Transcript: Regular Council - Jul 06 2026

Good evening everyone. Welcome to our July 6, 2026 regular council meeting. We acknowledge meeting in the traditional territories of Laquangan Catton and Hokam and speaking First Nations with whom we are committed to building stronger working relationships. Tonight's meeting is being livereamed and recorded enhancing transparency, inclusiveness, accountability, and efficiency. Members of the public can watch live or view through 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. Council has a lengthy agenda this evening. Interest in the interest of making best use of our time and ensuring all business can be considered. I ask that members keep their questions and comments relevant to the item before council and refrain from straying into unrelated matters. Where possible, please avoid repeating points that have already been made and keep comments concise. Focused and efficient discussion will help us move through the agenda while ensuring all items receive appropriate consideration. Thank you.

So with all that being said, uh members of the public are welcome to share their comments during petitions and delegations portion either in person or electronically to speak at the meeting and receive the Zoom information. The public was asked to request to speak through the meeting portal. We have one person who has registered to speak. Is there anyone else who hasn't registered but wishes to speak? Please raise your hand. [clears throat] Name and address, please. Address. Yeah. All right. Anyone else uh wish to speak this evening? Seeing none, I'll look for approval of the agenda. By council Ring, seconded by councel Mlane. Discussion. Seeing none, I call the question. All those in favor move. None opposed. That carries.

All right. And that brings us to petitions and delegations. And uh do we have Adrien Selby here this evening? Adrien, please turn on your microphone at center stage. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Adrien Selby. I live in the Highlands at 3320 Lakeridge Place. This is about the um the notice on title at 119 Rosants. Uh in the interest of transparency, I want to mention that I've done contracting work for Cedar Song in the past. I'm not speaking on their behalf and I'm not involved in their current compliance work. I'm here because I followed this process process closely over the past years. And because I care deeply about good governance and the relationship between residents and our local government, I'm not here tonight to debate the history of this file. Council has that information before it. My question tonight is whether a section 57 notice is the right tool at this moment.

I recognize that a section 57 notice is an important tool. It exists to provide transparency to future purchasers, lenders, and insurers and to provide and to encourage compliance. Those are all legitimate purposes, but the owner at 119 Ross Garants isn't trying to sell this property. If the owner needs financing to complete the decommissioning and permitting work that still lies ahead, a notice on title could make obtaining that financing more difficult. If that's the case, I respectfully question whether placing a notice on title today advances compliance or unintentionally makes it more difficult to achieve. Another point in the staff report stood out to me. Council directed the owners to work with staff to implement interimm safety measures. The report also states that when the owner's contractor contacted the district to ask what interimm safety measures would be acceptable, the district advised that it had no specific requirements.

That left me feeling that the collaborative process had not yet been exhausted. My concern does extend beyond this particular property though. There are many properties in the Highlands with legacy compliance issues that have accumulated over decades. The decision council makes tonight will inevitably send a message about how the district responds when owners engage with long-standing compliance problems. If people who come forward engage with the district and begin the difficult process of resolving long-standing issues, conclude that the result is a notice on title before every reasonable opportunity for compliance has been exhausted. I worry that others facing similar legacy issues may decide it's safer not to come forward at all.

One of the strengths of good local government is that it creates an environment where residents feel they can come forward, acknowledge difficult problems, and work with the district towards a solution. My hope is that tonight's decision reinforces that kind of relationship. I fully appreciate council's responsibility to enforce its bylaws fairly and consistently and I support that responsibility. But enforcement is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. If compliance is the goal, and I believe it is, then I respectfully ask council to consider one question before making its decision tonight. Does placing a section 57 notice on title today remove barriers to bringing this property in compliance or create new ones?

If you believe that there is still a realistic path to achieving compliance through a clearly defined timeline, continued work with staff and practical interimm measures while the remaining regulatory processes are completed. Then I respectfully ask you to allow that path to continue before taking this next step. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. We'll move on. Other speaker of course will come on in in section 10 when this item comes up. So we'll move on to adoption of the minutes. And apparently we can uh we can adopt June 15th public hearing report, the June 15th regular council meeting, the special council meeting and the June 22nd special council meeting. And also the minutes can be received. So all seven items March 11th special heritage June 12th West Parks and Rec and May 21st 2026 West Parks and Rec. They can all be done in one motion. Moved by councelor Gord Barrett, second by councel Rousing.

discussion. Let's see. None. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries. Now we [clears throat] have reports of committees and commissions. Uh councelor Anderson and myself submitted some. Are there any questions, comments regarding our reports or additional reports from members of council this evening? All right. And I will shall move on on to item five. So we have uh ratific ratification of committee recommendations and the special heritage select committee meeting was June the 10th 2026. So I at this moment I would like to invite Sally Go and Alan Do to present the summary of research and recommendations for the production of Highlands lime kiln. I believe the mics's on. Thank you. Um we're going to just move this a little bit so we can see our presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity. feels a bit of a momentous occasion because this uh project has had a very long gestational period, but um it's fair to say that it took longer than we wanted it to, but uh energy and continuity was sometimes hard to keep up keep up in between meetings. So, um but we're really pleased to be here this evening and to share our findings and conclusions um with our report. So, we just wanted to uh There we go. We just wanted to clarify the objectives of the report and our work over the last few years and it we really wanted to consolidate the information that we had available on the on the Highlands Limekill and so that was important. And then the second bullet really guided our work. This the new information that we brought to the file and that was regarding the size of the operational footprint and the nature and scale of operations at the Limekil site. And [clears throat] and of course we wanted to develop recommendations

because we had existing recommendations in the report and then we felt it was the role of our committee to develop recommendations for the for the protection and and the next steps to take. So why is it important? This is a a question that came up in our discussion a lot and we recognized it was important for three reasons. One of it's part of our heritage value. So, it's uh tangible evidence of the industrial history that is part of heritage, Thailand's heritage and certainly there's remnants of of copper mines and logging and um barbwire fences from sheep hurting and even even a farm. And um I think we're grateful that none of these endeavors were that successful. We wouldn't have the highlands we have today. But nonetheless, industrial history is part of our heritage. Um, as well, in one of those life's uh, you know, wonderful circumstances, I needed a ride home from a Heritage BC conference up in Animo in 2019 and end up getting a ride from Richard Lindsay, who at the time was the um, the branch, the director of the

Heritage BC branch. So, we're driving along and I said, "Oh, I live in the Highlands." and he practically jammed the brakes on, oh, you live in the highlands, you have a lime kiln. So, he is very much, you know, his area of expertise is an industrial uh her heritage and as well just keenly enthusiastic about it. So, he really broadened um our understanding of of it. And through this we began to start to appreciate that the our small lime kiln here was was part of a a much bigger um enterprise and that in fact there was sort of a joint marketing that that took place with the smaller lime kils um and it is one of the few remaining examples that we have. So, we heard that from Stuart Stark and from Richard Lindsay and Ben Gorley, another um person that helped us that it's an example of a rare a rare type of uh kilm construction and that it's a small size and it's built up against a a hill. So, it's a very early industrial design. Um

we'll go to the next slide and and Alan can talk about the operation. I think it's important just to quickly talk about how the lime kiln worked. And this doesn't represent our lime kiln. It's probably a little bit bigger, but our lime kiln would have had all of those elements that exist in this one. So the limestone was mined out of the ground and it was poured down that that chimney and there and then there was a fire opening partway down the stack where they would take firewood and build fire and cook the limestone. And then the cooked lime would settle down into the receiving tray or the oven and that's where the the quick lime was pulled out.

And so all of those elements would have taken place here in the highlands. And the important thing for us was the linkages of the operation. So we thought well one there was wood cutting and that's not unusual for the highlands. So that didn't really help us in our in our work. But we did contemplate the handling of the lime because it's very um uh basic and it if water comes into contact with quick lime, it's very um costic and it'll burn people. It'll burn skin like and so it has to be removed from moisture. So we wondered about storage facilities and that kind of thing and and this is really what guided our our our research.

So this is um as we said in our report kind of what our our process. So we started with Stuart Stark and then we had Millennial Research do more of a site investigation with their historical archaeological work but then we still felt that there was more that we needed to discover. So we did additional site visits and and the other points that you can see there which I'm going to go through. But as I said in the report, it really started with Bob and Nancy McMman and Daphne Allen who just have such a keen interest in the Highlands heritage and we're starting to poke around and and question things.

So this picture is of a site visit with um Stuart Stark and there's members of our committee and then two members from Ecoasis. So Stuart Stark's report really grounded us in starting to understand like how the kiln actually worked and how it kind of fit in the highlands as well as within the district. Um and it provided some recommendations um around the preservation of the site and a concept plan and we'll we'll talk about that at the end of it. Another site visit uh was with Ben Gorley and so through Richard Lindsay um the two of them came up and gosh I mean I think I met them in May and then in by August we we had um a site visit uh with them and it was so interesting to be there with Ben who could look at this you know can look like a pile of rubble and like oh I see the corners and oh this is where that happened. Then we go up. We had Ecoasis with us as well. So we could go

on their property and his eye he just saw that that line of lime going through and he could see the corners and the sharp edges of it. So it was very very beneficial and and as I said their enthusiasm about it, you know, really really buoyed us. So that was uh something that was kept us going. So, in that picture, as Alan was saying, he uh so he had some of this calcium hydroxide and he added water to it and it's really kind of scary and exciting, but it certainly did bubble up and no one wanted to be near that. So, getting back to the other investigation that we had that was with the um Millennial Research and uh so we did contract them to conduct this assessment of the site. So the figure on the left shows um an overview of a map that they did that shows the footprint and it's hard to see on that but I hope you could notice in the report where the the boundary is between the two

properties but it certainly uh bisects the site and in fact goes right over the top of the lime kil. And then the slide on the the right are all what Cecilia did. She did the ground penetrating work and and so on. So, some of the um highlights from that are looking at the extent of the rubble, which is the the green um perforated lines there, which really is kind of the site that ideally we'd work with and be able to establish some of the the shape from there through careful work of exposing corners. Um and then the remnants of the loading ramp, which I think is the blue color there, and then the the two quaries. So the the bigger blob down towards the bottom right that's that's quite obvious it's a depression. You can see the corners and then that little wormy looking thing there is is a a smaller one but a a line quarry nonetheless.

And then these are some photos of the kil itself. So that's the the front draw hold and that's where they would pull out the lime and as Alan said they caring for it was really important. So probably the um shed and where the barrels were stored is probably would have been located where the parking lot is now. And then the photo on the the right that shows an exposed uh corner there and we'd be wanting to look for other sides of it. And the um metal bar would have been installed around the masonry to uh add to structural integrity. And then these are photos of the the quarry. So the one on the the left you can see the depression there and there's a right angle and then the one on the light right is a smaller one but it's a a faint line there.

So this timeline kind of represents the cobbling together of the information we got to try to build a coherent narrative. So we use the the term likely quite a bit in the report cuz you know we don't have anything uh firmly written in in stone. Um, but Hawkins did uh preempt it and did start it off and it seems like, you know, within a year's time. I mean, he would have done work leading up to 1883, but by the time Mills purchased it in 1884, it was for a considerable more amount of money. So, there were improvements made and improvements would need to be made for the preeemption. Mind you, that could have been farming or or other kind of building of things, but we feel quite confident to say that in that time the operation began and then it it ended in in 1908.

Um, and that's certainly one of the Ministry of Mine reports notes that um because of its uneconomical state that the limek had stopped. And then we have a couple of markers on the way. the advertisement with Rigglesworth when he was doing some of the conglomeration of the smaller of the smaller kils and then a little bit of uh f folklore well I shouldn't say folklore but um and small anecdotes uh from Jesse Bernard diaries and other places um that referenced going to Aldeir um buying buying lime And we have to include this ad in that storefront with Wigglesworth because he's kind of iconic figure at that time, very entrepreneurial uh very much involved with the Todd Inlet um kil and the the quarry and and so on. I think the um the one in the squy malt, the one in in co. So he was a go-getter and I think was trying to consolidate and and and make a go of it.

So seems like whenever we did reading at any everything came back to to Wigglesworth. Okay. So as I I mentioned um trying to understand how the operations worked at the site was one of our primary objectives because that were that was the real gap in in the other reports we felt. And so we started looking at imagery and I just this is our base imagery we started from and you can see the property lines there. The limekil the municipal hall is in brown and I just put that as an initiation layer so that you could see um compare it to the next photographs that I'm going to show.

And through our work, we found out that there was aerial historical aerial photography of the Highlands. And we wondered if we could get back far enough to actually see elements of the site. And so the year that the the photography was taken was 1926, which is just 20 years after the Highlands um mill was in or I'm sorry, the kiln was in operation. So that shows you basically the exact same layers uh except the base layer is the the 20 26 aerial imagery. And I don't know if you can see it on this slide, but when we did one of our site investigations, we found the footings of a of a building, and it's very clear in the in the image right about at the lower southeast corner of the purple circle.

And we wondered if that building was in fact part of operations. And we never could determine if that was determine that conclusively. And it's in fact it may have been part of the Hannington estate or buildings there. And in fact, the the the lime kiln was small. And so the storage could very well have been just a a wooden building right in the area of the municipal hall parking lot. And unfortunately with that disturbance, the creation of the lots, the construction there, we probably lost some evidence about how the site was used. Um, and it's really, this photograph is very interesting to me. And I'll just take a minute to you can see the the road going across the meadow or the wetland which was obviously being used for agricultural purposes. In this photograph, they were cutting for hay.

And you can see the road up to the Matson um estate as well, which is on the Bare Mountain property now. Um so this and you can see there's disturbance. I mean, this the imagery isn't at a resolution to really see what's going on, but you can see there's disturbance right around the lime kil. And that was still probably remaining from operations. The other thing that we looked at was we wanted to we thought the ramp was unclear. We we can see the existence of the ramp when we're on top of the lime kiln. It's clear where it ended, but we wanted to establish how did how was the ramp physically put on the site. And we thought that the LAR imagery would help us define another road. And so this is our LAR image that we created from the provincial data. And you can see clearly the limestone quarry depressions. You can see the lime the the the mound that is now the remaining parts of the lime kilm. And I just put in the municipal

hall there. But there's also some potential limestone quarry depressions just to the to the west of the of the hall. And unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to investigate those. Um, but in the end, the LAR is interesting as you can see, but it didn't it didn't really help us reveal where that loading area or loading road came up to the top of the limekill. So we as we started to move toward the recommendations, this is taken from Stuart Stark's report and this was his original buffer concept and that property line the purple's probably pretty accurate. Probably um the line that's in the millennia report is also pretty accurate. But this is the where that line is exactly is a is a matter for survey.

But it's also clear that it's bright through the middle of the lime kill. And the part that has value to us, well, the whole site has value to us, which is part of why we include this image. We need the buffer zone around the lime kiln. But the issue is the joint ownership of this lime kiln because it's not owned by the highlands exclusively because it falls on the boundary. It's jointly owned with Ecoasis and ultimately that's a key point of our recommendations and you can think of these as being sequential recommendations. It's the view of the committee that that we need to resolve the joint ownership issue to protect the site and that we recommend that research be done or some investigation be done into how that effective tools to do that.

And then following that and in the report we discuss a couple just suggesting um statutory rightaway maybe one lot line adjustment which is to say a form of subdivision just to isolate the ownership of of the limekil is critical to us because we don't know what the future lies for the district of highlands lot where the municipal hall is situated now. So for the for the public interpretation and and the long-term protection, we think it's important that that joint ownership issue be resolved. And the truth is, we don't talk about it in the report, but our planner was very helpful to us. Before we did any of our investigation work, we had to get clearance from Ecoasis to do that. So we can't even hardly go anywhere there without being on Ecoasis property. That is an issue to us and um we [clears throat] discussed it a lot. We thought about it a lot and ultimately that is why we took as long as we did and that is why we dug everywhere to

build up our level of confidence with the recommendations that we're making. Um did you want to speak to the conservation plan or do you want me just to continue? So following some resolution of the ownership, then it would be appropriate to do the conservation work which has been outlined in Stark's report and with notes from Richard Lindsay. And basically what we're talking about is we just need to pull some of the rubble back. We need to get rid of the the overgrown vegetation, do any tree removal. It's kind of a partial archeological restoration just to clean up the corners. So you can clearly see the corners and the public could clearly have a view of the pretty ornate brick work inside of the draw hole which kind of shows that this was a significant point of construction at the time.

And then finally um then a plan can be made for the interpretation of the site. And the committee the committee was really of the mind that that uh the stark report and the concept plan is absolutely what's required and is perfect for the site. We're not talking about restoration. We're talking, we are talking about public access and and a couple visual points, enough of a um a footprint to allow people to walk around the site and see the different points of view. Um and and the and the lime um excavation areas, the depressions as well. And so there would be a whole story board that would tell the story of um of the Highlands Limekill. So that's really the basis for our recommendations and a bit of an outline of our recommendations. They're sequential. We think they're important and uh we hope that you can uh find um a way to to move this this forward.

Um because I think it's important. if it doesn't move forward, we feel like despite the lime kiln being on the register, the Highlands community register, that's not protection. Um, a stop work order may be applied, but things would have to happen fast in that instance. So depending on what happens with that lot and and even if nothing happens I mean um the lime kiln for people that don't know anything about it and thankfully the district is right there to watch it but if that's not the case it it is vulnerable. So um we hope that you take the committee recommendations and thank you for the time today on a busy agenda.

Thank you. Oh, thank you so much, Ellen and Sally. Absolutely fascinating report. Uh we just your research is impeccable and it's just just I just found it so interesting. Thank you so much for that work. So, council, we do have a recommendation if anyone councelor Russie. Yeah, thanks that what an amazing report and how how interesting is that? It it must have been such a a wonderful journey to sort of find all this stuff. Amazing. Um I [snorts] see that the recommendation is only to receive the report and I'm wondering what further steps would be taken if we just received the report. Two staff maybe two staff receipt of the report would indicate no further steps would be taken. If council wishes for further steps to be taken, referral to staff to consider the report's recommendations might be the next most appropriate step. And that way staff could come back to council with um ideas based on the recommendations as to how to proceed.

That would seem to be a more appropriate motion is to refer this to staff for for a report and further recommendations. Um, so I'll make that motion. All right. All right. Uh, thank you. And and I have a quick question. So the so the arc that we can see in the parking lot there is the actually the bottom of the kiln, correct? So it to it must have towered above a long way. And so we just have a pile of bricks left from whatever was above. Is that correct?

There are similar which would be part of sorry I should have come forward. Um yes what you see in the parking lot is the bottom of the kiln. The chimney would have been above and it's mostly the rubble is large stones that were probably making up a chunk of the area where they put uh fired the kiln. And then above there may have been a steel receptacle at the very top, but we don't know. And we we have seen some photographs that we think in scale and style probably approximate what we what was there and those could be made part of interpretation if that were ever achieved.

Thank you. And and like a huge thank you for the effort and and detail that we've been given. Thank you so much. Councelor Gord Bear. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh and thank you very much. Um, I have a particular interest in lime. I think my daughter worked with you and Ben is a friend and I've worked with Ben on other restoration projects. Uh, and I did have a a question for you and I also had a question for staff. Um, in the process, uh, when we were doing the the lime work on our house, uh, they brought some people in from the UK to deal with lime.

They also had found the lime killed on Hart Road. And I'm just wondering in on Hart Road they didn't do a full reconstruction but they just take they tried to stabilize it. I'm just wondering if in this process if you'd seen the work on hard road to stabilize a line kil over in Cwit. Yeah. Yes. We've been looking at that lime kiln and [clears throat] we have I visited the site there and we had one of the I forget the counselor's name at this point but we had one of their counselors who worked on it for years present at one of our meetings a while ago. Maybe it was the Heritage Park Society in fact but in any case we're aware Alan Rogers is it uh John Rogers.

Yeah. And um but what I would say is our recommendation and Stuart Stark's recommendation is to clear away the obstacles of imagining what that lime kiln was. And it's not about restoration. It's about protection of the site and making a really uh good clear representation of what was happening there. and and that's quite distinguishable from active restoration. We really don't know what we'd be restoring and and it I think it would lose its its heritage values if yeah if we were to do something like that. So that's clearly why the committee has accepted what Stuart Stark his vision for interpretation and conservation. Yeah. Thanks. And I have a question for staff as well. Um when I was reading this and I was thinking that uh there's a there's a fair number of complexities involved with doing lot line adjustments and stuff like that with a very limited term that we have left and a very busy staff schedule.

And so my thoughts were what this would look like if this was recommended to the next strategic planning session of the next council. And I guess my question to staff is that um with referring this to staff, would we see this report before end of term or would it be going into the new council? And would you foresee that staff's recommendations would make up uh information for the next council strategic planning sessions? I do not believe a report would come back to council before the next election. a report could come back after that. Um maybe you know even early in January or February but it so it could be discussed during the strategic plan sessions um and maybe even start to inform budget.

Thanks. question just to follow up to that. So if it were to come, if the report were to come uh after strategic planning sessions had started, um would it also make sense to ensure that this were to go to the strategic planning session of the next council so that they were sort of pre-informed before the staff report came? Would that make sense? Or would it just be a mute point? It's already on the list so I'm sure it will be talked about not okay thank you mate. Thank you Mr. Mayor and thank you for joining us this evening in the presentation and so I'm just going to mention something that I'm sure you folks will recall. I used to be leison on to the committee for 12 years. So, I've read the Stark uh Stuart Stark report and been on a number of past site visits and um the uh calcium exploding jar almost. And um uh just a reminder that Highland staff in the past uh did bring forward a report um with possible options to protect and

possible locations for a possible covenant uh down there around the kiln. But however, this specific site does need to be pinned down uh so to speak, uh as um I'm sure the Highland Heritage uh select committee uh knows and then that way uh it would be more specific moving forward into potential specifics of a covenant and um and so forth. So um obviously this work helps move that forward. So I'm very appreciative of that. So, I just wanted to mention that because I certainly remember looking at at a bunch of ovals and circles of potential covenants down there. Thank you, Councelor Anderson. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a very quick comment to say thank you to the committee uh for all of your work and it's incredibly diligent and thoughtful and somewhat painstaking work. Uh, it was a real pleasure to just sit as the liazison to that committee for the last little bit and watch this come together.

Um and this piece of work in my view is incredibly significant irrespective of what happens next. I certainly hope we're able to take some steps um to support the recommendations, but the work itself really pulls together a really good picture and explores things in so many different dimensions. Um, so thank you again very much to to you and to your committee colleagues for making these connections that really help us see this as a regional piece as well and its connection to neighbors and businesses and other things of um, you know, relevance to the to the project itself. So kudos to you and thank you for your your work on this.

All right, thank you. Um, I was going to vote but we've lost a member for a second here. If anyone else has any further questions, might be a good time. Well, then I will take the vote even though the member is gone. Okay. All those in favor of council's motion opposed. Not opposed. That carries. So, thank you so much. That brings us to 5.2. And this is about the District of Highlands riding ring. And actually these next uh couple of motions all have to do with the committee as a whole. So we're not really discussing or debating items here as much as we are setting them up for because some of the other items like 53 and 54 will be appearing later tonight in the agenda. So 5.2 is the district hiding ring and uh and so a council perhaps. Um we we have Marissa Kell. Is she on online? She didn't show up. Okay. If we have any questions.

All right. All those in favor? Opposed? None and opposed. That carries. Oh, just just came. Sorry, it's been passed, but uh we were looking for you. All right. Thank you. You bet. It's It's been done. All right. We go on to uh 5.3. And this is the park fees and charges move by councel sing by councelor and bear discussion seeing none call question all those in favor opposed none opposed that carries 5.4 Four and a park and trail enhancement in [clears throat] Twinflower Park. Move by councelor saying second by councelor Stanton discussion. Seeing none call the question. All those you have a question counselor. Yeah. Get on record.

Okay. Starting over again. Um, so I thought staff was going to speak to to the report on the on the agenda. Is that not what's happening? Oh, okay. But the report speaks to having the consultants look at a different location for the uh uh bike [clears throat] jump park. First, we need to um approve the Okay. Right. Okay. Yeah. This is Elise from Cal. Okay. Thanks. All right. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries. All right. We have no laid items this evening. So, we go to unfinished business and that'll be 7.1. This is the uh 119 Ross Trans Road by section 57 bylaw compliance. And I'd like to invite our corporate officer to introduce. I understand the owners are also online.

Yes. Okay. Thank you, mayor. Um, section 57 of the community charter authorizes council to register a notice on title where a building or structure has been constructed, altered, or used in contravention of municipal bylaws, the building code, or other applicable enactments, or where conditions may affect the safety of a building. The notice serves as a disclosure mechanism to alert prospective purchasers, lenders, insurers, and other interested parties to um unresolved compliance or safety concerns associated with the property. In the case of 119 restaurants, council has been considering this matter since 20 October 2025 when council first received a recommendation from the building official to file a notice on title due to outstanding building and bylaw compliance issues. Building bylaw compliance matters associated with this property have been under [clears throat] active review by district staff since 2022.

Although progress has been made towards resolving outstanding issues, the property owners have indicated compliance process is expected to continue through to 2028. The legislation does not require a municipality to file a notice on title in every case of non-compliance. Rather, council has the discretion to determine whether filing is appropriate. The decision before council is whether to the outstanding contraventions warrant formal notice on title in the interest of public protection and transparency. The decision before council is not whether a notice on title is legally required but whether after ongoing compliance discussions and extensions the remaining contraventions warrant formal notice on title. Tonight we have our municipal planner and building official present who can provide more information regarding the status of the property and answer any questions that council may have.

All right. And I believe the next uh thing to do is to invite the property owners because they uh wish to address the council and make a presentation regarding this. Uh yes hello this is Elena speaking. I'm just looking to come on, but it seems that my video needs to be enabled. Oh, it's good. We hear you. There we go. Oh, sorry. There's some light. All right. Thank you. Hello, mayor and council. Thank you so much for your time tonight. Um, yes, I am here to speak to report on the progress made since April 7th and to respectfully request that council not file a notice on title um under section 57 of the community charter.

On April 7th, uh, council passed a motion granting a three-month extension uh, which we are appreciative of uh, during which we would work with staff to develop a temporary safety plan that addresses staff's concerns until the development permits can be processed. And uh we have done exactly that since April 7th. We have done the following. Uh one installed construction safety fencing. So we've installed construction fencing around the remaining non-conforming structures to prevent unauthorized access. Our contractor and the building inspector discussed the matter and agreed that this is the industry standard for interim safety measures and we've provided photographs um for your review. Um, two, we have completed a hazardous materials assessment. So, we engaged a qualified firm immediately following the April 7th meeting to conduct a contamination assessment of the structures. The assessment has been completed and the results received just two weeks ago, allowing us to finalize a detailed demolition and safety plan for each structure.

Um, three, a development permit uh the development permit progresses. So, as you know, three of the five structures are located within the development permit area, requiring a wrapper report before the de uh demolition permits can be issued. Uh Swell Consulting completed and submitted the rapper to the province on our behalf, and the province is currently still reviewing that report. There has been ongoing correspondence between the district, the province, and the environmental firm to clarify technical details. Uh the district cannot issue the development permit until the province accepts the wrapper, which is a step that is entirely outside of our control. and outside of the district's control. So, we both have done everything required. Um, and the delay is attributable attributable solely to the provincial review timeline.

Um, and then lastly, the demolition permits. So, yes, valid demolition permits remain in place for the other two of the five structures and the remaining three are dependent on completion of the development permit process. Um, so with the contamination assessment complete and the development permit process advancing, we are now in a position to commit to a staged demolition timeline as outlined in our letter for today's meeting. And the first demolition is scheduled to begin as early as this September. Uh the scope and cost of this work is is still estimated at around $200,000 with proper disposal of hazardous materials which have been detected. Uh this requires careful staging to ensure it can be completed fully and responsibly and we remain committed to doing that work. Um we are now in the very final stage of negotiating our new mortgage and it's taking time as there are two parties in ownership of this property, Stephanie and myself. and it's a longer process than a simple private mortgage. [snorts] Uh a section 57 at

this stage could jeopardize that and in turn our ability to fund and implement the demolition work that's already underway. Uh not a lot of people can suddenly put $200,000 into the demolition of buildings that they never built. Um can you imagine if suddenly all Highlanders were required to demolish all of the unpermitted buildings on their properties in this region? How hard would that be on everyone in the community? It is a lot of money and a lot of work and as such we believe the timeline that we've submitted is a solid way forward. Um why we believe a section 57 notice is not appropriate at this stage. So at the April 7th meeting, council heard clearly from multiple counselors that a section 57 notice is a compliance tool and not a punitive measure and that it is most appropriately used when owners refuse to cooperate. and that is evidently not the situation here. Staff confirmed at that meeting that we are sincerely working towards compliance and that our objective is the same as the districts.

Staff also confirmed that fencing and securing the buildings would significantly reduce concerns for liability, which we have now done. The motion council passed on April 7th did not include an automatic section 57 at the end of 3 months. It granted time to develop a safety plan with staff and we have done that. The development permit delay is attributable entirely to the provincial review process which is as we mentioned a factor outside of our control. Um we have been working very hard to address the legacy issues on this property and we are fully committed to bringing everything into compliance. As you know this property had a long history before our ownership with buildings and conditions that as we understand it were known to the district through tenant complaints and inspections over the years. The fire chief himself told us that he came to investigate an issue before our ownership. So, when we purchased the property, there was no section 57 on title and no warning to us of these outstanding issues. We raise this as context because we feel it's relevant to

council's consideration of whether registering a notice now against owners who are actively working to resolve inherited problems is the most equitable and effective course of action. Section 57 of the community charter is intended to disclose outstanding issues to prospective purchasers and to encourage voluntary compliance. We are the current owners. We are already aware of the issues and we are already complying voluntarily at significant personal expense in full cooper in full cooperation with staff. The transparency purpose of section 57 is therefore already fulfilled without a notice being registered. In addition, uh the courts have established that section 57 must be exercised judicially with careful consideration of the potential consequences to the landowner. The legislature explicitly recognized the potentially adverse consequences to a landowner when this provision is applied in consecences where it is not needed.

filing a notice on title against owners who are actively cooperating, who have secured the buildings and who have commissioned the required assessments and who are working through a provincial process outside their control would not serve the purpose of the provision. It would harm us without advancing the outcome that we all share. As such, we respectfully request that council one, note the ongoing progress with the development permit and confirm satisfaction with staff of the temporary measures in place, and two, decline to file a notice on title under section 57 at this time and allow us to continue working cooperatively with district staff towards full demolition in accordance with the timeline we've submitted.

Thank you so much for your time. We remain fully committed to this process and to working in good faith with the district to resolve this matter completely. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councelor B. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to make a motion that council not consider section 57 on title for 119 Ross Durant unless the owners become nonresponsive or cease making demonstrable progress towards compliance and that staff report back if either condition arises. All right. Move by councelor seconded by councelor Anderson and I will I'll motivate. I think we've heard two good motivations. Uh one by Mr. Selby won by uh Miss Howlet.

For the 12 years we've been in council, we have only used section 57s when we've had people that have been nonresponsive and nonwilling to engage the District of Highlands. I think that we have probably seen um us sort of kick this down the road three months at a time. we see that there's certainly uh a bit of a storyried history to how uh the section 57 was on, wasn't on, was back on this property. And I think that if we are using section 57s to be punitive rather than being constructive to bring people to the table, then it becomes a much more dangerous thing throughout the Highlands. And I think that our past's history of using it as a tool to bring people to the table has been the right tool. Uh and I'm not willing to veer off that path. I think that we've got a very uh very motivated uh property owner that is willing to that is showing that they're making big progress on trying to meet all the requirements that they need to. Thank you.

Thank you. I ask our secondary to speak next. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, and thank you, Councelor Bair, for for that summary. I think, um, as you mentioned, what we've heard tonight is is what I find a fairly compelling, um, set of rationale about why it doesn't make sense to apply section 57 at this point. Um, I would also offer that it asking staff to report back every 3 or 4 weeks or even every 3 or 4 months just to re raise the question of whether we want to consider this when things are still progressing as much as they can um with property owners doing what they can. It doesn't seem like a great use of staff time or council time. Um, so I would, you know, rather that that process was allowed to unfold in a way that allowed people to continue working on what they're doing. Um, and and you know, I appreciate the idea of of it not necessarily having to return to council unless there's some significant change that suggests council could provide some guidance, support, or a change of heart.

That would be my perspective. Thank you, Council Bruss. Thank you. A question for staff. Uh, two things. Do you feel that uh the proponents have cooperated and are doing their best to write the situation? And second, do you have any safety concerns still on the property? Uh through the mayor, uh yes, uh definitely the owners have been coop cooperating. Um uh we were [clears throat] very clear not to prescribe any interterm measures for safety as uh Highlands bylaws or the building code do not offer any midterm um or interterm sorry um measures. Um last week the owner's contractor did contact us and suggested the fencing and uh I could agree that typically uh on a construction site you will see this type of fencing to limit uh accessibility to the buildings. Um but this would fall more under a work safe um act or policy uh versus the Highlands bylaws or uh the building code. So, we we were careful not to suggest that this will make the

building safe, but uh as you first asked, uh there has been a lot of cooperation by the owners. Okay, just to follow up, do you have do you have safety concerns on still on the property? Well, it would it wouldn't be possible for me to say that these buildings are safe because there could be other things going on with the buildings that we're not aware of. Um I have not attended the site. Um I saw the uh some photos of the fencing which looks like they have um encapsulated the buildings which would limit accessibility to them. Thanks for that and I I will support the motion. Council Clay.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. So I have uh some questions through to staff through to staff if I may and then I have um I have some comments and I'm hope I'll be allowed to say them as most of my colleagues have spoken for a while already. Um so a question u through to staff. Um sorry I just temporarily lost my place here. Uh my goodness, what did I do with them? Here they are. Um so the property owners I believe uh already received um two extension periods by this council. Is that correct? Through our tour staff, through the chair. It came forward to council originally in October and then um it was supposed to come through to council in January, but we continued to work with um the property owner until April and brought it forward to council in April. And at that time, council did provide a three-month extension.

Thank you. And um another question for staff is so I guess because perhaps staff have not been on the property recently, I I obviously don't know. Um, have the outstanding concerns been addressed at all or to the satisfaction of District of Highlands building official andor the district's fire chief through the chair to staff through the chair. As previously mentioned, our our bylaws require uh compliance based on the building code. And so it it's not possible to say that um that uh compliance has been achieved at this point as these buildings are without permits. Um the requirement from the district is that they either get building permits for the buildings, alter them in such a way that permits can be issued or remove the buildings.

Uh thank you. And have the property owners provided to staff yet a um action plan for the property work uh to be done and also have they provided a safety plan as was discussed at the last council meeting on this [clears throat] on these matters. Thank you. um through the chair there uh in the letter that I have in front of me uh from the owners dated July 6th that was addressed to the mayor and council uh this would be what I have seen which looks appears to be a action plan and uh a safety plan from the owners. So an action plan for the demolition demolition dates is that's what you're referencing. Yes, correct.

And so and what's the safety plan? because I read the letter before the council meeting and it didn't stand out to me. So, I wondered if you could just identify that for me. Well, I've been very careful not to not to say that the buildings are safe um because I cannot declare that. However, I believe that the owners um believe that this is a safety plan um with the main action of encapsulating the buildings with a fence which limits accessibility or access to the buildings. Okay. Um but it's more than isn't the non-compliance or um the work that needs to be done is that not beyond um the I don't know how many five I don't I don't know if it's only five um buildings to be demolished is is is that all the problems are I thought the problems were broader than that. Can you remind me? Thank you. Through the chair staff.

I think formerly there were other bylaw non-compliance issues, but at this time the remaining compliance issues are related to the structures and buildings. Um there are the the five buildings that we have focused on. There are a couple of other very small structures that are within the riparian area that I believe is uh slated to also be demolish de demolished along with the buildings, but uh we haven't focused on those and they're not in this this letter. So, thank you. I wanted to ask staff that because people can write to council whatever their perception is and so I need to confirm these things with with staff.

So, I appreciate your your help with that. Um so regarding the um the motion that's been put forward, I have some comments I' I'd like to make. So for my perspective, continued extension um uh continuing granting a period extension of time uh for this property at 119 Ross Durant Road is uh president setting. Um, I don't believe council has done this before in the past and as I've mentioned before, I'm not sure why we continue to do this, although I do appreciate they are making an effort to to to um carry out some of these things. Um um so uh and from my perspective and what I have read continued non-compliance of issues uh with no section 57 on title continues to put District of Highlands at a a number of uh liability risks. And I as I've mentioned before on this matter that that is um my main concern and I don't understand why we would continue why this council would continue potentially putting the District of Highlands at at liability uh risk by not um uh carrying a motion to have a

section 57 applied on title. Um, and so I will not be supporting the motion. And I think at some point perhaps um, uh, the district may need to get legal advice from our legal counsel as to um, what we're doing here in respect to a liability to the to the district. Thank you. Thank you, Council Gord Bon. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yeah, just uh to clarify for council MLAN, this is not uh suggesting that we seek an extension. This is that council not consider a section 57 and uh unless staff feels the need to come back to council for some reason when there's not progress making being made. Uh I liken the the argument that there is uh because something is not done as soon as a section 57 is applied or when somebody is when staff requires it. Uh when you get a building permit to build a house, you don't automatically have your occupancy permit because you started to build it. We've

got uh the very first thing has been completed which is to gain an occupancy permit for the main house. So I think what they've done is they've shown a direct because they can't do everything all at once. They have to wait for the province. They have been making progress through the whole uh through the whole point and I'm sure that there are buildings throughout the Highlands that should receive section 57s because they're unsafe. Uh I can think of probably a barn. You're repeating yourself. Please don't interrupt. Council Mlan, I would say that there's probably buildings throughout the District of Highlands and probably old barns that are unsafe. Uh I think that um we should probably consider the business that needs to be done and not waste staff's time. We've got an applicant that is willing to make progress.

Councelor Mlan, next speaker. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, [clears throat] so if we're not potentially applying a section 57 tonight, then how would that not be considered uh through staff? How would that not be considered yet additional extension? Because staff's recommendation for three times, I think at least three times have recommended that a section 57 be applied on this property from the corporate officer. So, if that doesn't occur this evening, as councelor Gourd Barrett has alluded to, he uh is under the perception that's not an extension. So, my question through the chair to staff is would that still not be an extension if something isn't applied tonight such as a section 57?

Well, I believe that um councelor Barrett indicated that um if the applicant is unresponsive or not moving forward with the or their plan that we would bring it back for council's consideration. [clears throat] So, um, would that not be creating more I understand councelor Rosing touched on this, but would, oh, sorry, councelor Anderson, would this just not be creating more work for staff and what's are is our building inspectors, you know, going to have a schedule to pop in every week or or whatever to see if there's progress being made? I think this is putting a lot on on staff and uh I don't know if you can answer that for me but through the chair. Yes, I believe there would be ongoing work um for a couple reasons. One, there is demolition permits issued. So there would be site visits related to the demolition permits. Staff is still working on uh with the province and the RP bio on the development permit and the wrapper. Um

so there's ongoing work there. Um there is dead there is some dates offered by the owners which um staff would be a would could possibly attend the property on those dates to see if they've achieved uh what they are stating they're going to achieve on those dates. So, uh it's true that there is ongoing work for this property file. Uh thank you for that. How are those those dates involved involve uh four years? You know, there's four years indicated there. I just have one more question for staff if I may. Um perhaps for our planner. I thought at our last council meeting you had indicated perhaps that uh hearing from the province on the repairarian area regulation uh application would be imminent or something to that to that effect and here we are um according to the property owners uh the district hasn't heard back. I don't know if that is accurate. I just wondered if you could comment on that for us please. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you mayor. Uh so that so that is accurate. Staff recently uh checked with um the qualified environmental professional as to the status and so there's some outstanding information that were that she is needs to um update the report. Um so there is still this this waiting game. Um and and yeah, so I I I think yeah, there's more clarification needed. I don't want to delve too much into the details because I think it it's sometimes these thing take more time than we think at the beginning. Um so I [clears throat] don't want to delve into too many details. Okay, thank you. [clears throat] I believe uh we've heard from everyone unless anyone has any last comments and we have a motion to not go ahead.

I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Councelor Mlan, Councelor Stanton, and myself opposed. Thank you very much. Which brings us to 7.2. Um, I'd like to invite our planner to introduce the item and also welcome Mr. Quinn Daly, the senior manager of real estate and Peter Kickham, the manager of environmental um, regulations are here from the CRD for extra question answering capacity. Pat, turn it to you. Thank you, mayor. So, I'm simply going to read my conclusion in the report. The report is I appreciate it's very detailed and I appreciate there's a lot going on. Um to summarize though, in 2015, the CRD began the reszoning process for Milstream Meadows. This which is also 1965 Milstream Road. This property is significant to the district because of the Highlands dual roles as land use authority and part owner. As such, the district has the unique opportunity to shape land use outcomes on the property.

The proposed M1 RD zone is consistent with the regenerative development OCP land use designation. It provides a broad range of industrial commercial uses appropriate for circular economy activities while introducing performance-based standards for site design and environmental function. While the Milstream Meadows property was primarily considered during the drafting of this zone, the zone is equally appropriate for other properties in the regenerative development OCP land use designation. If council wishes to carry out a net positive land use outcomes evaluation for Milstream Meadows with the proposed M1 RD zone, it is suggested that July 2025 be used as a baseline date. As land use authority, the district is within its jurisdiction to reszone any property without any municipal process or application requirements. A public hearing is not required for the reszoning of Milstream Meadows as the proposed zone is consistent with the OCP. Notice requirements would be carried out in advance of first reading consideration in the manner required in legislation and by municipal bylaw.

Thank you. Councelor Mlan. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um I have a few questions for staff and um uh through the chair. So um as proposed in your staff report, they said entire property zoning would change from GB2 uh residential to uh what you have is M1-R. So medium I don't know medium indust industrial dash regenerative development. I'm not sure. Therefore, technically speaking, if you propose the land use be changed from GB2 residential to M1-RD, how is that possibly not a reszoning and change in land uses? So, so through the chair, it is absolutely a reszoning and change in land use. So, this is a resoning.

Yes. I want to be clear because there's a number of times in the report that it just says zoning and you're just changing proposing changing the zoning. Therefore, there is no need for a public hearing down the road if this moves forward. So, it is a resoning. If I may through the chair, so this zone is consistent with the OCP. Therefore, a public hearing is not required. When a public hearing is not required and there is a change in land use, the council must still give notice of um first reading. And so the notification requirements um are the same whether a public hearing occurs or not. Uh thank you for that. And um so I'll get to some of my stuff later about uh appendix 2.

Um, from my perspective, I'll just say at this time, generally speaking, and maybe I'm missing missing things here, but I do not see the policies necessarily incorporated into this appendix to um out of the South Islands local area plan regenerative development section. [clears throat] 3.3.1 and and even in some places in here staff have called it um sorry I'm just I don't have it right in front of me. They they've called it uh regenerative industrial. Okay. I have seen that in here more than one place. It is regenerative development. And so a question I have is also um okay got two more at this time. Are there any covenants on the 1965 Milstream Road property besides uh potential easement which I don't know is a covenant or not?

Um do they not have a north north south covenant on there for a internal parallel road to Milstream Road such as Milstream Industrial Park has? through the chair. No. No. So they have no covenants on that property through the So the only So the there's the covenants are listed on page two of the report. And so there's the easement for access which is the 20 m at the top. Um and then there's a crown grant with the possibility of ownership reverting back to the province. Right. Okay. And so the other thing I wanted to ask was well next uh [sighs] so will the district be receiving the net zero net positive land use outcomes um report that staff are overseeing soon. And I'm p purposely not mentioning who's working on it.

So there is no process in place to do this. Um because it is part of the OCP. It's a becomes an action item that staff have to somehow figure out how to do or have to figure out how to do. Um so the idea was we have a um a group that has offered to to help us with this. Um that evaluation system hasn't come back yet. It's not ready. So staff has included that as an option because while this is an application, the district is there's the district is the um sorry the the district is the applicant. So the district doesn't have to follow an application procedure. If the if this were a a different applicant, council may wish to have someone do that. It's it's difficult because there isn't is not yet an established process. I've included it as an option because it is part of the OCP. Well, I I appreciate that, but as you know, um, under the South Highlands Local Area Plan, and it used to be page 13, that

there's an expectation that this this these outcomes will be looked at and determined, and council will be the ones to read that material and become informed and make that determination. Um, so I I'm I would really appreciate having um the work done on that and and eventually so it is done to council satisfaction based on what we were looking at in the um South Highlands local area plan. So I'll let someone else have a chance. Thank you. I'm great. I'm still looking at the questions from council here. Council Baron. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, [clears throat] and I do have I guess I do have questions. Um, I had the benefit of thinking earlier today what sort of amendments I'd like to make, but I also recognize that this discussion, this is sort of the first thing that that staff's brought to council and that likely that the most common outcome of tonight is that staff will probably be referred our comments from this council table and then come back come back to us. Um, and

I had um, and I and I guess what I'd like to do is, and I didn't hand out my my comments, but I would like to speak my comments to staff because staff may wish to provide some of the answers they provided earlier, which brought me help inform me a little bit, and I think it'd probably be beneficial that if those answers, some of those answers were provided to council, it'd be a benefit for all of us. Um, so to preface my questions to to staff, one of my concerns was that we have our permitted uses in here and we have our prohibited uses. And when I think about regenerative development, I think about the way that, and this is just me, I think I was thinking about how we could broaden regenerative development to allow for permitted uses that we haven't even thought about yet. So to try and open up and expand if any creative ideas come forward. So we have a list of permitted

uses and how can we have anybody that's got a good idea come forward with an additional. So I thought about the potential of tier A being the permitted us juices and then a tier B being okay here's a tier B you have a qualified professional and they can demonstrate how it fits within regenerative development and so staff gave me a little bit of a an education on that. Um I won't get you to answer it quite yet but I appreciate the information that I got. I think it's very useful. The second thing I wondered about was under the prohibited uses. um some of the things that would seemingly seem uh some things some industries that I thought would be quite useful to be able to be permitted might accidentally be captured under prohibited uses such as um anything to deal with the potential for sort of newer age or or more modern style composting that's happening at Burggoyne Bay or even the type of work is happening at CRD

landfill where they've got some bio gas capture and and and been able to capture the bio gas generation and do that. Staff gave me a little bit of a background on that. And what they also some of the things that I had come up with, they also suggested that it would probably take a little bit of time to to see how they fit under the permitted uses like industrial use covers a lot of different things. And I think that staff having the opportunity to answer those questions I had about different types of permitted potential permitted uses to add would be beneficial. Uh because they might already fit under the industrial uses that staff already has which that was an eye openener to me.

And um and then I asked about the potential to target or prohibit certain uh certain uses to expand it. And that would be a discussion that isn't a question for staff right now, but would probably be a discussion the next time we see this. But I'm just wondering if staff wishes to comment about any of the questions I had, anything that their takeaways were that would be beneficial for the discussions. through the chair. So, uh, councelor Baird, if I Okay. Okay. So, suggested some, um, other uses that in his experience felt were appropriate for regenerative uses. And so some of them as we talk talked about them, it became clear that you don't need to name it. it's already included the actual what person would be or what the function is is included under the industrial use definition. And so that was the intent that we're not naming because if we start naming specific items and some of them were um anorobic digestion and bio

gas biochar production in essence that is it it it's captured under the industrial use definition which is broad enough um and that was the purpose that we don't def because as soon as we define China use, it's automatically excluded from the existing industrial zones. So, wouldn't it be cool if in the existing M1, one of these regenerative uses just popped up? Wouldn't that be cool? And so, that was the idea. Um, one of the uses I don't I um that councelor Baird suggested was a closed cell in vessel aerobic composting. So composting can be a nuisance. It can prove to be not the best neighbor. There are technologies that exist that can make composting a good neighbor. And so that's the that's the kind of stuff I think Highlands wants to target. I'm sorry. I get really excited about this.

Um the devils are in the details and I chose not to add any kind of composting cuz I think it's too quick right now. Um so in my report I talk about M1 is sort of a front door uh industrial commercial industrial use and so that's Milstream Meadows is fronting on Milstream Roads. That's sort of a front door property if you'll um pardon my my expression. The M2 zone is more of a backdoor or back property um industrial use. And so those are more intensive. And so something like a a very specific composting use and that's that's something that I think requires more conversation and requires the public to to input um and it requires research. So that's not something staff put forward today as part of this. These are uses Highlands is familiar with.

Um I I think that's so council I don't know does that capture I think I I will say that you did capture that much more elegantly than I put it towards you today. So, thank you, Councelor Anne Barrett. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question for staff for the mayor. Um, with the potential of this new uh M1 RD zone, would it be possible to remove the requirement for DPA2, which is riparian, and instead um say something like instead of having DPA 2 apply to this parcel, could we say something like uh 30 meter set back is firm. Just make it really simple because the whole idea is regeneration and we we know the role that wetlands play in regeneration and reing. So if we just eliminate that whole DPA2 and possibility for anyways you get the idea of my question.

Thank you through the mayor. Um so DPA2 protects the wetland completely. It also protects um it also protects an area beyond the wetland that is considered vital to that to maintaining that wetland. So, um, we I don't recommend doing that because there are already in place scientific measures to determine what the appropriate distance is. um if if it's connected to fish bearing waters. If it's not, then we still require um uh a similar assessment done by a qualified environmental professional. Um I I can't think [clears throat] that it it might be possible. I'm not sure you Yes, we could do it by covenant. I'm it it could be by covenant. Um so it is possible as the short story I'm going to recommend um yeah it's possible. I'll stop there. My experience is more let someone figure it out a bit. Um because the a covenant will further encumber a property. Um but again it's that's part of the right it could yeah I'm sorry that I'm starting to fumble short story.

Yeah a followup to that. So it might be possible it by covenant to not have DPA to apply and instead have just a firm 30 m setback. And my my rationale for asking that question is that this is regenerative development. And you know in 12 years on council seen a lot of DPA2s come and every time we go through that process we do whittle away at the land around the wetlands and we know even from a scientific perspective we know the importance of the mcelial web around a wetland. We know that that is absolutely critical for the habitat and it that would seem like lowhanging fruit from my perspective. So respectfully I would uh disagree with staff on that and I am a biologist so okay thanks.

Okay. Um [clears throat] Mlan question. I'm sorry council I missed you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um [clears throat] Yes, of course I have questions. So, um, under permitted uses and then prohibited uses. I'm not sure why under prohibited uses on the bottom of the page there, page two of six, um, well, never mind. I'll I'll I'll just go back to what I was going to ask. So permitted uses and under prohibited uses you have struck out um oh noxious or offensive uh odors, dust, smoke, gas, noise, affluent or hazard. And um also uh below there under prohibited uses um shall not emitter or cause and you've uh suggested stroking out taking away odorous toxic or no noxious matters or vapors heat. Oops, not heat. Sorry. Uh electrical interference. No, sorry, I'm backing up. Or other uh omission hazards.

So why is that? Like why not just leave it in there? Um it's I think it's this is a I would call this a bit of a legacy correction or legacy housekeeping fix. Um it's I find it's a little bit buried in the permitted uses to say you can do these but they can't do this. So, by outright saying the use is prohibited if to me that's it's a it's a nuance that um it allows for better enforcement. I think again this hasn't had a legal review um and so we'd it should have that step. Okay. So, um we'll see how that proceeds. And so also uh under prohibited uses um why would you stroke out uh one a in parenthesis suggest stroking that out?

It's out of our jurisdiction out of Highland's jurisdiction. Yeah. But it could be used to bring to bring that to the health authorities's attention. Could it not? It's out of our jurisdiction, so it can be brought forward to the health authority whether it's in there or not. Um, so on the siting and dimensions of building structures and uses zones as a sideyard. So this is on page 30 of six. Um I'm wondering why this proposed distance dis so 6A in [sighs and gasps] um why through the chair to staff why is this proposed distance change now uh suggested less than the 5 m which it was if I'm reading it correctly through the chair the M1 zone was uh 5 m on one side or zero lot line set back on the other side of the property. So as long as one was 5 m. So rather based on the building code, it's very difficult to build at zero lot line. And so we thought it'd be best to have um an average of 3 meter set back on side lot lines.

Okay. Thank you. I'll let somebody else have a turn. Y councelor Anderson. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Question to staff that's possibly slightly unfair uh in terms of not expecting you to have an answer on hand. Uh and it may be something council wants to discuss a little bit later. Not a huge issue, but um it relates to sort of public engagement on this topic because it is one that has had um such traction in the community for a fairly long period of time. I'm and I appreciate uh acknowledging that there isn't an requirement for a public hearing at at the point where this moves forward where that might be um what would have happened in other circumstances, but also that the notification requirements still exist. Um but I'm wondering if there might be some enhanced communication mechanisms we could use to I think sort of accommodate what will be a fair fair chunk of public interest and what what does this mean? Um what's going on here? think people will be quite keen to appreciate or understand

how we're actually going to try to move this forward. And I um also appreciate staff's creativity and trying to bring the spirit of the uh South Highlands local area planned amendment into what this reflects. So that's um something I'm I'm happy to see. But I do think that there will possibly need to be some additional thoughts on how to manage that engagement piece. um not necessarily something you have to be able to answer right now, but it may be something we speak to as as part of whatever recommendation staff makes, but if if staff have any early thoughts on what that might look like, that would be helpful.

Yeah, I think what we're talking about now are bigger picture items. We're looking at, you know, we're looking at a marketing strate strategy. We're looking at creating value. We're looking at having the most flexibility possible here. And the items you're talking about are great, but they can come at the time of people come to Z. I don't think we want to make this change. What I'm saying is that we'll have the planner clarify this. Um, so through the mayor. So, um, if council prefers to hold a public hearing, certainly council can do that. Um, that wasn't fully explained because Mm-m. It it has a similar outcome in staff's view and that is what the standard recommendation would be. Council may wish to hold a public hearing um and and that's fine. Um it may be um I'm remembering back to the outcome of a similar zoning amendment that occurred a couple months ago where um a second public hearing of a a public hearing second public hearing occurred in tandem with a an open house anformational open

house wasn't to provide input but rather it was to explain the ramifications. So, um I think [snorts] from a staff perspective, I think that was a successful venture in that people received the information they needed. Uh so that that may be a an avenue. Yeah. Um I just, you know, I think yeah, you can go into great detail and drag this out a long way, but I think time is of the essence here. And I think the the time is to try to create the most value for everyone that would create currently the value is zero. There's no there's no tax value to these properties right as it stands right now.

When you call BC assessment the value is is pretty low and uh so we are part of the CRD true and and part of highlands. We need to create a way of marketing the property so it creates value for everyone. Yeah, it's a question. So my question is actually I've set up for our people at the CRD. I wanted to ask them about marketing the property and what kind of flexibility would create the highest value. Thanks very much. Um yeah, I I think the um the first comment I would make is having certainty is going to be the um the thing that's going to make the property the most marketable. So um the South Highlands uh local area plan uh is a a very um forwardthinking piece of work. It's very aspirational. it it does need this next step in order for the um [clears throat] excuse me property owning community to evaluate uh the utility of of the of the property. So that is uh the first and foremost having certainty of what's actually going to be possible on the on

the parcel is uh is the the biggest uh value ad. Uh and then you know obviously the other uh outcome that is desirable is to have um the you know the uses that have been identified for decades for the site to create revenue tax revenue employment excuse me employment opportunities uh within the Highlands is also um going to be best achieved by having a zoning uh in place that allows uh that type of work to occur. So, uh as simple as that, like having certainty and a useful uh zoning is is going to make the the property the most marketable. Yeah. Thank you, [clears throat] Councelor. Um Gordon Barrett. Yeah, Mr. Mayor.

No, he was Brad all along. He didn't take his mic off. I've been blinking green for a while. He was next on the queue. Council Mlay. Go ahead. Sure. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I uh one is uh just sort of I'm going to go back to a couple comments. Um one by council maintain that was brought up on page 206. And what I and what I noticed and I think probably this is what staff was meaning when she said that it was easier to and this is just to be confirmed from by staff but by removing such things as uh odorous, toxic or noxious or hazards which are all very sort of subjective adjectives and just keeping it to emissions of odor, vapor etc. By removing the subjectivity out of there, it makes it easier to enforce. Is that the way that I'm I'm reading that? Yes.

Thank you. Um, and in terms of the comment from councelor Baird about the wetlands and the discussion about potential covenants as being one opportunity, one of I guess the question I have and I'll sort of frame it. Normally when we have a resoning that is brought in by an outside party there is a there's a form of amenity. Now we are part owners of the land I think very small part um and it would be odd for us in terms of bringing this resoning or this zone forward and give ourselves an amenity. But I guess my question is is that would a 30 meter buffer around the wetlands be something that we could consider in essence is to give ourselves as an amenity.

So it it already exists through the development permit area. Um, not sure I would call that an amenity outright, but I I can see your point and certainly um I think that's something for council to discuss if that's something council wishes to see uh put on the property, then council could direct st like Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. And I and I guess I think what I'm what I'm hearing is there's just sort of a really there seems to be a few that have a strong desire to see what they've seen in the past from not certainly not all applications but a couple of applications where we've seen um the uh the DPA2 stretch to its extreme by even going into the SPIA and dealing with the provincial stuff in the SPIA. But I'm just thinking that uh this might be a potential way of ensuring that the public which has put a lot of time and commitment districts put a lot of money into it of ensuring that there is at least uh an absolute

assurity that a complete 30 m around the wetlands is is completely protected. may be a covenant, maybe Parkland, might be a trail through theus or whatever. But I'm just saying that it's uh that's something where I kind of think that the public should weigh in on something like that. I think that's that's an important thing. I recognize that has an impact on timing. Could I please ask staff to answer here? So, so the only point I wanted to bring up is that it it's a voluntary covenant. And so I think if council is interested that that would be up to CRD then council could direct stuff. I'm not I'm not even sure what a motion would be but I think that's bit further down the the road but I think CRD needs to have the opportunity to provide input about that.

The 30 30% pvious area is also a way to achieve that to like it's also what the 30 me the the 30% of land area is is a way to achieve like oh sorry yeah to sorry yeah councelor bear thank you mr mayor uh it brings up some interesting ideas too about, you know, we're it's such a complex topic because we are part owners of this through the CRD, but I did the math and it's less than 5.5% based on population. So it's a very small piece and our biggest obligation at this table is for the District of Highlands and our citizens all you know 2600 of them and it's like what is in the best their best interest and it's obviously financial it's obviously environmental and social those are all really important. Um you know we we do have our five capitals model that we use generally for reasonzoning and uh we take into account human capital, social capital, manufactured capital, natural capital and of course financial capital.

They're all important to us and our community and and it's imperative that we do have our community involved in this decision and that we not make it without them. And I realized there is some urgency around this so that the CRD is in a position where they may be able to sell the property after the remediation which was always the plan. Um so I have two questions for CRD staff if I may through the mayor. All right. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Uh the two questions are one um and I think we would need a motion for this um later on if it was possible is has park dedication been considered as an option for this reasonzoning application and two and two has the CRD ever considered not selling the property? Is that a possibility?

Uh yeah, that one's a little more complicated um due to the nature of the actual ownership uh structure for the property. So it is actually a sponsored crown grant with a reverter clause. So we don't actually own it in fee symbol uh the CRD. So it actually it sort of pertains to both questions, but more importantly to the second one. Um the work that's been done, the remediation work that's been done at the site has been done under a memorandum of understanding uh with the province and there is a a cost share with the province on the the work that's been done. Uh part of that memorandum uh addresses the order of priority for um disposition at completion of the project. So right now the the project has been complete. We we have uh undertaken uh an appraisal and it's with the province to uh determine if they want to acquire the site. Uh next offer goes to the first uh to first nations.

So to first nations that are determined to have uh interest in the land. And then third would be onward marketing is what's identified. Um so if we got to that stage and the you know there was a a good clear rationale for the CRD holding on to the land uh we would have to basically buy out the province's interest. So um uh I mean it's it's possible but it's certainly not contemplated currently um because we don't really have a bonafide use for it that would justify the investment that it would that would entail. And regarding park dedication, we really haven't gone that deep because of the ownership structure. We haven't considered what's going to happen on on the land because we don't own it and we probably won't own it. So, what we're mostly interested in is creating the conditions to clear through to the next phase of what's actually going to happen with the site. So, I hope that answers your questions. Yeah.

If I might just add on to that a little bit, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Um, the BC contaminated sites regulation under which the property was remediated uh specifies a number of different land uses from uh parkland development right through to industrial. Um, in in a matter that was consistent with the previous OCP land use designation, the CRD pursued commercial land use, which kind of fits with a light uh industrial municipal zoning uh but commercial land use under contaminated sites regulations. So utilizing the property as it currently sits for parkland is not possible at this time. Further remediation would be required um and that's not contemplated under the current project.

Can I have a followup to that please? Thank you Mr. Mayor. So the followup would be uh one on the contaminated sites aspect of it. I understand uh not all of the site is equally contaminated or remediated. Um, it could uh technically because we could agree to chop it into two pieces and the one that's got the remediation on it that is the most damaged, we could potentially give the CRD what they want for that in order to be able to recoup costs. And the other part where all the wetlands are located is my understanding that it's uh a lot less contaminated and it could be turned into parkland. And so then the district would have uh something for our trouble, so to speak, and uh something for our community members for benefit and for nature to benefit and groundwater recharge. And if uh this council were interested in something like that, I'm just speaking for myself right now.

Would either of you have any suggestions as to how we would go about that? Because this is an incredibly unique situation and none of us here, I don't think, have any expertise yet. Thank you. Yeah, I I think I would I would go back to the you know my earlier statement regarding the ownership structure. Um so it I I couldn't answer the question because it would be more we would definitely need to involve a third party being in the province in in the in the question. The other thing I will point out is is access. So, um, not sure if you've toured the site, but the areas that you're referring to is sort of towards the back and it would be basically landlocked by OK industry and whatever takes place. Um, so that would just be a consideration that I would sort of add in there is uh I would never envision it as a public publicly accessible park area, but I I absolutely take your point around um environmental uh protection.

Right. Uh questions. Council Mlay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There's a word called sanctuary. Could be a sanctuary. Um so I have a question through to staff regarding appendix uh two um which is page four6 and it speaks to landscaping and screening um and then uh garbage and recycling receptacles. And so I just wanted to mention um with my work on coexisting with Carnivores Alliance over the um 17 years I've been on council um that uh garbage recepticles and containers for materials to be recycled um from my read of the Wildlife Act section 33 those would be um perceived as um potential attractants for uh wildlife and um there's a responsibility there and um also uh um they're not to be put out where there's apt to be uh human beings and people residing. So I realize this is all very old, but I was hoping that this uh section could be updated.

And I know there's no such thing as uh bear proof. Um cuz if there's a will, there's a way. But um the harder you can make it for them and the more negative of an experience, they won't do it. And the best thing you can do is electrify things. So I just wanted to mention that. And then I have a comment. So through the chair's staff, can we improve on the on the uh um so so this through the chair this this isn't uh residential recycling. This is like cardboard. Um it's it's it's not a residential use, right? This is an industrial use. So I'm um Okay.

But bears are attracted to anything. Yes. And so this is sort of a minimum requirement. I think if a land owner a land owner can do more um I I I'm I'm not sure how to respond to that because this is um this this is more of a visual uh regulation to have an aesthetically pleasing site. It's it's um because the wildlife act is out also outside of our jurisdiction. So I I'll I'm not quite sure how to respond because Yeah. We we don't have requirements. Yeah. Okay. Um I'll let you know. I I I find it challenging that we can't do anything just because it's in another uh [clears throat] jurisdiction. And Lord knows uh wildlife needs as much help as they can get and our conservation officers are too too limited in numbers.

That's for sure. And it's been a problem for over 10 years. So um I wanted to have a question that's going to fall out of this information so people don't get theirelves upset. So from uh the South Islands Local Area Plan section 3.4 for land use policies. Regenerative development states, and I'm going to read this because it's important. It won't kill you to listen to it. Uh the regenerative development designation is intended to prioritize responding to the climate emergency through net positive land use outcomes. This can be done through environmental restoration, regenerative uses and activities, accounting for ecosystem services, accommodating innovative and emerging solutions, and securing community amenities and benefits.

And um and so I wanted to just uh based on what some of the other comments have been here at the table tonight, I just wanted to bring that to my colleagues and staff's attention as a reminder and um and I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you. Right. Thanks. What I'm concerned about here is I don't want to create more uncertainty. I want to create enough certainty that we have interest in the property. We don't want the property to be left as you know a brown field that grows blackberries and broom. We want it to be done environmentally correctly. We want we want environmental sustainability, social sustainability, economic sustainability.

And uh when I I guess I have a question my question for staff is already we have minimum pvious surface requirements. Correct. And we have emissions prohibitions. We have landscaping. We have buffering. We have screening. We have development permit review. We have environmental protection. We have storm water requirements. They're all measurable and enforceable. And and so what I want is to remove some uncertainty that discourages investment and uh what we don't want to do is is [snorts] uh shift what could be a great boon to our taxpayers and and lose that tax base that could help us so much and help us so much creating net positive results in all elsewhere in the community as well. So um I think what we have to do is have a stronger clear measurable zoning standard and existing environmental regulations that provide both environmental protection and the certainty the certainty to attract responsible investment and to create value for us here. And uh that's a win-win for First Nations. It's a win-win for Highlands. It's a win-win

for for the CRD. It's uh the responsible thing to do in light of the uh $15 million remediation that was spent on this property. Um I remind council that we're already over 40% parkland and that there's there are areas within this particular potential that would lend itself to an environmentally responsible development. So that's my uh first take and I'm hoping um that option one I'd like to move option one it'll give us the maximum flexibility and hopefully hopefully uh create something for us that's good thank you Mr. Uh, so I just wanted to point out to staff those two comments I made previously. Yeah, a second. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you. No, brother. I had the floor. I was given the floor. Yeah. Process is that the mover gets first opportunity, secondary get second opportunity. I understand that but I had the floor at the time. So I I appreciate the motion that has been put on the floor and I understand the importance of certainty for Highlands for the whole region. Um the um and and I think that regenerative zone um I think what staff has put forward to us is is is a decent structure to work on. I personally I'm not quite there yet. Um I need to see I mean when I started out reading this the first thing that I I wanted to see was some some net positive. I I certainly the reasoning has a big net positive for for the financial, for the security, for being able to recoup the the the monies that have been put into developing the the risk base uh the riskbased certification.

Um and certainly the COC that's in place in and of itself beyond our zoning actually puts certain restrictions on it. I think as as Mr. says that, you know, there's it it basically limits it to a certain level of industrial uh industrial activity. Um, and I guess where where I'm either I'm I'm I'm not where I'm not quite convinced yet is is I and and I think Council Mlan read it in uh page on the I'm just going to go to it. 3 point uh 3.1 3.4 4 um that uh about the regenerative development and I appreciate you reading it out because it's been a it's been a while since I've read it that um is accommodating innovative and emerging solutions and and I guess for me um before I was to support the motion that's on the floor is I I would just need to I think staff has heard some of commentary tonight and I would like just to sort of have staff take it back with them and just see if there if if there's any

potential wiggle room to ensure or to to en ensure that emerging solutions, creative ideas have the freedom to come forward and and I don't think we're far away from that. And it might mean that that staff has to, you know, seek a question from legal counsel to see if if there's some wiggle room there to open up the door. But I think it's worthwhile giving staff that opportunity. Um, to me, that's to me for me to support that. That is probably one of my biggest takeaways is that I want to be able to not accidentally uh remove potential emerging businesses from considering this land. I realize that business can put an offer on the property and it can be subject to a reszoning, but if we're doing a resoning of this right now, MDM M1RD, and someone is like, "Hey, that almost fits. I'm going to put an offer in this land and reszone it to something that doesn't quite exist yet." um that isn't

assurityity and I would like to try and build in more shity up front that gives a bit more creativity or more opportunity for emerging ideas and and I and I keep going back to the type of uh close cell aerobic composting that has happened at Burggoyne Bay which I think might fit more in an M2 zone because it's more industrial and more processing but it so fits with what could occur in this property. And it would just be for me it would be a shame to say no, that excellent idea doesn't quite fit here. And I would just like to give staff a little bit more time just to consider if there's if there's that opportunity. So I appreciate the motion. I'm not quite there yet. I'd like to hear back from staff after they've heard the conversation and after we've had a time to to digest it and and I don't think it would take staff a long time. So, I I'm not going to support the motion on the floor, but I think that um there's been

good comments tonight. [snorts] Yeah, I think a lot of your concerns are are things that end up becoming prescriptive to the to the zoning. They they end up you want do you want say I want more net positive results, but positive compared to what? And then we get into that same argument over what time frame? Who measures success? How is it monitored? What happens if predictions prove wrong? I think we're looking above that now. We're looking for a kind of zoning that would create some financial interest in the property. Mr. Hold on. I wasn't talking about Yeah, I appreciate I wasn't talking about net positive. I was talking about building the opportunity for more emerging solutions to occur. That's where my comments were. So I I think that you may have my comments mixed up with discussions from others about net positive council Gord.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, I won't be supporting the motion on the table because I think we can have a winwin here and I think we can uh reszone the more damaged and uh the west side of the property where the remediation has occurred and I think we could reszone that to a M1 RD similar to what staff has proposed. that would give the certainty and I'm sure there would be huge value in that piece of land because the uh wetlands on the east side are difficult to develop at the best of times and those ones could be parkland and I would rather see us send this back to staff uh with all the comments tonight on some of the improvements to the M1 RD as well as to work with the CRD and the province apparently on what options might be for the uh west part to be uh returned to reing and parkland which is the intent of the land use designation that our community created for these parcels of

land and it and I think it's our job to listen to the community and to try to get the best deal for our community from a financial from an environmental and a social perspective. And this would do it. This would be a win-win. It would increase our tax base. It would increase our parkland. It would uh increase habitat for nature. It would do it all. So, I'm not going to support this. And I suspect that we may have another opportunity to uh have a different motion come forward. Thank you, Councelor Mlean. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um I have some comments. Uh, I didn't get to in respect to the permitted uses because this is just a hyster. It is hysterical. I've done that before. Historical [laughter] um a carryover from the M1. I mean, there's lots of uses there that um I, you know, may have been supported back in 2008, but [sighs and gasps] are questionable now and certainly on this piece of property. So, frankly, there's a number of them that I I I wouldn't even want to see on on the property. And so, from my perspective, I'm concerned

that they would even be uh permitted uses. So, we haven't even discussed that this evening. And um um so there's there's that. So, I do not support this as as it is. Absolutely not. And my comments to staff earlier were in the permitted uses and the uh prohibited uses where staff have made it regenerative industrial. Uh I don't know if that was intentional or not. So but I have a concern with that as I mentioned earlier. And um so my other uh comment is that I I would like to see some additional work on the potential reszoning on the permitted uses and ensure regenerative development from the South Highlands local area plan. Um the policies indeed are uh fully incorporated uh into uh uh what uh perhaps a different iteration of the uh appendix uh two might be. And um additionally, due to the potential future resoning and net uh zero and net positive outcomes report once received, I hope council will receive that and eventually um perhaps we will have a Highlands public hearing on this. That

would be my choice and um I'm I'm positive our community would be expecting that as well. Um, so I want to make those comments and I appreciate everybody's comments this evening. Um, and uh I will not be supporting um option number one. Thank you. Any uh first time speakers like to weigh in on the subject? Councelor Anderson. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. I find this is a tricky one for me. I appreciate the work staff have done and I I agree with some of the other counselors who have said that, you know, the direction this is headed I think is very much the direction we we would have expected. And so the initiative from staff to bring this forward um is helpful to see what's there. But I'm also sharing some of the reactions of others that there's maybe it's partly just the the speed with which we are trying to digest the content here. Um but there's a little bit of uncertainty in my mind about what this encourages, permits, prohibits. Um it's it's those there's a

bit of overlap amongst those terms. I recognize um not all of which are, you know, strict planning terms, but [laughter] uh in terms of being able to communicate what we're intending to have this reflect with respect to the OCP's uh recent amendment, um it's it's not quite clear to me that it does its job in terms of um flagging what's different about regenerative development, but it's certainly does move in that direction. And I could appreciate staff's comments about the intention of trying to structure this in a way where it really leaves that door open. Um, but also councelor Bird's comments around not quite sure that it has fully, you know, tried to capture that spirit of we're not trying to rule out things um that are going to fit that definition, but yet address the points made as well about but we're still trying for certainty. So every time we we leave a door open to say we're not going to specifically define everything in in um super clear terms, we give away a little bit of that um desire to have certainty. So I don't know that it's um

a perfectly solvable um question in terms of meeting all of those objectives because they run into each other a little bit. But um you know I think this is it's definitely headed in the right direction. But whether or not it's clear enough to sort of ask staff to take this forward as it is and turn it into uh a bylaw for uh the resoning process, I'm not I'm not sure. So I'm I'm still feeling a little bit as if this is um lacking total clarity for me. But I'm also curious about um with the respect to the differences between option one and two um why why might we not in fact uh ask staff to go ahead with that if we are going to move ahead with this initiative um to to conduct that evaluation? What are the sort of pros and cons of moving ahead with that given that this is a novel exercise for us and that there will be other properties who are looking at having to repeat that kind of process. What kind is it is a good idea

for us to wait into trying to carve a bit of a path about what we think that might look like or ought we not to. So reverting to questions somewhat. I'm sorry but uh those are my thoughts on this at this point. All right, Council Gard. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do have a question for staff. Um, and and and and my concern about the motion on the floor is just from listening to the comments that potentially I'm I'm hearing four people that won't support the motion on the floor. And would that stop this dead in its tracks from moving any further forward? Or would we still be able to have staff have another motion to have staff, if this one failed, could we have another motion to have staff um consider the comments or would it be best to uh hold the motion on the floor to give staff the opportunity to come back to council?

I would recommend withdrawing the motion and um moving forward with your new motion to direct staff. So I I might suggest to the mover that um for the best interests of Highlands CRD that it might be recognize the good intent of it recognize it might be a good idea to probably withdraw the motion at this time. How does the council prepare uh understand how this can move forward in a way that's time that meets the time sensitivities of the situation? Yeah, thank you. And it's it's a good question. Um I think that if it's not supported tonight, then the time sensitivities are mute because then it's just dead in the water and it hasn't served anybody's purpose. So I think that that is one option.

um and to vote for something uh to vote for something just for the timeliness of it. And if it's not good, then we have certainly some issues that we have to deal with with with our residents. If staff can if we can instead have staff take the comments from the table and come back to us, perhaps next meeting, I'm thinking might be a possibility. um then we may come to an agreement then but we won't have lost the opportunity to move forward on I think a good opportunity for the Highlands. So I think that moving quickly I recognize there's the benefit of wanting to move quickly I think that probably withdrawing the motion at this time would be the a process that started a long time ago 20 years ago where a deal was made a deal was made and well, it's just common knowledge and it was it's been in the minutes of of the CRD open meetings about Yeah. And here's what's happened. So, we

talked about, well, we just need more more time. Well, it's been 20 years and the value of the property has gone from $19 million down to $2 million. That's in camera information. No, it's not. I talked to BC BC assessment today and the and the original amount was to recover that the funds spent. I think the sum mentioned anything that I'm not talking about in camera was not the figures I just quoted you. So, I want you to realize that this is what you've done. And if you want to uh potentially, you know, wait longer and and create more restrictions and create more possibilities of proposing parks where we just heard from staff saying that it's not really that likely or possible. We know the ownership.

Yeah. Well, thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'm I'm not proposing more parks. I was proposing to ensure that the permitted uses could be expanded to allow more novel options and that were so that is uh if that is my that is my cross that I bear for not being able to support the motion tonight that doesn't mean that his staff comes back with the same thing and we have got information that we may not uh we may not have a change of opinion and and vote for it but I think that we we owe it to one to give staff the opportunity and two I think we owe it to our community to we owe it to our taxpayers to get the highest value that we can get get returned on this property for tax purposes. You know, it's uh part of our economic sustainability.

It's just part of what we need to do as responsible council to uh the taxpayers. Councelor Ersay. Thank you. Um I share Council Anderson's discomfort. I I'm not um I I might I might be persuaded to uh support option two at this point, but um clearly council's not comfortable with what we're going ahead with. Um, I [snorts] don't think we have an obligation in this meeting to to achieve the highest value for this property at this time. And I think that's only part of the picture. The the Highlands um [clears throat] public has made it very clear uh in in the process in the planning process what they'd like to see for South Island. and and uh I we just can't I we just can't go ahead and ignore what's in the South Islands planning uh documents and the OCB. Yeah.

So, if you don't mind um so um I mean our function is not to our function is not necessarily to maximize the value of this property. or function is to make sure that the OCP vision that we we have created and our public has created is carried out. So um uh I'm I'm not particularly concerned about timelines at this point and in in the in the long view really the province we we have no control over what province decides to do with with this property. It it may be of no value to anybody. may be of large value to CRD. It may not be, but we have no we have no uh uh uh uh for sure we're we're not sure whatever is going to happen to this property. [snorts] So, um um I I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere, but uh what what I um and and I'd like to ask the staff. It's been suggested that staff has enough for information to go back and come back to us with with some with some further ideas. I I'm not sure

if the discussion has really given staff much direction. Um so if if we're going to be uh giving staff direction to come back to us, I I think we need to be more specific. Um and I'm not sure I'm not sure that I can give staff any specific direction. I' I'd uh but I I lean more towards option two than option one. I'll say councelor staff first this I'm going to let staff make comment first then go ahead. Thank you mayor. So um I'm hearing uh I'm hearing that this is a good start. Um that council members probably want a public hearing instead of not having a public hearing.

Council members want um some public input. So perhaps holding an open house. Um I've heard parkland. I I have some thoughts around that because the more parkland the district takes, the more liability we own, the more we have to maintain it. So, um having a someone else own land that is covenanted is or having the CRD take it as parkland, those are those are more are preferable options. Um, I've heard comments about carnivores and making sure that that is assure there's some thought given to that. I've heard about allowing um for emerging technologies. So parkland, I've heard parkland. Um, but also how do we protect this this significant this wetland and keep it for reing? That's I guess overall it sounds like that's the goal. I'm not sure that that's a a location for the public to go to enjoy a park. Um so and and then I've also heard that council wants to understand h how this zone is carried out in that in the OCP and I'm happy to talk to that.

Um what it might make sense is for staff to council to maybe um cancel the motion and refer uh refer the document back to staff for for for further input. The reason I suggest this is because the the motion option one does take does direct no public hearing and so it sounds like some members of council want to see a public hearing. Um certainly this motion was not to give it any readings. Um staff I think can could I don't know if just the first part of the motion would work or I'm sorry I'm trying to I think the first part of the motion would work and it would be an amended bylaw that could come back that takes into consideration the feedback we've heard tonight that could come forward and the process could even hold an open house likely between now and the next council meeting because that is not until August 24th.

So there could be an open house. Um and so gain feedback or share information with the public between now and then. And so there's ideas that we could incorporate some of the ideas we've heard tonight. go out, have an open house, uh do that process and come back with uh an amended draft uh for for even consideration of readings that night and hold an official public hearing even afterwards. Um, but just to get get that ball rolling. I think some of the other uses that we've talked about tonight could be included in something um that could come forward that's not not just an M1 RD, but an M2 RD. And so look at both and talk to the public uh perhaps even about both. um because and as our planner discussed, some of those aren't necessarily street frontage uses or road frontage uses, but more the back. And so that would be good to talk about and good to know about. So could not could just be more than one. It could be both types of zones that we're talking to the public about and that even come forward

for consideration. And so taking that OCP and um bringing it to life through our zoning bylaw. And so uh the the recommendation uh on the floor could be shifted to be something such that it's that coming forward on the 24th is um not necessarily what you see drafted but somewhat more amended to list a few additional regenerative uses um that we have talked a little bit more about tonight and bring that forward and perhaps even um an addition of an M1 or M2RD. Um so perhaps putting both for incorporation into our zoning bylaw and then uh at that point also including 1965 in for reszoning to the M1RT and um and then also in that night putting forward a recommendation for public hearing uh consideration for that. Um but in the interim have an open house. Did I get that?

I got it all right. Did I hear that? Yeah. [laughter] Okay.

So, it possible to sort out what the wording is before we repeat it back for council. Oh, we have a motion on the table. Sorry. Let's take a vote on it and then question. Yes. Well, council's going to vote how council's going to vote. Council's going to vote how council is going to vote. I'm calling the question. All those in favor of option one. Before we vote on that, sorry, before we vote on that, I would like to suggest. Okay, council. Thank you. I I think staff has proposed an amendment and I'd like to consider that before we vote on this uh uh so that we can consider uh staff suggestion for an amendment. [snorts] I'd like to hear that amendment then

So staff to staff to consider an a to propose an amendment no that is that a zoning amendment be drafted to add okay we're adding uh the general industrial regenerative development M1 RD zone to the zoning bylaw and it won't necessarily be the one you see before you. They will be slightly tweaked and M2 RD to the zoning bylaw and change the zoning of 1965 Milstream Road to the regenerative development M1 RD zone. and that a public hearing will be held whatever the wording is for that with respect to the proposed zoning amendments and that will happen at the appropriate time. We can also add that there would be an an open house be held or something to that effect because that's really not necessarily a a requirement to hold it but that we would be able to do that. Oh, I I would I would certainly move that and and because uh we will be looking at that bylaw before I mean we're not looking at a

bylaw at this point. We're looking we're telling staff to draft a bylaw. So, we will still have an opportunity to look at that bylaw and consider whether that's what we want or not. Uh I'm I will uh propose that I will move that amendment. Second that discussion mine. Well, you were kind of slow on the on the draw there, but if you wish to discuss it more as part of the movers. Your mic's not on, Carl. Yeah. I think there you go. Go ahead. Okay. Oh, [laughter] okay. So, so I'll um I don't need to repeat myself. We we are still going to be considering a bylaw at the next council meeting rather than leave this just sort of up in the air. Uh that we will have something to look at that we can respond to. Uh that makes sense to me. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, thank you.

This is red. Um, I would add that as a seconder, I mean, I I prefer to see sort of a clean a clean motion. I think it's a little bit sloppy, but what it does is by having by going this route, um, it saves having uh something pointed at her head to say make a decision or not and to make a bad decision. Um, I think what this does is this at least leaves the door open for staff to come back with something slightly moderated and including the discussions about public input. And I think as councelor Rosing says, we still have the ability to make some changes uh at at first or second reading. So, I am comfortable with this and I'm glad that I think the wisdom of council will probably uh be supportive of this motion um over the last and I thank staff for uh having to do some wording on the fly. Council Main.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so I'm actually not going to support this amendment because I do not support at all uh M2 land uses being considerated and potentially incorporated into this uh zone. They are uh a bit more heavier industrial type uses. And um this going in through the back door or the front door um it has to do with medium and heavy industrial uses. And so I'm not going to support the motion on that. And um [clears throat] uh are we at 10:30 yet? Okay. You're kidding. And thank you, Mr. Mayor. I won't be supporting this amendment either. um it doesn't uh reflect what I believe regenerative development intends to accomplish. Um there's no uh mention of the uh potential 30 m setback as a firm requirement of this zone and there's no even option for discussing uh CRD parkland in the rear where the riparian areas are which is what this uh land use designation in the south highlands is gateway area is supposed to B according to our OCP. So I can't be

supporting that. I would be in support of uh option three, which is council giving more input to staff and make it a cleaner uh more directed motion. Thank you, Councelor Anderson. Uh thank Mr. Mayor, and thanks to staff for your patience and thought on that. Um, I will be supporting the amendment because it does, I think, give staff the opportunity to try, I mean, try to take what, you know, amorphous comments we have offered tonight. Um, my concern with option three is that I don't know that we would have anything more useful, more specific to offer at this stage. Um, and I am not as concerned as councelor Mlan with the idea of understanding what M2 RD might look like because I believe that is intended to help us understand a vision potentially, not necessarily to to incorporate it into this particular piece of property. Um, so it's it's part of helping shed light on how that OCP amendment will be could be reflected in what zoning bylaws could look like. So, um I appreciate the idea of trying to

sort of amalgamate what we have talked about tonight and and I I recognize it does put um some burden on staff to try to digest that and bring it back, but it also saves the timeline entirely in terms of what would have come out of tonight's discussion. So, I think it is the best compromise that I could see coming out of the discussion. So, thank you. Any more comments on the amendment? Say none. I'll call the question. All those in favor of the amendment opposed. That carries. Back to the main motion. Any further discussion on the main motion? No. I'll call the question. All those in favor as amended.

Opposed. That carries on the main motion with the amendment. I'm opposed. Yeah. So it passes. All right. Excuse me, mayor. Um, we have Thank you, gentlemen. Mayor Williams, we have um two items that um we have members of the public here waiting for. I was wondering if um council would consider amending the agenda to move 10.2 ahead and then 10.1 after that. Second. All those in favor that carries. So you want to move uh we start with 10.1.2. Where are we? Oh, the running event. Okay. All right. Very [clears throat] good. So, the traffic control for the Philist armed trail running event. All right. So, uh we have Mike Leel is here to answer any questions council may have.

So, good evening, mayor and council. Thank you for having me again. Yeah. So, we have a recommendation here and uh we've received updated traffic control uh information and uh so council, how do you feel about this event? All right, discussion. All those in favor Thank you. And the permissive tax exemption 10.1 And this is about the 2027 permissive tax of the Wamayan nature sanctuary. Uh 25 statement option operations was received following agenda publication circulated to council for consideration. Um I'd like to invite the corporate officer to introduce the item. Thank you mayor. The purpose of this report is to present the 2027 permissive tax exemption applications for council's consideration and to seek direction regarding the preparation of the permissive tax exemption bylaw.

Permissive tax exemptions are authorized under the community charter and allow council at its discretion to provide partial or full property tax relief to eligible nonprofit and charitable organizations. Staff have reviewed the applications received from Omaythan Nature Sanctuary Society, the Land Conservancy of BC, and the BC Parks Foundation in accordance with the district's permissive tax exemption policy. Council may approve, modify, limit, or deny any application based on the eligibility criteria, policies, objectives, and financial implications. Should council grant full exemptions for all applications, the estimated annual municipal tax revenue forgone would be approximately $50,000. Um council's direction is requested on how to proceed with the preparation of the permissive tax exemption bylaw for the 2027 taxation year or a multi-year term or another term is determined by council.

you wish to make your presentation. May I? Yes. Thank you, Mayor and Council for the opportunity and thank you for adjusting your agenda. Um, much appreciated. Um, I will be brief. I would like to emphasize three points. First of all, living in the highlands is a great privilege. We are blessed to live in the forest where we dwell amidst nature in all her abundance. Our proximity to nature helps us to appreciate the vast array of wildlife, both flora and fauna that surrounds us and the fragile delicate balance that sustains the natural world around us. At Wayotin, one of our key purposes is to provide a sanctuary in which many of the ecosystems that comprise the highlands natural environment can thrive.

Secondly, in the highlands, we are also blessed to live in the traditional homelands and hunting and gathering grounds of the Wasenich Coalish people. For thousands of years, the Wasenich have lived on and cared for these lands. Um, Wamayatin, the place of the deer, has provided food, medicine, and a place for spiritual pursuit and relaxation. Another of our key purposes is to provide cultural access to the land to our indigenous brothers and sisters. This access serves multiple purposes. It provides First Nations people with opportunities to practice their traditional cultural healing and spiritual traditions. It brings indigenous knowledge and expertise to the management and stewardship of the land as we approach these tasks with twoeyed seeing combining the best of traditional indigenous practices with western scientific approaches. and it al and it aligns in significant ways with British Columbia's commitment to reconciliation and respect for indigenous rights serving the broad public interest in truth and reconciliation.

And finally, the nature of our mandate protecting the natural environment and providing cultural access to First Nations means that we must limit public access to the land. Having said this, we are committed to doing everything we can to increase public access in a measured and responsible way. We will hold four openhouse events in the coming year, the first of which will take place next month on August the 9th. Watch for details coming soon. We have begun locally promoting our open to the public time on the second Sunday uh afternoon of each month. And as a result of this promotion, we have seen a marked increase in the number of Highlanders uh coming through the property on on these Sunday afternoons.

Very few of our activities are big revenue generators. Most of our revenue comes from memberships, small donations from members and the public, and rental of the property for appropriate workshops and retreats. Now, with the nature house unavailable to us for public use due to required upgrades to the building, our ability to generate rental income is more limited than usual. All of this means quite simply that without the support of council and the taxpayers of the district of the highlands through a tax exemption, we would likely not be able to sustain our operations. We believe that for the reasons enumerated here, Wamayatin and the activities of the Wamayatin Nature Sanctuary Society are good for the highlands and for its residents and that they helped protect the natural world that we all treasure and honor the natural and cultural traditions of the land and her first people. On behalf of the board and the members of the Wamayatin Nature Sanctuary Society, we hope that you council agree with this

and that you will see fit to grant us a permissive tax extension. Thank you. Thank you. Questions? Councelor Mlan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I have some comments. Thank you for joining us this evening and providing the information. So, regarding uh 1772 Milstream Road, which of course is the property that has the house on the lake, so to speak. Um, so in staff's report, uh, on our agenda here tonight, um, they've indicated, and I don't know if staff wanted to speak to their report or if they had anything additional they wanted to mention, corporate officer. Um, just that in the report, um, it was mentioned that on the website it does indicate that the nature kinchic house is, um, is used like you can rent it.

it's used for programs and things like that. So, I'm wondering I just was bringing that to council's attention because it was the um as some of you may know um we are very resource uh stretched. We used to have an employee uh who did the work of the uh the the oper did the work of the society is what I'm trying to say. It's getting past my bedtime. Um uh and we no longer have that employee. We have a very small board. One of our board members is 102 years old. Um and we have not cleaned up our website. It's a massive undertaking. We need to clean it up. The fact is that we do not rent the house and if anybody asks to rent the house, they are told that it is not available.

Thank you for that because that was going to be um my question and I wondered if the website um you know needed some uh work or not. Uh and so my concern was that the building was being used and therefore um actually the application would not qualify due to uh not complying with the uh district and the provincial BC uh building code and possibly other applicable legislation. So, um that good that's that is good to know because I mean it it is concerning. Um and as you know the we struggled with our property tax increase this year, the highest it's ever been. And um we certainly don't want to see that um continue. [sighs and gasps] And um also in the staff report, it's uh noted that um when these properties receive permissive tax exemption, they also do not contribute financially towards the RCMP and the Westshore policing, school taxes, CRD services, CRD hospital services, CRD housing services, etc.

And um so I guess I got a question through the chair to staff. Are there still some uh besides the building, the the house on the lake, besides that building, are there any other uh non-compliance issues with the property at this time through the mayor? No, there are no active um investigations in non into non-compliance on the property. just the building has been our concern if it was being used in the past. Um but we understand that that's not the case. Okay. Thank you for that because um because I was becoming concerned um uh as you might know and you might hear from time to time, I don't like council to be ignored nor our staff when they make requests. Those are usually done for a reason. So, um, and then if we were to grant potentially two years or four years, I would rather have a more of a check-in on a on a property that is um uh perhaps not um in compliance. So, I appreciate the additional information.

Uh that that makes me feel better. And so, I will um I'll leave it at that. I was going to make some other motions, but I'll leave it at that for tonight. Um I mean the maximum exemption uh year-wise for me would be uh four years for any of these properties. Um and again if um there are non-compliance issues or problems then those should be brought to our attention uh as is required in the policy. Thank you. Thank you councelor Gourd Bon. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Phillip. Um, I, uh, websites are work in progress, and around here things are work in progress sometimes can be slapped with section 57. So, you're lucky, I think. Um, I do have a question for you and the question is, so with regards, so there's basically two two main properties for methan and one for the the conservancy. And so, those those three, they add up. and then the the class one section for the house. Um, and

I'm not saying this is what I'm going to go for. I just want to ask your opinion because I think council MLAN did bring up that it's a little bit tighter in taxation, but I also understand that you that you're in hardship with a lot of change, but the the 3,000 the potential $3,000 or $3,500 in tax savings that might be exempted with regards to the class one residential. If that wasn't given as a tax exemption and everything else was, would you be able to squeeze by or things or hardships at the [clears throat] point where every ounce of tax exemption is required? We need all the help we can get. Let me put it that way. Okay. Um, would we have to go out of business if we had to pay $3,000 in taxes? I didn't know that was the number, but if that's the number, um, no, not next year. We would not. We could do that, but it would just mean that we're that much farther away from being able to fix the house um, and do other and maintain bridges and do all

the other things we have to do. Um we've been very fortunate the the society has been very fortunate that we have had um a benefactor for many years and that's what has enabled us to keep the lights on. The benefactor is done and we no longer have that advantage and and as I've pointed out in my remarks and I think in the application our revenue our ability to generate revenue is very limited. So, we need all the help we can get. If you came back to us and said that we had to pay the tax on that one part, we would pay it, but it just impedes our ability to move forward.

Thank you. I appreciate the the candidacy or the how candid you are about that and um it certainly has an impact on how I'm going to view the the exemption. Thanks. Thank you. Right, I'm sorry. Thank you. I I don't think I would see the point in uh collecting taxes on the residents and and not the rest of the property as such a minor uh part of the uh part of our taxes. I I have a question for staff. $50,000 in taxes is what percentage of our uh total tax role for municipal taxes. Can you answer that? 30 is about one if that helps. 30. So that's about 1.6. six roughly. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. [snorts] Um I I mean it's hard to say that everyone else would pay 1.6% more in taxes, but I I I am prepared to. I I don't see um my taxes are something over $3,000. 1.6% is 45 bucks. I'm happy to contribute that. Uh I think it's a good cause. I think this is an important property and uh I think it's been stewarded so damn well. I mean this has been kept so well for so many years and I appreciate that. So um I will um vote for the exemption. Thank you. Sorry. Can Can we make it all one motion and the number of years and whether it's going to be full or partial? So, there's more than one item here. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. You want to make it? Yeah. Oh, sorry. Thank you, sir. Uh, let's make a deal. One for the other. Uh, let's see. I'm just going to find the options here. I'm so sorry that they're they've escaped me to for a moment. So the yeah I've got it. Uh so I will um as part of the first part of the motion is to uh um consider uh option uh 1B which is 27 27 to 2031 uh am [snorts] discussion seeing none I'll call the All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed? That carries. Thank you all very, very much and have a good night.

So, off we go. Pe and No, we're going back before that. Park in flower park trail and enhancement project phases one and two. So ask our CEO to present our this item. I can speak rather quickly about this. This is followup to the committee the whole meeting where there was a recommendation that came forward that we earlier spoke of. Uh this report talks about a path forward for twinflower in phase one. It talks about a proposal to initiate to initiate phase 2 engagement earlier than anticipated and it also discusses proceeding with a donations policy and that we go ahead and develop that. Uh I took the recommendation from the committee of the whole and I spoke to our consultants involved in the project and asked them the question.

Their feedback was it is not compatible to put um the pump track in the phase one area. uh not compatible with that um that land. Uh it doesn't meet the intent of our OCP um riparian area DP uh DPA and it's also would require tree rem removal um and it would add traffic beside our wetland. So there was some concern around that and they suggested that the pump track be located elsewhere in the park and so the path forward would be freeing up that space uh for for the restoration work which would see native planting in the area a formalized walking path introduced a pulled back um path from the wetland area little observation lookout area uh and cedar fences in areas to protect the replanting. Uh the next piece that I what I what I promised you was that we would talk about phase two engagement hearing at the committee the whole meeting the level of interest in phase two and and yet we had spoken or I'd spoken about not getting people's hopes up about phase two until there was money. So there's no point in talking

about it until there's money to talk about it but there is interest in it. So I thought all right if people want to talk about it let's talk about it. And so uh this report proposes that phase two engagement to develop a concept plan and explore what people might be interested in can start now with a survey and an openhouse and we can explore items like a bike pump or bike skills area. Maybe things might people might also be interested in other things like picnic table or uh benches. Um who knows an adult fitness circuit area. Maybe a little fenced in dog area. Who knows? There's multiple options that could be looked at, but if people want to talk about it, all right, who am I to say we shouldn't talk about it? Let's talk about it. So, uh, this report proposes that and that that would happen, uh, beginning early in 2027, uh, because it's a busy year so far.

I don't envision that that's going to get any lighter anytime soon. Um, the report tonight talks a little bit about the environment. um because the report template for us does talk about that spoken a little bit about that already so I won't jump into that anymore. Um there is a little bit here about uh legal and and liability but I'll touch about on that again near the end but I will talk a little bit about financial um there there was talk at the meeting about um CEO from Westshore Parks and Recck was here that night. Um, so the report tonight talks about would it be something that would Westshore Parks and Rec be interested perhaps in financing it and uh, Mr. Brown Grant suggested that well the ask could be made. Um, but he and I spoke later and he did say that um, Fior Royal, Cwood and Langford each have their own little pump areas um, that were paid for on their own. So I'm putting that out there. there may be lack of interest uh if the ask were made

but we'll just leave that for now. Um but the other piece though about this is that the report before you puts forward a a piece of in the recommendation that might be a good time to talk about if people are interested in talking about their great ideas. Put your money where your mouth is and let's talk about our donations policy as well. And I don't mean, well, I could mean we'll take 50 bucks to put towards equipment, but I'm talking if people want to make a a great donation towards a pump track or an adult fitness circuit or general or benches or picnic pit, fill your boots.

That would be great and we would welcome that. And so now might be a great time to get people juiced up about that. And um and finally, in the conclusion, I want to talk a little bit about um liability. the park, the bike jump area right now is in a state of disrepair. It really is at the end of its useful life. And I think for liability, the focus isn't necessarily on insurance and and um because I mean money can solve insurance claims and that type of thing, but I think the issue might be more focused on injury prevention, a little bit on litigation, um perhaps reputational impacts for the municipality and also about time and resources to respond to any serious incidents that we may have in that area because we are responsible for what we what we build, what we maintain, or more to the point, what we don't maintain.

And so, I think it's a great opportunity now that we have grant funding to proceed with um this development in phase one that we'll see uh more of a passive use in that area and it's a very appropriate use for that passive of development and that work to happen and we we do have that grant money available and can get going on that. So the recommendation before you is that we proceed with the grant funded project. It's covered by three grants. We enter into um contract to get that work done with Earth Works first and then replanting in the fall when it's a little um more guaranteed growth. and uh we can go ahead and sign that agreement that we begin uh community engagement for phase two early in 2027 making no promises uh because I really I want to get people's hopes up but I also know that we don't yet have any grant money but I also have recently sat in on a a grant webinar um and but they're like oh

you need to have 50% and that would be another really good reason to start raising our own money uh because now if grants no longer in the 100% realm. Let's try and come up with our own 50% some some way. Well, bake sales aren't going to do it. So, and um and also finally that a donations policy, go ahead and be drafted for council's consideration. That is my report. If you have any questions now that you've seen this three or four times, you may not have any questions. Start with councelor and bar. I don't have a question. I was going to move the recommendation. Okay. Moved and seconded. Did you have time to motivate stall?

Uh just very briefly. I I think as a district we should be upholding our own bylaws and especially around protection of wetlands because if we don't uphold them why should anybody else you know you we we need to walk our talk and we know that wetlands are uh imperative for groundwater recharge and we all rely on that not to mention the ecological benefit of course Anderson. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Just a question if I may to staff. Um, I appreciate the idea of a donations policy for consideration. I think that would be useful. I'm wondering if you would in envision that it might include sponsorship as well as donations.

It can. I hadn't gotten that far down the road with it, but it it could. And if you have more thoughts and ideas on that, like things that you're already thinking about, please email me. Council Gord B. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I think that's a great uh great question and comment because coming from West Shore, you've probably seen a lot of sponsorship that has paid for a lot of stuff at West Shore. So, excellent idea. Hadn't even crossed my mind. Um I um I have to say that I struggled with this one not because I struggled with the ecological uh the ecological implications of the bike park there. Um but I struggled with the fact that we had sounds like from some members of community going back almost 30 years ago the community be given you know the the the approval to say hey yeah go ahead and do this and here's some money and bring a designer in and whether designer showed up or not that's a different story but it's it's something that was given to them and I think that staff

really quite has from from visiting the site seeing the staff report and then also looking at how insurance has changed. I think staff has actually hit the nail on the head that it's it's it's hit its useful life. It's hit its lifespan. And to extend its lifespan inside a repairing area these days, it's it's not going to happen. And when I think about the the discussions we had at the committee the whole um I think it's really important um I think everybody thought it was very important that that we have a very robust discussion about what people want to see at Twinflower. So, I'm really happy the staff is jumping on the interest in the community while it's there because that makes that you get more activity that way in the community when when you can jump on that interest.

So, I think it's a great idea to move this forward because part of me I support the motionless on the table. Part of me is really sad about saying no, it's got to go. Part of me is excited about what can happen. And I think that for me the biggest thing is like I say it's not the ecological aspect that's dear to my heart but it really is it really is the insurability aspect. It's the m it's it's it's our liability. And I and I think there's a couple things which really tighten down why that liability topic has been the main driver for me. Um, one has been the discussion about the trees and the fact that we've got trees that are suffering. We've had some trees that uh we had arborists take a look at the one on Eagle's Lake that came down and that was all out of what happened in a couple places uh up island um with you know and and so that is something which is quite critical. The other thing that really struck me is that the more that we've talked about

insurance and liability, the other thing that's had an impact is is we've become more aware of what our liability and what our responsibilities are. And now that we've in essence kind of been warned about um not just from the municipal insurance authority in BC but because we've been sort of warned that okay this isn't up to snuff and stuff like that we are much more aware as to why in the original report staff noted that this was yeah this wasn't really the best this wasn't the best bike [clears throat] park to have and I think that because we've sort of shed light on it, it's probably that much more uh critical that we that we address it because we have been public about talking about it. So, I I think with that um my sadness for the loss of the bike park at the moment is actually quite deep. Um, but I really would like to see and I'm excited to see if if I

have the opportunity to see um the community discussion around Twinflower Park in 2027. So, I will support the motion. All right. Seeing no further speakers, I'll call a question. All those in favor? None opposed. That carries on to 7.4 and I'll ask our corporate officer to introduce. Thank you. In December 2025, um staff brought forward a report to council regarding development of [clears throat] a business license bylaw and directed staff to prepare the bylaw for council's consideration. Since that time, works progressed and it's become evident that additional time is required to ensure that the bylaw is appropriately developed for the district's unique um rural character, land use patterns, and community expectations.

The proposed revised timeline reflects the need for additional policy development and engagement to ensure the bylaw is practical, enforceable, and aligned with council's objectives. The revised timeline is also intended to support a thoughtful measured approach that provides a regulatory certainty for businesses, enhances compliance with municipal bylaws, and establishes administrative sustainabil sustainable licensing program for the district. Thank you. Discussion seeing none other question. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries. All right. On to eight. We have a uh a couple of letters here. One is for the perennial how about the feds pay help pay for the BC fairies letter. Um all right. Yeah, I see that.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um so I asked this for this to be put on the agenda. I would like to um I'd like to suggest actually that um council direct staff to write a letter in support uh of motion M35. I think um the member of parliament from Courtney Alurnie has uh brought some very interesting information to uh our attention and um I think it's uh seems to be way overdue for the federal government to start supporting the BC ferry operational uh much much better. So I'll move that discussion. See none question. All those in favor opposed none opposed that carries. I believe 8.2. We've already sent a couple letters out.

All those in favor that carries. That brings us to the fees and charges by law. All those in favor post that carries. All those in favor? None oppose. That carries. And then we've done the first two and we're on to award of contract for Lee Box and Culvert. discussion. Seeing none other question, all those in favor opposed. None opposed that carries. Just a quick comment. Happy to see this move. I will turn your mic on. Okay. Thank you. I'm happy to see this go to I'm not sure of a young still there's in Highlands, but I'm happy to see this going to Highlander. Yeah. [snorts] Great.

All right. So, um, yes, I just wanted council to be advised and the motion says it, you will be seeing this again as a financial plan bylaw amendment coming back [clears throat] because of the pricing. Yeah, because that we're swapping out a little bit of the grant. So, we'll pull money forward from 27 to 26. Exactly. Everybody's got that. Okay. On to 10.4 then. And this is the municipal leaders advisory team. They have a um mo you know they're doing their memorandum of understanding and hope you had a look at it. All those in favor and one opposed that carries and I look for adjournment.

All those in favor none opposed that carries. Thanks.