Council heard three planning presentations, then advanced several major growth-related bylaws. The proposed parks development cost charges would rise about 5.6% for most housing, add a new charge for commercial and industrial development, and put most of the program’s funds toward buying parkland; a public speaker urged Council not to raise them. Council gave early approval to new citywide design guidelines and adopted updated residential-zone, amenity-charge, inclusionary-zoning and reserve-fund bylaws. It also approved an agreement to keep any YMCA/YWCA surplus tied to the Langford Aquatic Centre and asked staff to explore more youth programming there.
Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.
What was discussed
AI summary · check against sources
5.1 Proposed Parks DCC Rates
parks environment1 public speaker3:21 Watch · Read
A consultant presented draft park development cost charges (DCCs), fees used to fund parkland and improvements needed as the city grows. The proposed rates are about 5.6% higher for most housing: roughly $180 more for a single-family lot over 400 square metres and $80 more per apartment or condo unit. The draft would also add a new commercial and industrial charge of $15.35 per square metre. About three-quarters of the proposed program is for parkland acquisition; named projects include Veterans Park, Woodlands Park and improvements at Sioux Lake Road. Council did not decide on the rates at this presentation. Staff said they would consult interested parties and bring the bylaw back, with a meeting anticipated July 20.
Agreement
Council members sought more detail on the project list and how the proposed fees would be used before the bylaw returns.
Staff said the project list would be shared as part of consultation and confirmed that land acquisition is the main funding priority.
Disagreement
A public speaker urged Council not to increase the charges, arguing that higher development costs could discourage investment. No Council decision on the proposed rates was made.
A consultant presented a proposed overhaul of Langford’s form-and-character design guidelines. The city would replace roughly 1,100 guidelines across 21 development permit areas with 75 guidelines in one citywide area, while Bear Mountain, Westhills and South Skirt Mountain would keep their existing areas while those communities remain under development. The guidelines cover site planning, building design, landscaping and other features such as lighting and public art. They aim to make expectations clearer without dictating a single architectural style; they cannot change what zoning permits. Public engagement included more than 900 responses to an early mapping exercise and just over 50 comments on the draft. Council asked how the guidelines would address commercial parking, tree loss and heritage buildings.
Agreement
Council members welcomed a shorter, more visual and clearer set of expectations for applicants and staff.
Council members saw value in integrating landscaping, tree protection, local identity and pedestrian-friendly design into development review.
A consultant described proposed updates to the environmental development permit area (EDPA) guidelines and maps. The revised maps would distinguish sensitive ecosystems from riparian areas, which are lands beside watercourses, and use updated mapping and field checks to identify features more accurately. The riparian map uses a 45-metre buffer to flag sites that may need review under provincial stream-protection rules. The guidelines add attention to wildlife movement between habitat areas, clearer assessment expectations for qualified environmental professionals, and stronger direction on restoration and monitoring. Council asked how the rules could protect streams and wildlife corridors when applications arrive one property at a time. Staff said the guidelines would make connectivity an explicit part of environmental assessments; the presentation also clarified that stream restoration or “daylighting” would generally require separate, larger-scale work.
Agreement
Council members welcomed more accurate maps and clearer expectations for environmental assessments.
Staff and the presenter explained that updated municipal mapping can alert applicants to provincial stream protections and reduce surprises during permitting.
Disagreement
Public survey feedback showed broad calls for stronger environmental protection, alongside some concerns about restrictions on landowners; no disagreement among Council members was expressed.
Two residents spoke during public participation. One questioned the increase in employee remuneration and municipal spending, criticized garbage collection and said past minutes did not fully capture public comments. The other opposed the proposed parks DCC increase and raised questions about aquatic-centre costs, consultant spending, signage expenses and Council expenses. Their comments led to questions and discussion under the related reports and presentation items.
Disagreement
Residents criticized municipal spending and the proposed parks-charge increase; Council later discussed the financial questions under the relevant items.
Council considered a development variance permit for the expansion of the RCMP detachment across properties at Atkins Avenue and Windsor Road. A councillor said the project involved several variances but supported it. Another councillor opposed it, saying the setbacks and relationship to the street did not fit the city’s direction for street-facing development. Staff said more public information about the project and timing would be provided in the coming weeks. Council issued the permit.
Agreement
Council members recognized the application as part of the planned RCMP detachment expansion.
Disagreement
One councillor supported the expansion despite the number of variances; another opposed it over the setbacks and street engagement.
Council approved a permit for the RCMP detachment expansion at the listed Atkins Avenue and Winster Road properties. It allows several smaller setbacks, removes specified landscaping and screening requirements, and reduces the required off-street parking to 101 spaces. The permit expires after two years unless construction has substantially started.
Official wording: Development Variance Permit No. DVP25-0006 is issued by the Council for the City of Langford to Stantec Architecture on behalf of the City of Langford to allow the expansion of the RCMP detachment on the properties legally described as Lot A, Section 72, Esquimalt District, Plan VIP 72543, PID No. 025-105-671 (698 Atkins Avenue); Lot 12, Section 72, Esquimalt District, Plan 1954, PID No. 006-737-501 (678 Atkins Avenue); Lot 2, Section 72, Esquimalt District, Plan 34830, PID No. 000-306-118 (674 Atkins Avenue); Lot 1, Section 72, Esquimalt District, Plan 34830, PID No. 000-306-100 (2792 Winster Road); Lot 15, Section 72, Esquimalt District, Plan 1954, PID No. 004-188-969 (2788 Winster Road), and subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. Variances
a) The following regulation of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 is varied pursuant to section 498 of the Local Government Act:
i. That Section 6.81.05(1) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied to reduce the exterior side lot line setback from 7.5 m to 2.9 m;
ii. That Section 6.81.05(3) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied to reduce the rear lot line setback from 10 m to 1.1 m;
iii. That Section 3.05.02(5) Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied to reduce the exterior side lot line setback for accessory buildings and structures from 6 m to 2 m;
iv. That Section 3.05.02(5) Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied to reduce the side lot line setback for accessory buildings and structures from 1 m to 0.5 m;
v. That Section 3.21.01(1) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied to eliminate the requirement for a 1 m width landscaping and screening area;
vi. That Section 6.81.06 of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied to eliminate the requirement for a 3 m landscape screening area;
vii. That Section 3.21.02(3) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied to eliminate the requirement for a shrub or hedge at a minimum height of 1.2 m between vehicle parking areas and highways;
AND
b) Part 4 of the Zoning Bylaw No. 300 at the date of Development Variance Permit application submission shall be applicable to the development subject to the following variance:
i. That Section 4.01.01 (Table 1) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied to reduce the amount of off-street parking to 101 stalls.
2. Expiry
Pursuant to section 504 of the Local Government Act, this permit will lapse on the second anniversary of the date of issuance unless construction, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit, has been substantially started.
Westhills Land Corp sought a variance to subdivide land beside Langford Lake and dedicate about one hectare as parkland. The company would retain the remaining lot for a possible future restaurant or pub. Council directed staff to give notice that it would consider the permit, which would defer required works and services until a future building permit. Covenants would prevent building until the works and a site geotechnical review are completed to the satisfaction of the city’s engineering director.
Agreement
Council members supported securing the lakeside parkland for the community while requiring services and geotechnical work before construction.
Council directed staff to notify the public that it will consider allowing the property at 1320 Westhills Drive to be subdivided before required road and utility works are completed. The proposed permit would require the owner to register covenants preventing building until the required works are completed and a geotechnical review confirms any building restrictions, and would require the subdivision to follow the plan in the report.
Official wording: THAT Council:
Direct staff to provide notice that Council will consider issuing a Development Variance Permit for 1320 Westhills Dr with the following variance:
That Section 1.13. Works and Services Agreements of Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000 be varied to allow a subdivision without the construction of works and services, or entering into servicing agreement for outstanding works and services, subject to:
That the applicant registers a no-build Section 219 covenant on title prior to subdivision approval that requires works and services to be completed in accordance with Bylaw No. 1000 to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works prior to the issuance of a building permit;
That the applicant registers a no-build Section 219 covenant on title prior to subdivision approval that requires geotechnical analysis of the site in accordance with Bylaw No. 1000 to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works to determine if there are any restrictions to building on the site prior to the issuance of a building permit; and
That the site be subdivided in accordance with Figure 1 of this report.
budget finance2 public speakers1:53:11 Watch · Read
Council approved the legally required 2025 Statement of Financial Information (SOFI), which reports certain payments and employee remuneration. In response to public questions about a reported rise in employee remuneration, staff cited additional employees and retroactive firefighter pay after a multi-year contract renewal; SOFI reports cash payments, which may fall in a different year from the related accounting expense. Staff could not explain a reported $1 million in consultant payments without more detail about the specific figure. They also explained that payments to other municipalities can cover services or include casino revenue distributed to them. Council members noted that SOFI does not show the full operating budget or funding sources.
Agreement
Council members and staff said SOFI is a useful public accountability tool, while noting that it shows payments rather than the complete budget picture.
Staff clarified that employee totals include firefighters but not RCMP members, who are paid through the federal government.
Disagreement
Residents questioned rising spending and taxes; Council members discussed the figures but approved the statement, noting that payments can come from grants and other revenue as well as property taxes.
10.3 Langford Aquatic Centre - Supplementary Agreement with YMCA
community services1 public speaker2:03:10 Watch · Read
Council approved a supplementary agreement with the YMCA/YWCA to formalize the financial arrangement for the Langford Aquatic Centre. Any operating surplus would stay tied to the facility for its reserves, programming or services. The motion also directs staff to explore expanded regional recreation opportunities, especially for youth in grades 6 through 12, and to bring forward the documents needed to establish a city aquatic-centre reserve fund. A resident had questioned the purchase and its costs during public participation. Staff said the YMCA/YWCA was currently at about break-even. One councillor initially questioned whether the youth-programming direction was too specific or would add pressure to staff or overlap with West Shore Parks and Recreation; staff said the work could fit with existing meetings, and the councillor then supported it.
Agreement
Council members supported keeping any YMCA/YWCA surplus invested in the aquatic centre and building a reserve for future facility costs.
Council members supported exploring more youth recreation, with discussion emphasizing access and the strong demand for youth nights elsewhere in the region.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned the proposed focus on grades 6–12 and whether exploring new programming could add workload or compete with West Shore Parks and Recreation; after discussion, that councillor said they could support the direction.
Council approved a supplementary agreement with the YMCA/YWCA and authorized City officials to sign it. Staff will work with the YMCA/YWCA to explore more recreation programming at the pool, especially for students in grades six through twelve, and bring forward the documents needed to create a City reserve fund for agreement contributions, to be used only for aquatic-centre expenses.
Official wording: THAT Council approve the Aquatic Centre Supplementary Agreement between the City of Langford and the YMCA/YWCA, substantially in the form attached to the staff report, and authorize the Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer or Corporate Officer to execute the agreement;
THAT Council direct staff to work with the YMCA/YWCA to explore expanding recreational opportunities at the Langford Aquatic Centre with a focus on programming for youth in grades six through twelve;
AND
THAT Council direct staff to bring forward all necessary bylaws and related documents to establish the City’s Aquatic Centre Management Reserve Fund for the purpose of receiving and holding funds contributed pursuant to the Supplementary Agreement and using those funds solely for Aquatic Centre related expenses.
Council gave first, second and third readings to a zoning amendment for 854 Latoria Road. A councillor said the current owner intends to remain in the existing house and subdivide the property; the future development of the other part would return to Council for rezoning. The bylaw therefore advanced through three readings, but the later development proposal remains to be considered.
Agreement
Council members described the application as a limited step that leaves the future development proposal for a later rezoning process.
Council gave three readings to a zoning amendment for 854 Latoria Road.
Official wording: THAT Council give first, second and third readings to “Langford Zoning Bylaw, Amendment No. 696, (854 Latoria Road), Bylaw No. 2110, 2026".
Council gave first reading to Bylaw 2268, which would place the updated design and environmental permit guidelines in the Official Community Plan and revise related maps and zoning provisions. It also gave first, second and third readings to the replacement Tree Protection Bylaw 2269. The tree bylaw consolidates the process for hazardous-tree approvals and updates protection requirements. Council members praised clearer development expectations and stronger environmental protections, and staff said an arborist now checks development sites, helping address earlier compliance concerns. The motion also directed staff to bring forward a bylaw to establish an advisory design panel, which would provide professional and community input on selected complex applications.
Agreement
Council members supported simplifying and clarifying development rules, improving tree protection, and making expectations easier for applicants and staff to follow.
Staff said the revised tree-protection process would streamline hazardous-tree decisions through the city arborist.
Council gave an initial reading to changes adding form-and-character design guidelines, gave three readings to a new tree-protection bylaw, and directed staff to bring forward a bylaw to establish an Advisory Design Panel.
Official wording: THAT Council give first reading to “Langford Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200, Amendment No. 2 (Form and Character Design Guidelines) and Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300, Amendment No. 767, Bylaw No. 2268, 2026”;
AND
THAT Council give first, second and third reading to “City of Langford Tree Protection Bylaw No. 2269, 2026”;
AND
THAT Council direct Staff to bring forward a bylaw to establish an Advisory Design Panel pursuant to section 461 of the Local Government Act .
Council adopted two zoning bylaws: one creating new residential zones and one covering small-scale multi-unit housing. A councillor highlighted the new zones’ landscaping requirements, including at least one tree on site, as a way to put the city’s broader community-plan goals into practice.
Agreement
Council members supported adopting the new residential-zone and small-scale multi-unit housing rules.
Council adopted zoning changes establishing new residential zones and rules for small-scale multi-unit housing.
Official wording: THAT Council adopt "Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300, Amendment No. 761 (Omnibus No. 68 – New Residential Zones), Bylaw No. 2274, 2026";
AND
THAT Council adopt “Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300, Amendment No. 760 (Small Scale Multi Unit Housing), Bylaw No. 2273, 2026".
Council adopted the Amenity Cost Charge Bylaw, the Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw and an amendment to the reserve-fund bylaw. Council members said the amenity charge would help fund future recreation, arts and community facilities, as well as street improvements. They also highlighted the inclusionary-zoning reserve as a tool for affordable housing, including a requirement that half of certain units have two bedrooms, and pointed to transportation-demand measures as part of the package.
Agreement
Council members supported using charges tied to growth to help pay for community amenities and supporting affordable housing.
Council adopted bylaws establishing amenity cost charges and inclusionary zoning, and amending the City’s reserve-fund rules.
Official wording: THAT Council adopt "Amenity Cost Charge Bylaw No. 2275, 2026";
AND
THAT Council adopt "Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw No. 2270, 2026";
AND
THAT Council adopt “City of Langford Reserve Funds Establishment Bylaw, 2004, Bylaw No. 857, Amendment No. 3, Bylaw No. 2271, 2026”.
Council voted to close the meeting to the public to discuss land acquisition, disposition or expropriation matters and confidential negotiations involving a provincial or federal government and a third party. The discussion itself was not public.
Council moved into a private meeting to discuss municipal land matters where public disclosure could harm the City, and confidential information about negotiations involving provincial or federal governments.
Official wording: THAT Council close the meeting at 8:49 pm to the public pursuant to section 90 (1) (e) and (2) (b) of the Community Charter to consider:
the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.
Routine: adopt the minutes of the June 15 and June 22 special council meetings.
Official wording: THAT Council adopt the recommendations for each item of the Consent Agenda as presented:
Minutes of the Special Council Meeting - June 15, 2026_1:30pm (ADOPT)
Minutes of the Special Council Meeting - June 15, 2026_6:00pm (ADOPT)
Minutes of the Special Council Meeting - June 22, 2026 (ADOPT)