Transcript: Special Council - Aug 26 2026

Good afternoon everybody and thank you very much for making the time to attend this afternoon. Pursuant to section 131 of the community charter, I'm bringing forward for council's reconsiderations decision regarding Highland Zoning bylaw number 100. But before I get into that, I'm going to start the call the meeting to order and acknowledge we're meeting in the traditional territories of Laquangan Chinoten and Hulcoming speaking First Nations with whom we are committed to building stronger working relationships. Today's meeting is being livereamed and recorded enhancing transparency, inclusiveness, accountability, and efficiency. Members of the public can watch live or view through the record view the recording through our meeting portal under the tonight's agenda page or on the District of Highlands YouTube channel. Information and links to access the meeting were provided on today's agenda. Um members of the public are welcome to share their comments during the petitions and delegations of the meeting 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. So far, Mr.

Scott Richardson has registered to speak and is attending via Zoom. And also, I believe uh we've had an indication that Karen Burns will also be attending. I thought in person, but hopefully uh she comes in person. If not, maybe she'll be online. Anyways, with those additions, I look for approval of the agenda. Moved by councelor Singh, second by councelor Anderson. All those in favor opposed, none opposed. That carries. All right. And so if we have our first speaker, that would be Mr. Richardson. Welcome. Thank you, Ken. Mayor, uh, council. Um, first off, oh man, look at you guys back at it. Um, this has been a really long, incredibly long, excruciating journey both for you and staff. I can't see staff, but I'm quite sure they're there. Um, and uh, I just well, I appreciate all that you've put into trying to get this right. Um, uh, so I wanted to say that at the outset. Um I also wanted just to reflect on the fact that really the consensus in the community

um just for context was to reroute all of these properties. That was the consensus and over uh several months what emerged was what I would call a compromise significant compromise. um to do something called regenerative development. The main feature of which uh as it's explained in the uh in the documents is net positive. Um so I think it's just useful to say reing was plan A. Um plan B a great compromise but if it is not doable there's always plan A. Um now having said that I don't want to press that point. Uh I um I although I do note that there was some I think there was some mention of assessment values. Um there's no assess assessment value offered for rewed Milstream Meadows. Um, but related to that, I guess I had a question because I wasn't I was curious. I wasn't sure how to how do property assessment values factor in decisions related to this bylaw or um uh I think there was some suggestion that the property could even be a a chip

in um treaty negotiations. So, uh, I'm at a lo complete loss as to how th that those relate or are relevant. Uh, it's not your job to answer every curiosity or question I have, but I just sort of thought I'd mention that in passing. And again, I'd like to end with really a big note of appreciation looking at the sunny day outside and all the other things you guys could be doing. Um, so thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have uh Karen Burns available? Doesn't appear that she's here yet, but she did send a written submission earlier today that was circulated to council regarding the bylaw. Um her written submission will be appended to the agenda for um the public record, but council has received it.

All right. Thank you. So going on with 3.1, the bylaw would establish the proposed general commercial industrial regenerative development M1 RD and medium commercial industrial regenerative development M2RD zones and apply the M1RD zone to 1965 Milstream Road, Milstream Meadows. The recommendation before council was that the bylaw be given first and second readings. This reconsideration is to provide council with an opportunity to further reflect on the matter in light of the significant work undertaken to date. The direction previously provided by council and the broader policy context established through the official community plan and South Highland's local area plan processes. Council previously directed that zoning amendment be prepared, that a public hearing be scheduled, and that an open house be held to gather public feedback on the proposed zones and resoning.

The proposed bylaw represents the culmination of the resoning application and the incorporation of the South Highlands local area plan into the into the official community plan. Reconsideration would not enact the proposed bylaw. Rather, it would allow council to revisit the matter and determine whether the bylaw should proceed through the legislative process, including a public hearing and further consideration. Given the length of time, this application has been active. The public engagement undertaken to date and the policy direction previously established by council. I believe it is appropriate to provide council with an additional opportunity to consider whether the proposed proposed bylaw should advance to the next stage.

All right. When considering this, I know also we have Quinn Dailyaly from the CRD uh available soon. So um I believe my briefing portion is finished and I am going to go on to 3.2 now. And this is where the highlighting zone bylaw um be considered. And I have some more comments to add right now. And one of them is that people um this does not what Schlap did made a recommendation and we all appreciate that hard work and we all appreciate the consultation but this is not a a departure from the schlap recommendations because on the schlap recommendations itself it showed properties that had commercial and industrial buildings on it and these were acceptable. The slot recommendations were very high high they they encompassed a broad array of ideas for this area. Now, what's come to light that didn't happen before was that there have been several inquiries by the by the CRD and others that this property the property 1965 Milstream thing has their property

values have been affected from the original plan from the original zoning potential of commercial and industrial to the point now where the property values are lowered by in one case 66% % in another case 90% somewhere that's pretty and I want to ask council if their own properties were devalued 60% or 99%. Now, how would that feel? You know, and this is something that is an actual fact. So, what we want to do is we look at that. We have the three pillars that we have economic, social, and financial. So, we're going off the start here with a actual very negative economic potential, a net negative potential of this loss of potential property value. And it's something that directly affects and it's why when I talk to CRD directors and staff that they are concerned they're concerned about this and what we can do is I want to explain that the schlap allows this kind of thing. It it's already in the in in the report. That's what we'd like to

engage. I think council always planned to engage and to put these kind of things into our OCP um and as a as a zoning and by no way does this affect all the good positive net positive things that can happen there and like I say I appreciate all the work and all the consultation but what we want to do is be able to market this property at a value that a you know corrects what's happened to the property valuations. So what'll happen here is we can bring bring the marketability up to what I believe would be a more fair market value. That would be a win for our our good friends and neighbors and neighboring municipalities who have spent a lot of taxpayers dollars as Highlands also has spent a lot of taxpayers dollars on this remediation.

So, this would give it a chance to, you know, to recover some of those funds and it's really still fitting within uh the reports and the comments from the Schlatt group that uh that the council has embraced. Um, all we want is a fair hearing on this. All we want is to I think the public weigh on it because I think that that fact that's kind of a bit of a new information and it kind of surprised me when I heard of this devaluation. I'm sure it surprised everybody, but I think we can correct this. And an easy way to do it is to continue the process that we we started here. And I think we should continue that. An easy way I think mostly it's a um it's a bit of maybe a confusion of what what's there right now that and it's we've have that potential to to correct that confusion. If we can make that clear to people so that the our property values are fair property

values, then I think it'll be a win-win for the CRD and the people who funded this. It'll be a win-win for Highlands taxpayers and we haven't lost anything on the all the other fine points of of uh climate mitigation and the environment because they're all still intact and all still there. And uh as you as councils wear aware well well that time there are time considerations here and so I really appreciate your help with this. That's what I have to say and uh I don't know if council has any comments on on council Anderson. I don't have the uh the special device staff will help me there.

We're just pausing a sec to get our communicator going.

There we go. There we go. Councelor Henderson, you're online. Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And I have a question that I expect is through the mayor to staff, if I may. Just a process question because we don't um have the benefit of entertaining reconsideration very often. Um and my question is are there any constraints that we should be aware of about what what is involved in any reconsideration discussion? So for example um prior to putting any motion on the floor, can we engage in questions or some brainstorming? Uh are we restricted to the motion that we we spoke to last time? Are there any any elements like that that we should be aware of before we get underway?

So, the motion that you're considering under the reconsideration is the one on the agenda, which also includes the amendment that um was um approved by council, and that's what um you should be considering tonight or today. Um but you can still make amendments to the motion that's on the table. Um or you can make other motions. Right. Just a question. Council Mlean. Thank you, Mr. Ear. Um, so I'm sorry. Are we being limited to questions to staff right now? We can go questions, but the the motion's going to be there for consideration. Questions can be first. Sure. Well, um, actually, I'd like to make some points.

Um so going through the um survey again today which was the recent survey for the open house that the district held on July 22nd 2026 evening. Um although there was only nine people in attendance staff reports and only eight people completed survey responses which is of course a small snap snapshot but however um I uh value their um efforts and uh opinions and um what appeared to me to be mostly um of uh importance to them as as the question was posed in the survey um was not uh much support towards local jobs, recycling and circular economic activities. Um and none of the eight respondents had remediation cost recovery as a matter of import of importance to them.

So, and uh also out of the survey when considering future uses in the regenerative development area, um this the uh respondents uh indicated of course their residents that um they're still looking for the net positive impacts as set out in the Highlands official community plan with a reputable means for measurement. [snorts] Pardon me. And um there out of the survey there appears to be a a a preference for uh possible uh commercial development over low-end industrial parks. um as well as there was from my perspective and my read low support for the questions specific to composting and recycling facilities as well as aerobic composting facility.

So, and there were additional um negative comments on using the word industrial um for the for lands in the South Highlands. So, I just wanted to um uh resurrect that that has for me that has some influence. And then we have some correspondence from some residents today. one of them. Mr. Scott Richardson was a member of the South Highlands Local Area Plan Task Force. Um, uh, Karen Burns was not, uh, she provided some input as well. I appreciate that that input and the time. [laughter] and uh councelor Anderson as we know is the [clears throat] um council liaison to uh the South Highlands local area plan and I was the uh alternate for council and we all attended uh [clears throat] both of us all attended the meetings and read the material and um I as I indicated before I read all the comments uh the survey um which were quite high um I think there was close to 300 uh surveys that were completed out of that

uh exercise for the South Highlands local area plan. So, um I find this to be a bit of a conundrum and um I guess I too would perhaps would like to know from the province what what the hurry is on on this because from it's my understanding it's the province of BC that is uh pushing the District of Highlands and perhaps the capital regional district staff to come to some resolution on the property known as 1965 Milstream Road. So I I don't know exactly why and I think it would be respectful and appropriate for the province to provide us with that information. Albeit that I realize that um perhaps the pro province doesn't particularly care too much uh of the Highlands needs. I don't know. But um anyway, so I just wanted to make those uh comments because I bothered to write them up today. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Uh I'm just going to ask staff do do uh for the motion for reconsideration does have to be restated now or is it just fine the way it is on the paper? I would suggest restating it. I would restate it. So whoever's whoever's moving some does someone want to move it and state it? Yeah. And if if there are no further questions I would like to move it. Have another question. Yes. [snorts] Go ahead. customer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, yes, I do have a question through to staff um just regarding um um the fact that um today in the Goldstream Gazette, there is a advertisement posted for the public hearing on September 8th for 1965 Milstream Property regarding the reszoning. And I'm just very curious as to why that has moved ahead when um it wasn't necessarily known at the time that um council was going to um support staff's recommendation or not. Thank you.

So, um, at a previous meeting, council did, um, indicate that they stated the date would be, um, September 8th for a public hearing. Um, to be able to meet the legislative advertising requirements, it would have needed to be in this paper and the following paper. And to get it into the paper, we have to have it um to them by Friday morning prior to like Friday last week. So, we put it in hoping that um we could cancel it in time, but it was not an option. It had to be cancelled by noon on Monday. Um and so we will be putting if it does not go forward to public hearing, we'll be putting an advertisement in the paper indicating that it has been cancelled in the following newspaper.

Yes. Yes. It was council resol res resolution um to hold a public hearing on September 8th. All right. Any questions? Seeing none, I I will make that motion. And that Highlands winning bylaw number 100 1998 amendments number 49 M1 RD M2RD 1965 Milstream Road bylaw number 488 2026 be given first and second readings as amended to add industrial uses within the zone shall exclude wrecking and salvaging operations to six section 11.5.21 to one of schedule B to bylaw 488. That's the motion. Do I have a seconder?

Gord. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, don't see a seconder. So, I would like to propose a motion arising from this topic and uh I've written one out and I'll pass it out to all the individuals uh because it's got a couple bits and pieces of components and it's easier to have in front of you when I read it out. So, I'm just going to pass it out and I will read it.

So, the motion is that staff be directed to write to the Capital Regional District advise that council would welcome a new resoning application for 1965 Milstream Road prepared and submitted by the Capital Regional District as owner and to convey A the following considerations for council's benefit in addressing such an application. A that the zone be crafted by the applicant drawing on the South Highlands local area plan, the regenerative development designation, development permit area 4, and the community input received through the process to date. B. That the application include measurable performance metrics addressing some or all of water, waste, storm water, energy, carbon, and ecology habitat.

C. that the metrics need not meet a full regenerative development standard in every category, but that one or more metrics be demonstrabably net positive against the stated baseline as per date of as per stated baseline as per date of the certificate of compliance. D. All rain water and storm water falling on the site be used on site with any excess being used to support ecological flows. E. The application may identify a community amenity offered voluntarily by the applicant in support of the application. F that the application identify for each proposed metric the instrument for which it would be made enforceable either through zone text amended DP permit area guidelines under section 490 and 491 of the local government act and that council confirm that it will receive such an application and that any reapplication interval under the district's development application procedures be waved for this purpose. So, I'm hoping that might be seconded.

Oh, thanks. Thanks. I'm going to speak to it. So, I think that Mr. Richardson spoke about his appreciation of all the work that's gone into this so far. And I want to start with something that I mean quite sincerely that the CRD is an exceptional organization with exceptional staff. I've had the privilege of working alongside them for 12 years. Nothing I'm about to say is a criticism of them. And let me concede the obvious that this isn't the outcome anyone at this table wanted. Uh we've put real time into this. But here we are. There is no assessment tool. And even though the tool and even if the tool existed, there is no development in front of us to assess it.

It's kind of like being asked to build a lock before anyone has shown us the door. It's a big ask when frankly we have more limited capacity and resources in relation to what the CRD has to draw upon. It's worth remembering how we got here. When this first came forward, it was bundled alongside a proposal this community had deep concerns about. The adjoining application was denied. This one was placed in hold. And when this community was carrying the weight of the provincial process for the neighboring property, we had asked for a letter of support. It came, but it came after the commenting window had closed. Our community did that work alone and we paid for it alone. And out of that came the task force and out of the task force came slap the very plan that we're working from today.

But the question I put to us is is simply whose application is it? The CRD owns the land. The CRD knows what it intends to do with it and understands the constraints on it better than anyone. The CRD has the planning staff, the ecological environmental staff, and the engineering staff resources that we just don't have. What I'm proposing cost the district nothing but a letter. It asks the owner to come forward with a zone drawing from the work we are we've already done with real numbers on water, stom water, energy, carbon, waste, ecology, habitat. at least one of them net positive with particular attention tied to water staying on site and used to support ecological flows and with an understanding that if an amenity were voluntarily offered the community would consider it and I don't think that's a door closing I think it's an invitation and I think it's the right one to extend and I would hope that I can gain the support of council for this

Councelor Rousley, thank you. Um, I would support this motion. I think that's a good solution and and I would ask through the mayor to staff whether they have I know this is short notice, but whether they have had a chance to consider uh this motion and whether they have any response. Thank you. Through the mayor. Um, I think it's a sound motion. Um, it it it doesn't talk about uh covenant. I I'm not sure. I can't I apologize that I don't know off my off the top of my head what 490 and 491. Okay. So, so I think that was the an important factor that um the CRD mentioned. Um, yeah, I I think it's a sound motion.

Thank you. I I appreciate that response and and I'm going to ask if if there were to Amanda, please, if there were any um [clears throat] legal flags in the motion, whether whether anything in that sort of perk perked your legal ears. Thank you. Um, I don't see anything off the top of my head without looking at it closer um that it wouldn't um there would be any legal red flags or anything like that. Once again to to our planner. Thank you. So through the mayor again um that the zone be crafted by the applicant. I would I would caution on that. Um that's something the district should do. Uh we always ask an applicant to review a zone once we've put it together. Um because it's their it's their land. We want it to be what we need it to be. So I think uh director to write to would welcome a new resoning application prepared and submitted to convey the following considerations. So um that's the only

comment I would make that I I would not I would not expect an applicant to draft a zone for us. Sometimes it's helpful um but it wouldn't be an expectation and and so would it be more uh would it be uh better to say that a zoning application be drafted by the applicant or the proposal a proposal that the proposal be crafted by the applicant. Okay. Well, with that with that a I would make that amendment then that the that the zone be propo that the proposal by the applicant drawing etc rather than the zone be crafted. [snorts] Now we have a second. Okay. Discussion on the amendment Charlie Mlan.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, can I could just get uh clarification on which uh [snorts] letter of the alphabet uh councelor Rousing is speaking to? I'm talking to the A section of the motion that begins. Okay. That the zone be crafted that a proposal. That's all you need to say is a Um, so this is just on the amendment. So I um I will leave my uh comments for now. However, I will say I guess um I will say um I have spoken to this in the past at this council table. I had queried why aren't we letting the capital regional district submit their own resoning application and proposal um and and see what they come up with and um so I'll leave it at that in respect to the amendment. Thank you.

I don't see any other speakers. So I'll take a vote on the amendment. All those in favor opposed and none opposed. That carries on to back to the main motion. As do we have any other speakers on this? Councelor Anderson. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I first I just want to say thank you um councelor B for taking the time. Presumably it took quite a bit to put this together. I mean, I've been struggling with wanting to find some way that sounded like a path forward and I I wasn't really coming up with much that felt helpful. So, I think this is an interesting approach and I think it's one really one that that makes some sense to to certainly consider. Um, I'm just I'm curious if I could have a question through to staff from a process perspective then. Um would this mean that we would be waiting for uh the CRD presuming they would be willing to do this which we don't know for sure but um would we just then be in a position of waiting for them to bring something forward.

So through the mayor yes thank you. Uh yeah, I'm in support of this. The the most robust response I've seen so far that that helps us um continue to move this forward because I'm not interested in standing in the way of this. It's just we need some way to do it in in a fashion that allows us to actually, you know, articulate what's going on through the South Island local area plan. And we were we're like a lot of that work has been done and I'm glad it's referenced here. Um so maybe maybe this is a strong a strong suggestion. sourcing. Thank you. My light's still on. Yeah, I I think we've been floundering a bit uh just because of unknowns and and to look at a proposal seems to me a lot easier than to try and create a proposal out of thin air. So, uh, I I think it's I think it's a great solution and it it gives us I doubt I doubt this council will see it, but uh it it gives us something to

which to react rather than to create our own. I hope it I hope it relieves our staff of some of some pressure and uh and uh some some discomfort. So, so, uh, I'm I'm glad to throw this over to Cardi. Quiet. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um I would um actually like to get um confirmation as to who actually owns this property because I uh one of the CRD staff at a previous meeting uh here with council and staff um indicated that um the CRD does not own the property fee simple. And so I really don't know who the register owner is. I know approximately 1985 the province turned it turned it over I've looked at the wording it doesn't get very explicit they turned it over to the capital regional district and um so just so we know who we're waiting to hear from if if if we could um have that clarified I think that would be helpful thank you through the chair to staff or whoever can answer that in the very near future.

Thank you. I I would suggest uh Mr. Dailyaly is probably the best person to answer that question. Fine with the uh council accept that. Okay, Mr. Daly. Uh thanks very much. Um yeah, and thanks for the question. It is through the mayor. Uh it it is uh a somewhat complicated answer, so I apologize that I can't to say uh yes or no. Um the the land was transferred to the CRD through what's called a sponsored crown grant uh with a reverter clause on the title. So if you actually go into the um the torrent system and look at the legal uh description and and standing of this this property, it does say CRD is the owner. It also has a notation that if it's not being used for septic lagoon purposes that the province has the right to revert it back to crown land status.

So that is where the ambiguity in ownership is coming from. We we do not own the full package of of rights uh that we would under a normal fee simple ownership model. We for example could not um move forward any with any um anything that's going to impact the title without the province accepting that uh um that at that action. Um similarly with resoning we will have to uh with an application for resoning we will have to receive um uh compliance from or sorry confirmation from the province that they will allow us to make that application if we do decide to go down that path.

Thank you for that. And as we've just found out, the CRD isn't responsible for all the zoning decisions on this and that it would require the uh participation of the province for this. So in that sense, the motion uh fails from that point of view because it's just going to half half the owner. So we can't uh cause that uh discrepancy to allow that to go forward for us. Go ahead, councelor Baron. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the the determination of that uh to me sort of fails the test because it was the CRD that originally brought the very first resoning. So, if that was the case, the CRD would be very well aware that they have that opportunity. So, I think that that uh discussion point as to this motion failing uh doesn't uh doesn't stand. I'd pose that question to Mr. Daly.

Um yeah, I would say that we are able to take the uh take the the request forward. It's just the final determination would require input from the from the province. So what um what is going to happen is if we put in a resoning application um then we will have to reach out to the province and receive permission and we have we did do that with the 2015 uh resoning application and did receive approval at that time. Thank you councelor. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um after 12 years of sitting on the climate action intermunicipal task force, there were a lot of conversations about obviously climate change adaptation, mitigation uh through economic uh social and uh habitat, you know, nature-based uh type lenses.

uh 12 years of it. In fact, there's a lot of discussion on that and I know that the CRD has an incredible um team of people with expertise in all of these different areas that uh could potentially put something together. um whether or not a proposal put together by the CRD would be uh entertained by probably the next council at this point. Who knows how fast they could do it, but uh uh would be yet to be determined, but at this point I I think it's a good step forward for uh at least this item not just dying on the table. So I will support this motion. Any

further discussion by members of council? All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries. Thank you. I look for adjournment. All those in favor? Oppos? Not opposed. That carries.