that sense of freedom. I can do what I want on my property. And we have we have changed that over the last decade or two. Um, I mean, not just us, it's changing in a lot of communities because I think we're partly recognizing that those ideas of where those edges on our borders are around our property really aren't that clear. You know, we all sort of recognize now that smoke goes up in the air and across and, you know, the water activities on our property affect our neighbors. So there really is a lot more connection there than we sometimes acknowledge because we're all kind of

happy to have our space and our our privacy and use that the way we want to. So I'm also recognizing that um to some extent there will never be an acceptable version of this bylaw for for some folks. They may there's you know certainly um perhaps grudging acceptance um from some who would say I don't really like it but I get it. Um, but I'm also sensitive to the fact that there are a few for whom the answer will never be okay. Councelor Mlan, sorry, you keep pushing your mute button on. You got back on. Yeah. Okay, I'll get you restarted here. Try that. Thank you. Sorry about that. Uh, I just had a question through to staff. Um, and maybe they can answer this broadly speaking. maybe they are uncomfortable in doing so. But I just sort of had a question around um sort of the notion of uh property rights.

Um just thinking back uh like some information I heard or read a number of years ago. So, I was just wondering um if staff could comment on um knowing that they're not legal counsel on the uh interpretation or the scope of property rights. Um I have heard in the past and read in the past that property rights really actually are not existent per se. And so I just wondered if staff had any information on that for us this evening. I think it's a a pretty broad topic. Um but certainly um zoning is discretionary, inherently discretionary. So the fact that a zoning bylaw exists and people chose to live here, they are allowing that discretion for their property. Um, so property rights though I like as a planner, I'm just looking at your zone like zoning, permitted uses, density, those sorts of things. And then so I I Yeah.

So it's too broad of a topic. So, do you mean because what you're speaking to from my perspective at what you've just listed, that's legislation. Yes. Okay. And so within that scope, they have those property rights. Is that what you're saying? Yes. And so, okay. Yeah. But I'm I don't see it referred to as property rights. So, I I don't even know that I could could comment. Yeah. I mean it's my understanding like a property owner has um for example a property owner has the right to enjoy their property and uh the right to um for example say peace and quiet or some of those kind of aspects but I'm not sure what the scope of this in respect to people and I'm just trying to understand it I'm not uh criticizing it um to understand how potentially property rights are being imposed upon.

Other than um perhaps at this time there is no uh restriction or limitation on a a principal dwelling on a property lot. And then if if if bylaw uh 484 was if bylaw 484 was uh potentially adopted, then there would be. And so I guess um you know I guess someone might say, well, I bought that property a long time ago. I always was going to build a house over 8,000 square feet and now I can't do it. You know, I I'm just trying to understand if So, councils have the legislated ability and it's within your jurisdiction to zone any property to anything you want.

It comes at a cost or it can come at a cost. You have that jurisdiction now. Um, so I guess I would I would point out that I'm not here to defend or oppose the bylaw. I'm here to explain the what it does and what it doesn't do. Um, for a community that speaks to the environment as being high on its list of things it believes in, having no limit on a house seems like like that is an inherent sort of control regulation that the council has the ability to regulate. um putting a limit on a house size, you're not changing the uses. It's a limit that's considerably larger than any other zone that exists.

Um for as long as I've been here, councils have been putting limits on house sizes. So it's it is entirely up to council what you wish to do. Um staff are here to deliver your your direction. Um I I believe the bylaw is worthwhile. I believe it it uh accomplishes what's in the OCP. I think there are people who support it and I think there are people who oppose it. Um, and I respect all those views. Thank you. Did you want to speak statist speaker there? Thank you, mayor. [clears throat] Sorry. Thank you, mayor. Um uh I I'm not anticipating that if we uh proceed with this bylaw and improve it that there's going to be a rush on people building 700 square meter houses.

So I think it's still going to be limited to the people who need or want those things. So I'm not I I don't feel like this is a big risk we're taking if we do approve this. Um, and and I think I'm I'm left with that because it's clearly something that's very important to a lot of members of the public. So, I want to I want to respect that. So, I'm I'm I'm inclined to to um uh um follow the bylaw and vote in that direction, but that would be the basis. Uh Gordon. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. mayor and thanks for the discussion. I appreciate it and I I think that uh I certainly uh appreciate the comments from both mayor and councelor Anderson. Um one of the things that I think about and [sighs] I regulation as a as a as a council member the more regulations that you have the more operational pressure goes in that direction. So regulations are not uh necessarily a wonderful thing to have

because it means that you have a lot more work to do and a lot more things to to address. And I and I sort of and I respect the the idea that um that we've tried the staff has tried to present a house size that really kind of captures everything. And I think that's been said, you know, it's been said in the reports and I I appreciate that. Um so bringing in a regulation that um is potentially not operationally heavy on staff and not operationally cumbersome on the community. though I do suspect from hearing tonight that there's the potential of I think Evan's comments uh and and I and I if uh one of the other gentlemen that were was here that there that there could be impacts there and for that um I I would like to think that we would be able to address that as a council members and address those items in that manner. What I what I would like what made me think about when I first landed on council here, the prior council had brought in us soil uh

the soil deposit removal bylaws. And I also recognized that um that there was as those soil deposit and removal bylaws were implemented, we began to see some of the some of the flaws in there. And I think we had maybe two amendments fairly rapidly to the soil uh to that to those bylaws. And so it is something where I think that if we're seeing uh potential that these that there are some unexpected impacts that we would be able to consider some of those uh changes rather rapidly or future council changes them rather rapidly as the case was earlier. So, [sighs] um, so in in comments to councelor Anderson's speed, um, and not wanting to limit the the opportunity. [sighs and gasps] I I guess I'm not quite too sure as to what that would offer that wouldn't be offered by being able to see things that would come forward from the bylaw being approved and then being able to react to them. Um I think that both have both have merit.

Uh, and I guess my my question actually it brings up a question to staff is that to and recognize staff has put a put a bylaw in front of us for consideration. If we were to um consider this bylaw on house size, um what sort of sort of at a more whether it be um one of the letters was, you know, that it it be sent to the next council meeting. So I'm thinking about strategic planning and generally we try and deal with our own strategic plan within our our our time frames but what other methods or what other potential outcomes from the could potentially be seen? I mean the you've heard from people tonight you've you've been at the open house. Are the var is it just a matter of changes to expanding that house size or uh my concern about the large lots? I'll [snorts] wait for staff and I'll make a comment about the the large lots, but I don't know if it's even a question you

can answer through the mayor. So if if council has um direction you would like staff to follow. So for example um maybe there should be a different lot size for larger properties or sorry larger home size permitted for larger properties. The only the struggle with that from the staff perspectives perspective is that there are so many such a variety of lot sizes within a single zone. Um and so that creates another layer of of difficulty in in um and administering it. Thank you. Um certainly the uh lot coverage makes some sense. I think that's more functional in an urban municipality where the lot sizes are smaller. Um I can see some of the concerns about we have a large property.

Why, you know, I'm using a a tenth of such a small percentage. Um, if I guess if council gives staff direction to investigate that further, we can. I don't know if I don't know when we would be able to bring it back uh for within this council's term. Um, I think one thing I would offer is that if staff over the next six months sees this becoming a hardship on comm community on the community, then I think staff would bring forward a a recommendation for um a higher lot size minimum on or sorry a lot size maximum. The other thing I will offer is that there are some properties that it's like the some property should be reszoning. It shouldn't they're not using it's not a home that's 700 square meters. And so even if they they were to bring in a building permit, the building permit would be we'd have to say no, you you need to reszone first because your use isn't consistent with what the the use is not consistent with residential use.

Yeah, thank you. And I think what that that saves me from asking another question or making a comment on lot size. Uh and I think that the fact that we do have a number of different zones or zones similar the same zone but with quite a wide variety of lot sizes on it that it's it's a complicated thing. I think um where I'm probably leaning is that I'm willing to move forward with this. I trust that if we need to make amendments such as we did with the soil bylaw that we can do that and that um if there are issues that need to be addressed that are either spot zoning, reszoning or variances that uh that they'll be considered on their merits.

So thank you councelor and thank you Mr. Mayor. Uh I'm leaning towards simplicity now myself in that if if we adopt this or have third reading and adopt this bylaw then if anyone that has one of these lots that this impacts there's it's a straightforward process to come to council for a variance to build a house that's bigger than 700 square meters. And what we're seeing in our community and in other rural communities is that industrial businesses are beginning to set up under the guise of a homebased business and they're doing activities that can potentially impact groundwater. And it keeps coming back to water for me. And if we don't have a limit on that size of uh principal dwelling, we then are going to end up with more businesses that are more industrial. And it's and it's such a shame that a few people that that wouldn't be following the rules about land use would require that Highlands consider something like this. But it's just the way it is. If we want to protect the

water, we have to have a business licensing bylaw. We have to differentiate between a land use that allows principal dwellings and accessory uses and industrial businesses. And it's for the the greater good. And it's a hard it's hard when the community's upset over this, but there are and if it impacts anybody in any way, come and ask council for a variance or a resoning. That's the process and it's the same process for everybody. So, I'm going to support this tonight. Yeah, there's certain I mean there's uh it's like symbolic policym is what I'm hearing from some of my fellow counselors here. And that's with, you know, you can what I hear is the the the kind of uh well, let's keep the bylaw and we'll add amendments to it and uh we'll turn it into this large Frankenstein of, you know, different amendments and attachments that when really the basic bylaw is just doesn't fit our community.

And I think we got to realize that. So um I I think it's something that you're either the tendency of your thought leads toward I like to regulate people. I like to control central control people. I like to you know tell them how to live on their property if I can by regulation and creating more and more regulation. So you have this kind of attitude in society or you don't or you trust people and you work with people and you have people make those common things. So I'm I just I just see a lot of tendencies and centralizing of authority during not just municipal but all levels of government. It be it's a problematic thing in in our society to me that uh one size does not fit.

Can't support it. Councelor Anderson. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to take a bit of exception to uh to the comment just with respect to sort of cutting the ideas that have been shared tonight into a binary of either your for imposing your view on people uh and creating Frankenstein bylaws or your for freedom, goodness, justice, and the well-being of the planet. I don't think it's quite that clean a divide. Um, you know, certainly I think I'd be very cautious about trying to impose additional regulation on on my fellow Highlanders because I think it creates that impression. I think it creates the impression that you've just spoken to is that there's somehow this overbearing um control that, you know, some people just enjoy and and I'm assure you I'm not in that camp and I don't have the impression anybody else around the table is either. Um, where I do tend to land more in favor of of this approach is its ability to try to just sort of close off a gap in things that allow us to try to ensure that the the privacy, the clean

water, the safety, the you know the sustainability, all of those things um actually continue to exist in the highlands. So my my uh connection to this is about doing what I think in fact the OCP asks us to do with respect to how to ensure that we are limiting certain kinds of develop in a way development in a way that doesn't infringe and impinge upon people's ability to enjoy their property and to live in the way they'd like to in in this community. though it is not at all with respect to saying I'm looking to um control and regulate and somehow otherwise dominate um the privacy and individuality of the my fellow citizens.

So just wanted to suggest there's more room on that spectrum than the two binaries. Yeah, thank you for your comments. I agree and I think we have some very good laws in place right now. And I guess my question is, is this a good law or not? And it seems very arbit arbitrary that it's a subject subjective question. You know, what what constitutes an appropriate home size is a subjective because there could be larger houses that are more envir environmentally efficient than smaller houses. There could be larger houses that use energy and and are more environmentally conscious than than some of the smaller houses that already exist.

Um that's just what it is. It is um I think the the I think we have broad discretion over the law lawful use of their land. I think we're we're all we should be all in agreement on that. And that's all I meant. So I'm not seeing any further hands up. So, I will call the [laughter] Sorry, we're we're on a motion now. And so, uh, without seeing any more, I'm going to call the question. All in favor of the spy law? Those opposed? Seems the bot passes. Don't fix it.

Thank you for the reality. We all

All right. So, yes. Right. Right. Discussion. All the questions. All those in favor? Posted. I'm opposed. That carries. All right. On to eight. And this is uh 8.1. Ryder has tour to Victoria. recommendation. All those in favor? None oppose. That carries. And then we have a draft 2025 annual report and the corporate officer will introduce. So, um we worked on the annual report this past um past couple of months and it reflects all of the accomplishments and the things going forward in 2026. Um and if council has any questions regarding the report, we're here to answer them. Any questions? Councelor Anderson, my uh book closed on me here.

It's gonna have to be reset. Just speak loudly. Okay. Sure. There we go. Thank you. you. I didn't mean to cause such a administrative kathuffle. Sorry about that. Um I almost had a question but I figured it out because I saw some expenses in there associated with my name and the Sophie which is are we on anyway. Um but the annual report I thought was very well put together and I really appreciate um how staff have managed to kind of fit in so much information about what happened over the last year and uh do it in a way that's pretty accessible and easy to read. So thank you for that and uh I appreciate the work you did.

All right. All right. All those in favor? Opposed? Not opposed. That carries. And that brings us to 8.3. And this is the uh the Sophie report, which is the 2025 statement of financial information. I'll second discussion. See none. Nicole question. All those in favor opposed. None opposed. That carries. Brings us to adjournment. All those in favor closed. At