Transcript: Regular Meeting of Council - 25 May 2026

Okay. Good. H good evening everyone. Have silence please. About to start. Yeah. No, don't want to use the G. Thank you. Um, regular C, excuse me, regular meeting of council, Monday, May 25th, 2026. Call to order at 7 p.m. And, uh, move on to item two. And I look for councelor Sanji for the territorial acknowledgement. Can you hear me now? The microphone is on. Just try and speak a little bit closer and then we'll just drive. Can you hear me now? Okay. Thank you. So we go to councelor Sanjief. Thank you chair. To begin, we acknowledge that we are gathered on Vasanic territory. The council is committed to strengthening relationship with our neighboring first nation communities of Pauquin, Seckum, Seout, Sarlip, and Malahhat. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we move right on to approval of a items. Excuse me. It's introduction of late items. We have some late items which is 7 A1, 7 A V and 7 A 6, 8 A, 9A, which is a correspondence, and 9 A and B which are also correspondence. Are there any other late items? Council McKinto. Yes, mayor. because I missed the deadline um earlier in the week because of an incident that occurred on Friday. Um, I would like to um make a motion that I a late item include me being prohibited from entering the conference that was held on behalf of the district by a volunteer and uh supported by councelor McConi as well as I'd like to see a report on the how the seniors and loneliness center is coming along uh that we haven't had any up updates of.

Now, if if mayor isn't prepared to hear this motion or to hear this request out at late item at this hearing at this uh council meeting, I'd be happy to provide u something more in advance for the next council meeting. The problem I have is that there's no it would normally be a matter of rising to come in. There's nothing on the agenda that matches with it. So certainly if you want to bring it Oh jeez. if you want to bring it bring it forward and uh other motions to bring forward at the next at the council meeting on I think it's June 15th is it?

Yeah. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Any other late items? I see none. I look for a motion uh including the late items. Approval of the agenda. So voted. Councelor Stock again. Approval of the agenda. Seconded. Councelor Marshall. Any further any questions, comments? Council, sorry, Pinto. Yes. Thank you. I re um I'm sure all of council received a couple of letters in relation to short-term rental. One from a um Regina Samoto Samoto. Sorry if I mispronounced the name as well as another one from Henry Ham. Um, could those be added to item 10 on the agenda? Staff, you aware of those two? Can they be added to this one or is it on the next next council meeting through the chair? Where were those letters?

Sorry. Were those letters delivered to you specifically? No, they're addressed to mayor and counsel only. So, I presume all counselors receive them. It would be at the will of council on whether you would like to receive them or have them on the next agenda. We didn't receive them through administration. I think that's possibly the error was that it wasn't CCT yourself as well, but I know that the rest of the council would have received these uh would have received the letters. They aren't uh time-sensitive because we're not dealing with that matter at this po at this moment. So, um I'd be happy to see them on the next agenda then.

It would be more appropriate for them to be on the next agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. We move right on to public participation period. I'm assuming it's going to be public participation period. We have a new um rules for tonight which is uh good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us today. Council welcomes and values public participation. Open respectful dialogue is a cornerstone of a healthy democratic community and we appreciate the time and effort each of you has taken to be here and to share your pers your perspectives. As we begin I would like to remind all attendees that this meeting is a formal proceeding. We are asked that everyone conduct themselves with courtesy, respect and consideration for others at all times. This includes listening without interruption, only speaking when called upon, addressing remarks through the chair, and speaking in a manner that is constructive and focused on issue before council. We recognize that some

topic topics before us may be strongly felt and may lead to passionate views that is entirely appropriate in a democratic setting. However, expressions of those views must remain respectful. Personal attacks against staff or council members, discriminatory language, shouting, or other disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Please be advised that if these expectations are not followed, the chair may take steps to maintain order. This may include limiting or ending a speaker's time or asking individuals to leave the meeting. Our shared goal is to ensure that all voices can be heard in a safe and respectful environment. By engaging with one one another civily and thoughtfully, we strengthen both our decision- making and our community. I thank you for your cooperation and now we'll proceed with the meeting.

So, we're looking for people to speak tonight, but the first person wish to come forward. Okay. Um, good evening, uh, mayor and council and staff. Um, we're Ralph and Kim Van Bugan, and we're just here, um, in support of our, um, variance application that is before council tonight. and we live at 10972 Madrona Drive and we really just wanted to let you know that we're here if there's any questions that may arise and yeah so that you know and that's all. Okay, thank you. Thanks. Thanks kid. My name is Terry Gold and I'm a journalist who lives in North Sanich. Mayor, given the disruption on May 11th when I addressed a revived amen amendment to our officer bylaw that was defeated months ago, I'm going to respectfully ask for an extra 45 seconds today.

What I did not get to say was that the amendment could have huge implications for our official community plan because it removes council's job protection of our director of planning, the man behind our OCP. Um, you cannot reference a staff member. Huh? The bylaw doesn't reference No, of course not. But it removes job protection globally from four officers. But yeah, but you mentioned one specific unless you were going to go to the rest. The amendment was proposed by the CEO and defeated on December 15th, rose again in the May 11th meeting agenda, was withdrawn, and now has risen a third time. Here are the facts. Our current 2023 officer bylaw lists seven district officers who can only be fired by a supermajority vote of our elected council. The amended bylaw will reduce the number of protected offices to three, the CEO and two other senior offices.

It would exclude the directive planning and three other current offices giving power to an unelected CEO to dismiss any of these four. Our current director of planning on Yes, sir. just just through the chair. These comments are inaccurate and I have serious concerns um about the inaccuracy of these um and I won't suggest anything other than the fact that this is a public meeting and without staff being able to correct some of these inaccuracies or council correcting some of these inaccuracies. This can be broadly received by the public as inaccurate information. specifically referencing the CEO proposing things. The CEO doesn't propose things. That was direction that was provided by council to bring that forward. So, if we're going to continue to listen to things that are inaccurate, I'm going to request that we not allow the speaker to continue any further because the sentiment that goes amongst the community when misinformation is put out is festering and it is fear-mongering and is inappropriate.

So, I would request that the speaker not be allowed to continue speaking. Well, perhaps if it gives me some some some help. Well, let's if you would like me to stick to some text that you have put forward, well, I I'll direct it to you. Um, I believe that ignoring the research abilities of our residents, today's bylaw motion is deceptively worded. It directs staff to quote prepare an amendment to the current officer bylaw to align it with the strict legislative requirement to establish as officers of the district only the positions of corporate officer, financial officer and chief administrative officer. In my opinion, the statement is wrong.

Section 146 of the current community charter states that council must establish at least two officers and quote may by bylaw establish other officer positions. This is exactly what under the community charter our district did in 2023 by establishing the seven officers listed in our current bylaw. Many other BC municipalities have more than three officers and are in compliance with the charter, including our neighbor Langford, 11 officers, including director of planning. Sorry, just through the chair. Again, this is inaccurate information and we have to stop this. The public is listening and our staff have no ability to correct the information that is being presented. Correct. Okay. Or respond.

Correct. Um, Terry, sorry. I'm going to call it Terry because we have spoken a small number of times together. You you're going in a direction that doesn't allow because it's a threeminut segment. Staff cannot comment with regard to uh inaccuracies or in the opinion of staff and also the opinion of myself the inaccuracies. I can give you an inaccuracy as as an example when you're talking about the number of uh municipalities that have more than three. There there are 161 municipalities. You mentioned 12 or 11. I can't remember the number. That means 7% of the province of of British Columbia has more than three. That doesn't include the ones that are cities and I'm not even talking about the regional districts. So there is a lot of information that you're given. So what I would request is is that you ask staff and council to come back with a response to yourself with regard to what we consider to be the inaccuracies. If we do that and you're

in agreement, then we will ask that you also make this public that the staff is correct in certain areas, council is correct in certain areas, but you stick to what you believe to be legitimate uh complaints and a complaint that we should have eight officers of the corporation rather than three. I disagree with you with regard to what the community charter says. I think you're reading too much into it, but because of the fact that in a three minute speech, we do not have the time to to reflect what we believe to be accurate and not. So I ask that you wrap out wrap up sorry and then come back to us in the next number of days with an email to to staff to council um outlining why you believe these these facts as you call them to be correct and then we can have a little bit of an inter exchange between staff and council and yourself with regard to um what you can go forward what we believe you can go forward with

mayor. Okay, I'll have a short reply to that. I I've looked over past council meetings before I moved here. I've heard people scream the word bastard at you. I've heard people scream the word at another counselor. Yeah. Again, you chair, this is inappropriate to go back and forth. I would just ask that we ask that there were there was no uh cutting short of speech. I only have three minutes here and you're stopping me from a threeminut talk. Uh staff. Yes. Okay. Any like as you said a chair any questions or concerns can always be directed through to my office. Correct. Yeah. Thank you. Is there with that we're on we're on to the next. Welcome.

Hi everybody. My name is Vic Peek and I have been living in North Sanich on Clayton Road for about 26 years. And the reason I know it's 26 years right off the top of my head is because that's how old my daughter is. Cuz when I was pregnant with my daughter, uh, I decided I wanted to come to a different place. You know that place. I know that place. When I moved here, I renamed my router Brigadeun because I felt like I'd fallen into some magical place where time has changed. It's ceased. We've stopped. We've developed these community values which I see largely represented in what you guys do every day and I really appreciate what you do. What I also want to say is, you know, I know the magic of this place and like Brigadeun, we have to fight for that place. We have to make sure we keep the sanctity of what makes that place magic. And I look around me and I see a room full of friends, right? A room from

very diverse backgrounds. I got Frank from forestry, got Marilyn with her love for dogs. I got Michelle who has a pet turkey named George. You know, we have all these people in this room, really diverse backgrounds. And what I would say is I think what makes us special is the representation of our diversity on this council. and what represents that also and it is in regards to the bylaw but it's done from a place of love because I love deep cove and I think the broader stakeholder invol involvement in any of these uh decisions regarding who's on and who's off I think represents the diversity of this room and that's all I want to say just love and I hope you make the right decision and I think you will thank you thank Hello, Mayor and Council. Uh, my name is Paige Gibson. I'm here on 9A tonight.

Um, there's a lot of concern for accuracy in the room tonight. I'm sensing um and so while I have not previously gotten into my day job when I've addressed this council, I will uh just to uh relieve anyone of any concerns about the the accuracy part uh of my comments that are going to follow. Um I'm a municipal litigator. Um my practice is almost entirely judicial review which is uh the court's assessment of whether or not a local government has acted within its statuto authority statutory authority and has done so reasonably. Um so I don't purport to give the district any legal advice tonight. Of course not.

Um but I I I did feel compelled to come as a resident. I live on Dogwood Road. I'm sorry I left that part out. Uh I did feel compelled to come as a resident uh and just just speak to a couple of portions of the uh preamble here. Um council directed staff to undertake a review of the current officer bylaw and received a staff report and recommendations that the bylaw be rei revised to align it to comply more strictly with the community charter and provincial best practices regarding statutory officer positions and duties. Um I'm fairly familiar with the community charter. When I open Google Chrome, it's my homepage. Um so, um I I I I was seeking some clarification because it doesn't seem to me that the current bylaw is not in compliance with the community charter and hopefully someone could clarify that uh for me. I'm not sure what these provincial best practices are um or if that's been put before council in some capacity. So, I'm hoping maybe we could hear about that.

Um, the be it resolved section uh seeks to have council direct staff to prepare an amendment to the current officer bylaw to align it with a strict legislative requirement to establish as officers of the district only the positions of corporate officer, financial officer, and chief administrative officer. Possibly there's another version of the community charter. I haven't read. Um, but I I I don't understand those to be the only um officer positions that can be lawfully created by a municipality. There's a provision, which I'm pretty sure Terry was probably going to get to reading, uh, that specifically states that a council may by bylaw establish other officer positions. Um, so just seeking a bit of clarity here tonight because this seems, um, I mean, I'm glad that we're worried about misleading information because, uh, this doesn't quite seem right to me. So, I'm hoping we can hear some clarity as we go on here. Uh also I don't know how much time I have but I will say um there's certain roles in

this municipality that can be challenging because of all sorts of external pressures and uh uh the director of planning role not the person is one of those uh and I think extra layers of protection are helpful. Thank you for your time. Uh, mayor and council, good evening and staff and to the great turnout of public here. I think this is great. I too wanted to speak to the uh to the motion that will be on the table about uh the officer bylaw. Um, from my perspective, it's a little different than what I'm hearing so far. Maybe I'm off base. I don't know. But I think elected officials who may only sit for one term should not have wide sweeping even whimsical control over senior staff which is how I interpreted the broad coverage that uh currently exists. Staff are there for long-term care and management of the district and they are hired for that specific expertise.

elected officials, no offense to anybody, may only have a limited agenda and require no expertise in municipal management. So, this imbalance can cause disruption. It limits healthy discussion. It limits varied points of view being expressed and it puts professional input in jeopardy. I've actually seen where an agenda uh of a group of counselors can seriously impact public input or in fact go completely contrary to public input. That's what happens when an agenda overrides public interest. You are here for the public interest and I should hope you respect that. I think what this uh revision is doing is saying we have staff who should look after staff. Our job as council and mayor is to look after one or two critical positions in the municipality and I respect that. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. My first time. Um my name is Anita Telford. Um we have a property on West Sanage Road and I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to have three minutes of your time and to present to you. Um I'm here actually to talk about the short-term rental regulations that you're um contemplating. And as a major mayor and council, you have a very big job and responsibility when it comes to creating bylaws that apply to every property and every property owner within your municipality. And not each property is the same and not every owner situation is the same. So while you may think that rules you're contemplating are good and appropriate, they're not maybe always um for everybody in a municipality. And so I would like to describe to you our particular situation for 10269 West Sanage Road. The property is owned by three owners. My sister Regina, my husband Gordon, and myself. We owe each own one-third interest in the property, and we have a co-owner agreement which prohibits any one of us to use this

property as a principal residence. My sister Regina lives in Smithers, BC, and Gordon and I live in Nova Scotia. So we're just here this week. So I wanted to present rather than in June. Combined my sister and an and uh Regina and I we also own a portfolio of multif family rental properties in Victoria and in Sanage 1020 10269 West Sage Road fulfills three main purposes for us. First, it allows us to stay connected with family. Gordon and I have six adult children here in Victoria and two grandchildren, so we love to come and spend time with them. My sister Regina has a daughter, son-in-law, and grandson twins in Vancouver, and they love to spend holidays at the waters in North Sanage. The second purpose of this house is that it allows my sister and I to be involved in the management of our rental portfolio of long-term rental properties. Our portfolio is managed by Devon Properties in Victoria, but we like to be involved and we come to Victoria several times a year to participate in making major repair and

renovation decisions, meeting with our resident managers and being involved in tenant relations. And the third purpose is for this home to be used as an Airbnb. For us, it means that it can be professionally managed. It's wellmaintained. It helps the revenue helps us to maintain the cost of it. Um we pay the speculation tax. Um and and we honestly feel that it's we enjoy coming here and travelers enjoy coming here. So the local area benefits by the money our guests spend in North Sanage. Our neighbors have never had a complaint. They have our personal contact information and the contact information of our property management company. So, I'm really hoping that by sharing our particular situation, you can maybe see that the proincially allowed exemption for fractional ownership that has a restriction that no one is allowed to use the house as a principal residence is in fact a valid exemption. It's probably not all that common, but to me, it's an exemption that makes sense. So for me and for my family, we of course hope to be able to continue to hope to use the home as we

do and we love no Sanage. We've enjoyed our three years here and hope that we continue to use this property for the purposes we intended when we bought it. Thank you. Thank you. uh through the chair if you would like to extend the public participation past 20 minutes per the bylaw. We just need a council. Okay. Need need a motion to extend council deista by how many minutes? I'm just looking with three others. Chair, could we extend by 12? That would allow for a fourth if somebody was sitting down. Make it 15. 15 just in case. here. Seconded. Um, those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you, staff.

Good evening, council. Susan Chandler, Nor Sanage. Four years ago, I spoke up during the public participation period and expressed my concern that on the subject of the OCP, the public voice was not being heard by the then council. I would like to thank the present council for listening to the public and how together with staff we have now made a north Sanage OCP. I would also like to recognize the public input that went into the recently opened Wolf Orchard Park and more importantly how it was accepted to create what I see as a wonderful community asset. What I like about local government is when significant decisions are made by the community members we elect and not relinquished to staff or consultants.

This depends on the capacity of the mayor and council to listen to the public and to clearly and completely explain how a decision is made. The office of bylaw that is on the agenda tonight fails far short of being clearly and completely explained. I am asking that when discussing this agenda item, council explains why a bylaw that council supported three years ago and six months ago now needs to be modified. Please be aware that the justifications provided in the notice of motion do not align with the information provided on the province of British Columbia's website. Thank you. Hello, my name is Hughki. I live on Monroe Road about a stones throw from Municipal Hall.

I want to speak about two items this evening. The first is uh about the uh motion on the uh the officer's uh bylaw. It's interesting to note that just over 3 years ago, final reading was uh provided for the uh the bylaw that's currently in place. That was moved by councelor Mcccleintoch, seconded by councelor Debatista, and it was also agreed to by councelor Stock. Yet here we are three years later, at least in not quite three years in December where those same three counselors didn't want to keep the same bylaw in place. So I guess the critical question is why? Certainly a number of other councils has been mentioned on Vancouver Island throughout the province allow for more than that and there's been no rationale provided and it would appear to me that uh by advocating its responsibility council is only creating speculation with the public as to why they are doing this.

There doesn't seem to be a rationale that's come forward as other PE speakers have said. My second item is the development variance permit for 10972 Madrona Drive. I note that staff has hesitantly recommended that council approve this item. There appears to have been a historic development in the area that does not conform to the zoning bylaw. That was part of their rationale. To me, that shouldn't be a reason to allow this or any future development requests of variances to be approved. And we're not looking at a small variance here either. One of the variances is to reduce a setback from 15 m to 1.85 m. An 88% decrease in the setback. Another variance is to reduce a setback from 7.6 m to 1.86 m. A 68% reduction in the setback.

The magnitude of the proposed variances appears to me at least to completely gut the zoning bylaw and creates a terrible precedent for future variance requests, particularly in our very sensitive foreshore area. When this item is discussed later in the meeting, I certainly want to hear councelor's reasoning as to why this motion should be approved. Voting to support this motion appears to destroy the credibility of the zoning bylaw and does no favors to the environment. Thank you.

Evening. Evening, mayor and council. Jack Thornberg, Clayton Road, North Sanage. In my birth country, the United States, during the last 10 years, there has been a steady disintegration of democratic institutions and practices. This is most evident in the huge increase of executive powers that is the power of author and authority of the president as chief ex chief executive officer I don't want to see the erosion of dem sorry it was it was a I would I do not want to see the erosion of democratic institutions and practices in the country I chose 52 years ago. This amendment to the officers bylaw in North Senate leads precisely to that erosion. that is it puts more authority into our executive branch that is the CEO and consequently removes authority and decision making power from the council which we all hope are the representatives of us the citizens. Thank you.

Hi, good evening and thank you. Uh my name is Carolyn Stout. I'm here tonight uh speaking on behalf of my husband, Alec Heinman, who wanted to be here but had to attend a Sydney Anglers meeting. He is not watching the Haps game. Um, we live in North Sanich on Madrona Drive and um, Alec finds it hard to understand why the matter of the officer's bylaw has even come up when it has been decided twice, I believe, and has apparently received legal advice to reject the proposal. He feels the check and balance oversight that council provides for terminations of designated senior staff is appropriate and common for many municipalities.

um when he considered his own experience in the private sector, even when he had more than 500 employees to manage and the ability to make multi-million dollar decisions, any termination of an employee required a due process of outside review and oversight. That was fair. in a municipality like ours, it is entirely appropriate for the elected council to provide that oversight. And um Jack um he uh he also wished to say there's an extreme but relevant example in the dire straits that our friends to the south are in right now where two arms of governance relinquished their check and balance on the executive power and we've seen the outcome of that balance requires participation.

He concludes perhaps some philosophical advice from Mahatma Gandhi is relevant and the quote is speed is irrelevant if you are going in the wrong direction. Decisions on hiring and terminations requiring this oversight may take a little longer but in the long run will serve better our community. Thank you. be very quick. Have no paper. Um, my name's Nikki Wy. I've lived in Nor Sanich for 42 years. I love North Sanich. I love that we get to vote for you. And um I just hate all this fighting when you our elected people make these decisions for us. Don't you know you are who we choose and I just feel you must listen to the people not your staff. The staff are excit sorry do not bring staff into this. You can certainly mention council but not staff.

Okay. So I just feel very strongly that our elected council, we live in Noranich. We don't live anywhere else. This is Nor Sanich. Nor Sanich has made its rules. Nor Sanich made that decision to have seven officers. Why are we changing it? And why are we trying to change something that's already been dismissed? Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Lori Kelly and my husband and I have been a resident of Nor Sanich for just over 16 years. Um, and we couldn't sit back and not speak to this issue. Um, but I'm going to I'm going to start off tonight or what I want to say in my three minutes with gratitude.

You've all taken an oath of office to perform your duties with good faith, uphold all the conflict of interest laws, and pledge to act with integrity. And for that, I am very deeply grateful. You have also given immense time and energy and sacrificed your personal lives for accepting a huge act of service to a community. And in our case to the residents of Norisanich, thank you for your service. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is breathtaking to find ourselves with this very democracy on the line. A motion has been put forth to amend the officer bylaw which in effect in my opinion creates a power of one.

When a power is centralized and given to one individual, democratic systems are vaporized as the checks and balances are removed. The democratic integrity is dismantled along with the destruction of opposition and economic inequality. Inequality grows. The power imbalance of wealth inequality leads a community to political inequality. It removes the open dialogue with counselors and mayor, the people we have elected, and instead replaces that open and respectful dialogue with a single narrative from one unelected position. For democracy to function, power needs to be shared by many, and an open, honest, respectful dialogue is paramount. When the voices of the residents of North Sanich are silenced, the voices tend to get louder. In closing, a really great quote from Rawlings. We are only as strong as we are united and as weak as we are divided. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor and counselors. My name is Ron Lavender. I'm a resident of North Sage. I'm really quite amazed that this proposal is on the agenda again for the third time. It was previously voted on and defeated and it now appears that maybe someone or some group weren't happy with the results of the first vote. Excuse me. You can't go into that. That's speculation. Please. I'm sorry. You have to speak up. Saying that some person or some group got got to someone. You can't be saying that in this public engagement. He's indicating that you're indicating that group. No, I I said I don't know. I don't know if it's someone or some group. I I guess anyway um over the past uh period of time there's been a lot of debate on the OCP and it appears that we have settled on a plan that'll preserve North Sanage as a rural agricultural district.

Um, we have people in the administration that have worked very hard at developing the uh OCP and probably are there to maintain that the uh provisions of the OCP are followed. Excuse me. You got to get you mistaken a fact. who who controls the OCP is a minimum of four votes of council, not any individual staff member. That's that's my understanding is that's the way it should be. Um, and it appears that the council are being asked to forfeit their oversight of the staff. Sorry, chair. I just and sorry to interrupt the speaker, but through the chair, uh, this is problematic again because this information is unfortunately not accurate. As you've already stated, all these decisions rest with the majority of council. No staff member gets to make changes without anything coming to council. So this this information is not accurate. And I would just request So what you're saying is that the the bylaw is not to give any staff authority over the hiring and firing of staff.

If that would have to come from council, you're saying Mr. Chair, chair, mayor, may may I say something? Yes, please. Hi, Mr. Lavender. Thank you very much for coming forward today. Uh what I want to say is if you read all of the books uh on administration of local government across Canada in BC or any other province there's a definite line between the bureaucracy which is what councelor Debatista is trying to say and our role as counselors and the mayor which is we take advice from staff in their incredible preparation of documents briefing notes for us and Then we make a decision. The majority of council makes a decision.

One of the books written by George Cuff says, and I'm quoting, "You must not allow counselors to quote muck around in the administration slashmanagement of the community, whether it's the city of Vancouver or our little district, because that's not our role. my lane as a counselor and all of us Christine uh sorry council marshall councelor mccllintok sherava the mayor council mcconi me and councelor de batista is to make political decisions staff are the ones who look after staff who do personal evaluations of their performance we don't get involved in that those personal evaluations of performance those management decisions that any director makes or the CEO makes. That's those are staff/bureaucratic decisions. They are not our deci.

They're not council doesn't make decisions like that. But you're you said you were afraid we'd lose our OCP. We c we're not going to lose our OCP because staff will write us a a beautiful briefing note about something and they will have staff recommendations plus options and the council whom everyone here in this room from North Sange has elected. We will look at those have a discussion and the majority votes on it on what we think is the best option which staff has prepared for us. And so that's how we work with two lanes. If that's the case, then I don't see any need for a change to the existing bylaw.

The mayor through the chair, Mr. Um, Lavender, when you are a CEO in BC and most communities in BC have the one employee theory, that is all employees at a municipality report to the CEO and the CEO is our one employee as council. So that I I think I'll wrap up now and maybe staff or the mayor want to comment. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Sorry. Yeah, that's um I see no one else wishing to come forward. So, I'll call a closure to the public participation period. Now we move right on to item six which is adoption of minutes and uh any errors emissions.

I see no errors and missions. I look for a consent a consent motion to adopt as read. I'll go with council me and seconded councelor stock. Any questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. We move on to item seven which is reports. Um the first one is a staff report which is the one on Madrona Drive. Staff, anything to add? Thank you, Mayor and Council. Uh the application uh tonight is a development permit with variance application at 10972 Madrona Drive. Uh the applicant has made a uh a development permit with variance application for the purpose of developing uh an ocean access stairwell um a deck and a sauna in the marine foreshore and uplands development permit area as well as the steep slope development permit area. Um there are three uh typically development permits are staff delegated. Uh in this case because there is a variance involved it is coming to council for consideration.

Um there are three variances associated with this application. Um two of them relate to um the uh boundary of the the ocean. Uh that's the the natural boundary setback of 15 m. And in this case that natural boundary is also the rear yard. Um so it also has a second setback that applies to it. The applicant is looking to reduce the required uh setback from 15 m and 7.6 m down to 1.85 m. Um it is a significant variance down to 88 uh 88% of uh the typical requirement. The applicant is also uh required to seek a sideyard setback for the accessory building from 3 m to 1.5 m. Um I'm available to answer questions you might have and the applicant is also in attendance.

Thank you councel questions, comments. Yep. Council. Yeah, thank you chair. um in in reviewing the application. I mean, I own a property, live right around the corner, and I'm well well familiar with that. I mean, I can't help but note that the request is nowhere near as extensive as the other eight bow houses and docks that actually work out into the marine area and the foreshore, and the marine is right there. Um, I think a request like this is is minimal in nature with minimal impact. So, I'm actually prepared to make the staff recommendation as it's presented. Um, is that a motion? Yeah, I'll happily move the recommendation that's listed in uh page one of the staff report to vary section 110.3 to vary section 502.2.4 subd sub2 and very 502.2.4 subd sub3 as recommended. You have a second council mint council questions comments we have a motion on the floor. Councelor Stark.

Uh yes, thank you chair. Uh when I first was reading um this application and the really excellent staff report that we received um a briefing note or staff report on the whole issue, I was quite takenback by the um large difference between the 1.85 85 uh setback and the permitted which we have in all our uh zoning bylaws for this area which is 15 m. But in reading the rest of the report and in also looking at the photos of the development that's in the same area or right down in that part where this proposed dock is to be built. I thought, well, you know, it's not really a lot different from what has already been uh established or built there. And I I remember one of the gentlemen who spoke here uh in the public participation period mentioned that that it was, you know, there were developments all over the place in this area. Uh Mr. Le Labooki, I think it was Hugh Labooki. Um so and he said he wondered why any of us why we counselors

would um you know accept this uh type of a variance or this large a variance and I think you have to look at what's happened in the past and you have to look at the whole area and what it looks like now and how even with this large setback quite a major setback from 1.5 from 15 to 1.5 five. Uh it, you know, it seems that it's not out of line with the other um construction that's already down there on the foreshore. So, I have always spoken against this type of development, but obviously it's already been there previously. And so, you know, I think um that it's probably as councelor Debatista says that we should um you know, uh follow the staff recommendation in the uh briefing in our staff report.

Thank you very much. Thank you, chair. Council Sanjief. Thank you through the chair. I should have asked this question before it was called into motion, but this if it's possible for staff to answer this. The nearby lots, what is the average setback that they are on? Do they meet the 15 m requirement or are there several lots that are in uh less than that? Through the chair, there are um many properties. I would say the vast majority in this surrounding area that have um improvements that are within the 15 m setback or um even as as much as into the foreshore with the uh the construction of boat houses. Um so there there is a variety of developments. Some are compliant, but um there are a number that have various decks, houses, boat houses, improvements um on the water that would not typically be supported under the the current OCP.

Thank you. It's okay. Any council, any other questions before I come back to council deputy stuff? Sorry, chair. I just had to make a clarification of my statement. I spoke inaccurately. It's actually 10 docks and boatouses to the west, the marina, and seven to the east, all within the immediate area. So, I just wanted to make that statement because I spoke inaccurately earlier. Okay. Before I go back to council and staff, uh, good evening, mayor and council. I just wanted to remind um you all that that this file did go before the community planning advisory committee. Um, I was just wanted to make sure that wasn't missed. So, that that was considered there as well. and our planning staff can speak more to the result of that if those are curious.

Thank you. Council questions, further questions, comments? Council Gintok. Yes, thank you. Um, I would just like to say that I'm I was along the same thinking as councelor Stock when I first read this report and I was um had it been a standalone lot. I would be more reluctant because my history has shown that in order to get a variance from me or to for me to approve a variance, it would be uh hardship and public good. However, I believe we also have to consider the fit and feel of the neighborhood and it uh certainly complies with that. For it to stand alone and be isolated um I think wouldn't be fair to the owner or or the neighborhood in in in general. So, I'll be supporting it.

Council further questions, comments, council me. Uh thank you and through the chair of staff. Uh thank you Mr. Ericson for your report. Uh just a question. Am I correct when I read in here that there was work started on this in June of 2025 and then I assume that something happened and it was put on hold. Thank you. Through the chair. Um that is correct. The works were initially um started without the uh proper permits in place. Um there was a a process through by law enforcement where the owners were notified. Um I believe a stop work order was issued um that was resolved prior to the applicant making um this development permit with variance application. So they remediated um the works um and removed the deck prior to um coming before council with this uh application to to seek allowance for um for that improvement.

Thank you. Yeah. Councelor Sanjief. Thank you, chair. Through the chair and for back to staff. How does this comply with the BC provinces uh flood plane zone uh requirement through the chair? I I'm not sure if there is any impacts to uh flood plane at this location. Um I I don't have that in front of me. Um, I would be happy to to look into that further if if council would would make that direction. Further questions, comments? Let's see. Oh, councelor Dist. And just as motivation as as noted by our CIO. Um, one of the things we always talk about is referring to our committees and this committee, our our community planning advisory committee did endorse and support this applicant.

So I think that also should be you know weigh heavily with us since we put a lot of trust into those committees um and and those advisory committees and they recommended that. So just for motivation. Thank you chair. Thank you. Final questions, comments? I see none. Uh we have a motion on the floor and seconded. Uh call a vote. Those in favor? Those opposed? Is that opposed? Okay. Motion carries 52 with councelor Mcconi and councelor Sanjie in opposition. Oh, I lost my uh location here. So, we move on to item 72, which is compact fire pumper procurement. Staff. Yes. Uh thank you, uh mayor and council.

Uh this is a followup to a staff report from February of 2025 where council authorized the sale of a large uh custom fire apparatus. And uh that sale is now complete and it took over 14 months to to sell it. And what it's done is it's created with long purchase times, it's created a um sort of a little bit of a a pinch for us because it wasn't able to go last year. And then we have another new vehicle uh coming uh or another vehicle coming uh out of uh credit or out of compliance next year. So with the long lead times uh we've come up with a I think a very good plan to transition towards a commercial apparatus and get two vehicles. Um but neither neither one would arrive until well into 2027.

and it uh it fits in our current apparatus uh replacement plan with without any other financial additions. Thank Thank you. Again, um before I look for any motion, any questions, comments, I see none. I'll look for a motion based on the recommendation. Councelor Marshall. I move that council direct staff to proceed with purchase of two compact fire pumpers and that the contracts be awarded via the canoe procurement group for a cost not to exceed $1.1 million each. Council second council Sanjief. Um questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Those opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Right on to item three which is I better make sure I not miss any late items. Nope.

Uh district not signage advisory committees pro proposed terms of ref of reference amendments. Uh before I look to council staff anything to add through the chair. I have nothing further to add. However, I'm happy to answer any questions and welcome any feedback council may have. Thank you. Thank you. I wondering who was talking. Uh, council questions, comments, council mccllintok. Yes, thank you. Uh, I've got questions on on each of these three. So, I'll just break it down. um the community plan and advisory committee um with their matter they've got um under their mandate um first of all one is related to affordable or workforce housing I don't know if we have um uh a policy in regards to that and I don't know how that would have got in there and I don't know how you could even look look at it however it's just one item and the other matter um is matters related to accessibility planning and alignment with the district's accessibility plan. Now, the healthy living committee also has that

in their mandate. The community planning advisory committee has that in their mandate. The accessibility advisory committee has that on their mandate. So, we've got three overlapping committees that are looking at the same thing. So, what happens when they come back with conflicting reports? Uh whose do we rely on? I think that this uh this particular matter should be uh in the hands of the um accessibility advisory committee as opposed to um the community planning advisory or healthy living councilors. Further questions, comments? I see none. Um oh, sorry, Council Datista. Yeah, thank you chair. Um, I I've struggled with some of the proposed amendments to our terms conditions for a while. I brought it up the last time we had this discussion. Um, I'm still really struggling with how we set agendas. Um, a and our agendas are set by staff based on priorities, based on their work plans. Um, and there there's a lot of great conversations that are being had um by our committees. Um, and there's a lot of value that we can draw

from those conversations. But I I I do draw a concern when the committee themselves gets to set their agendas. Um and while there's nothing super pressing that draws my attention, um you know, one of the things I did note is when our our agricultural commission has just reviewed the size of houses and has a recommendation to reduce our maximum allowable hot sites house size. Um and and you know we have an agricultural committee because they're supposed to be subject matter experts and they are um they're farmers. They're people who are involved in agriculture and we need that advice. But we have a planning commission and so I I draw our concerns with the fact that we're we're going to allow our commissions to set their own agendas and that creates that cross-pollination and I'm really struggling with how that is. Um, you know, I believe our staff when they have stuff that comes forward specific to those committees, they go to those committees. Things like the bylaws, those should go to all the committees for review. But when we start to have those conversations, we cross-pollinate,

and I really think that's a problem for me. So, um, it's just something I I think we should be discussing and considering before we um approve the terms of reference. Thank you, Chair. Councelor Sanji. Thank you, Chair. Uh thank you for that comment about the agriculture committee making that comment. Uh this was specifically when the zoning was presented and their feedback was being asked for and that's the feedback that they gave. It's not about them deciding on what planning should be done or not. So this was a feedback that they were specifically asked and it's related to that. They were asked what would they like to see on agriculture land and if the house print was at 5,000 and they wanted 3,500 that is their decision. At the end of it it is the council and staff that makes accepts or rejects but the advisory committees have the right to recommend what they see appropriate. Whether it fails or passes is besides the point.

The fact is that they should have the freedom to give recommendation and then it's up to council and staff to make the decision on that. Thank you councelor Stark. Uh yes, thank you. Um I uh have always been of the opinion that you know these committees are as councelor debatist and all of us agree councelor twin talk everyone around the table they're very valuable they have very valuable uh committee members with lots of experience and knowledge in these fields but I don't think they should set their own agendas at all they should work on what we refer to them. That's how it's been for 16 years. And I think it's a dangerous uh precedent to allow advisory their advisory committees for council.

They are not separate entities elected by people in the community. They are people who offer to spend their time assisting council and staff. And I think that they should be uh limited to discussing what we recommend or refer to them or what council sees as a an upcoming policy issue that it wants advice on. But I don't think that they should be directing their own agendas. That's not their role. Their role is advisory committee. Uh anyway, I I've said this before, but no one's ever listened, so I've kind of kept my own counsel on it for the last year. uh but you know uh the this kind of uh thing where they have their own uh work that I it can't really be done in the way governance works in municipal government because there's a law of delegation in Latin nonpotes delegari delegatum nonpotes delegari you cannot delegate to any other body that which has already been delegated to you and in this case it applies with these advisory committees.

If I may, I'll give a certainly a comment on that. A key reason or one of the reasons why the uh we set up committees rather than commissions was it was for it to be flexible. One of the complaints from my understanding and I did get did get them directly from commissions was there was nothing being sent down to the commissions. So therefore they could they could be pretty idle. Um the advantage here is is that we can council can send down recommend recommendations for the committees to have a look at and to comment on and come back to council. But committees because their staff their participants are I'll use the term experts in their field could be agriculture could be planning could be healthy living then they should be able to allow to come up with ideas with regard to what they should what they would like to come to council with and of course the ultimate arbiter of that is going to be council. So the reason for it was flexibility.

Council member Clint. Yes. Thank you. If I could continue and I would certainly agree with my colleagues councelor Stock and councelor Dvatista on that matter. Um through you to staff. Have site visits um been part of the mandate of these committees in the past through the chair. Thank you. That's a great question. Um from recollection, I believe no. They have not been uh historically. However, the board of variance conducts site visits, not the advisory committees. Um, I don't want to confirm that at the moment, but I can definitely look into you. I don't look into it. I don't want to speculate and I can get back to you tomorrow.

That's fine. And it certainly doesn't have to be answered right now. And thank you for your answer. And I know that the board of variance will do site visits. I'm very concerned about uh um through um you mayor to council members. I'm concerned about the authority given to someone to go on someone's property even with permission. There is an implied um there's an implied authority when a committee designated by council asks a question asks of something of of the public. I think there should be something in there that says right up front this is not compulsory. It's only at the will of the applicant or anything that's being studied that they communicate that to them and let the person decide whether or not person to persons or organization decide if that's what they want to do.

I think it's when you get seven people tromping around on your property, you think that they have quite a bit of authority, especially when they've been sent by the district. I think it's intimidating and it's it's something that has to be dealt with very delicately. It's not something that can just be mandated and and the authority turned over and at the very least a weak notice as opposed to um um what's being what's being presented here. And I I won't belabor that, but I'll uh I'll just leave it at that. I um I noticed the confidentiality section. All committee members are required to respect the confidentiality of any members member matters discussed during committee meetings through you to staff.

Does that mean as far as what goes on in a committee meeting has to be kept as as confidential as say an inc camera meeting would be for council through you to staff? through the chair. Thank you. I apologize. I'm just having a look here. Um I just need a moment.

uh through the chair. I could probably speak to that. Um that is something that was already in the terms of reference. So that was already developed when we started looking at that. Now I would assume it would these meetings are public. I would assume that it would be for any information that they receive that would be considered personal information. Thank you for that clarity. And I was wondering why Why the community planning advisory committee committee has that confidentiality um definition. The agriculture and food security advisory committee does not have a confidentiality and the um healthy community does. Uh any reason that is that is that an oversight through you to staff uh through the chair? It could be. I would assume for the C packet would be because they would be receiving information that could be personal towards individuals and their residences, but I really don't have an answer for you on the healthy living one. I don't know why it's in there.

That would be the agriculture one that does not the agriculture one. My apologies. Okay, that's fine. And I didn't know why it was omitted or if that was an oversight or anything like that. It'd be nice to have some conformity in that attachment for um if some other counselor has questions. Mayor, I I have a few more. Nope. Council, further questions, comments. Okay, I'll go to councelor I'm losing my voice. Excuse me. Councelor Stock and then secondly councelor Dvat. Uh thank you very much chair. I just had a com short comment on councelor Mcccleintox's uh worrying about site visits. I know a long time ago in 2008 2007 um the parks uh advisory committee did conduct site visits but you know this is back in as my grandson would say granny were you alive when the dinosaurs were alive? So it's back in 20078 the parks advisory committee and the agricultural advisory committee as it was then called both conducted uh site visits but they weren't very intrusive as you were thinking about. They they were to look at the specific site

where something was going to occur and you know make some notes and then leave the property. Thank you. I don't have any more questions. Mayor, thank you, Council Dist. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um, and you know, I know we've talked about site visits already. Um, I I have concerns with that provision. Um, I think site visits have an intended value. Um, it provides some scope and some context to things. Um but I I think it would be more appropriate for maybe some like you know that last application that came to us there was an orthopedic view there were site view like photos from different various angles and I think that can help provide some context to an applicant.

Um, and I think more appropriately to give context to what a site visit could produce is more of those photos or if the committee had questions that that information could be presented in that format. Um, and the reason I'm bringing that up is I think of some of the previous applications we have were some have been internal variances, right? Um, and what happens if an applicant and I'm I'm trying to play out how this process works. an application comes to one of our committees through staff um and they say we'd like to do a site visit. So, it has to come back a second time to the committee and and actually I'm I'm okay with that if the committee feels it requires that much decision and debate.

Um but what if our applicant doesn't want that? And and we've previously, not just in the District of North Sanche, and maybe I should focus my comments to our municipality, um but what if an applicant doesn't want that? Is that going to then potentially sway the discussion? And and those are my concerns is that we're purporting this to be voluntary, right? The committee may they could um but what if the applicant doesn't want that and there's no safeguard for them and that's that public pressure that I'm concerned about. So I I'm certainly not a supporter of the site visits. I do think they have value. Um, I know when applications that come before council, I've driven by those addresses so I can have context. But to ask somebody to open their home, there's an immense pressure there, intended or or implied, right, to let people who are strangers to these applicants, unelected people, into their home or onto their property in general. And there's no guidelines about what that interaction is supposed

to look like, right? And so is the staff liaison supposed to escort our committee members, our commission members, sorry, committee members to those sites and take them on a tour? Like there there's a lot of ambiguity in there and that is widely concerning for me. So um I'd like to see the site visit proponent either revamped and come back to council for consideration or removed in its entirety until that can happen. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Um, councelor McConni then councelor Sanjief. Uh, thank you chair and and through the chair and just in regards to the site visits that was something that had come up through the community planning advisory committee and under number 11 the site visits it does state entry onto a private property requires the permission of the property owner authorized representative.

I think personally even with us as mayor and council when we have variances come before us it would be certainly be advantageous. I can certainly attest to the fact that the people on my committee are very professional. I don't believe any of them would um try and hold something against a community member if they didn't want someone on their property if they weren't comfortable with a site visit. I certainly know when I was involved with a DVP next door, I would have welcome the opportunity and and we were excluded from it. So, just to put a little bit of context there, I appreciate the comments, but I see it through a slightly different lens. Thank you.

Point covered. Point covered. Um I have a question on staff with regard to the any motion with regard to this. If this was motioned as is and was it was approved um certain changes will be made to the but doesn't everything that occurs you still have to come back to council. No. Uh through the chair if council approves the changes this evening they will be in place. Okay. Thank you. I just want to clarify. Thank you. Further questions, comments, councelor Devatista? Yeah. Um, chair, maybe before we get to the main motion, I'd like to make a motion um to remove part 11, the site visits from all three terms of reference and then direct staff to come back at a later date with a more um No, I'm just going to ask for it to be removed at this point. And I'd like to actually come up with some solid wording and direction for staff. I don't want it to be ambiguous. So, I'd just like it removed. And that's my motion at this point.

Thank you. Do you have a You seconded. No. No. Council Mcccleintoch. Uh questions, comments? Friendly amendment. That was the issue. But that's been take it. Yeah. Um I think my suggestion instead of removing that is if approved that the staff develop protocol necessary for site visits that ensures the process moves forward and the process and protocols are put in place before a site visit takes place. Thank you councelor DB sir. Um yeah I like I like some of some of where council shav is going. Um, but I I don't think it's 100% where I'd like it to go. So, I'll I'll let it stand the way it is, I guess, at this point.

Where you like part of it, is there an area where you you don't agree with where there could be a compromise? No, I I just and and I do apologize to my fellow counselors. I I I really mowled on this one and I started drafting something and out of all the papers I bought, I know exactly where it's sitting on my desk at home. So, um I do apologize for that. Um, but yeah, for now without that, I'm just going to ask for it to be removed. Okay. Thank you. But I do I do have something that's along those lines. I just I'm not ready for it. My apologies.

Can talk. Uh, yes. And so are we just proceeding with the way it is and with uh these advisory committees being able to pardon me uh you know choose their agenda if they so feel like it or so wish. Yep. Thank you chair. I'm just sorry are we first voting on the motion that has been proposed and seconded. I think we should vote on that and then we can go back to the So we have a motion on the floor by councelor DP seconded by councelor mccenttok any further questions comments I see none those in favor those opposed motion fails 43 with councelor mcconi mayor Jones councelor Sanjie and councelor Marshall in opposition um before we move forward councelor data anything any other motion to come forward um no if councelor stock was going to do something. I again I apologize. I had two but I'm going to muddle my way through it and I don't think that's fair. So if somebody else has something else Thank you. I just wanted to clarify if

uh we're going to proceed with committees, advisory committees being able to select items that they study or work on or provide us recommendations on when we haven't as a council even asked for that or even want that or may need it. Okay. You know, sorry, councelor stop, but what you may want to do is put a motion at the next council meeting to that effect. Um, if that's okay. Of course. Oh, sorry. Mike not on. Yes, chair. Thank you, Counc Mongi. Thank you, chair. and just through to the membership. It might be something that the council liaison are aware of and and not other members of council, but there is actually a procedure that has been developed by staff as far as the um process for items being added on to the agenda for any of these meetings.

So, it's not just simply a member of the committee comes up with an idea. There is a way of vetting it. So, that's something perhaps that staff could share if you were interested. Thank you, staff. If I may and thank you to the chair I'm just discussing that with my colleague we do have a process that I think has improved somewhat can ask our leazison for the healthy community living advisory committee um where there's a collaboration um between the chair and staff leaison and the council leaison for the agenda and it does seem to be a slight improvement um there's any further comments you're looking at me expectant ly okay uh through you chair to staff yes I think Mr. Martin is correct. It is a collaborative effort with um staff and the staff liaison to each um committee.

So staff has an involvement in that agenda and then the council leazison and the co-chairs. Yes. Does that help? Well, that sounds fine. I have a comment which I have made previously. Uh for the last three and a half years, neither councelor mccllintok nor councelor debatista nor myself have been involved in these committees at all. And that's fine. That's, you know, everybody's choice. I I accept it. But then it's very difficult to know the details of what's going on. And that's one of the things you'll see around the table and maybe remark upon as residents and as people interested in our council meetings is that uh there is a lack of communication amongst the council members. particularly when three of us are not allowed or not included in uh many uh different committees and other meetings. But that's just my remark. Point of order.

Point of order. Uh with all due respect, you're saying you're not allowed. I think that's not the right phrase. Uh we do attend all the meetings. the alternates were appointed in an event and the liaison is not there. It's not that you're not allowed. Uh I have seen in the audience uh counselor debatista attending planning session. So it's I think it's unfair to say that you're not allowed. So I just hope that that's reducted. Thank you. C it's okay. Any further question? Um, right. Sorry, Councelor Mcclin. Yeah, seeing as we're uh making motions to remove certain particular certain areas of these authorities, would it be possible to streamline the mandates of these three committees in so far as there isn't the overlap as I mentioned previously um on on different advisory committees. So all three aren't doing the same job. If if if an issue came up when it came to accessibility, we don't immediately fire it off to three different committees uh that ar that have really lesser of an expertise in that in that in that particular item. So if we could just streamline that a bit, I'd have to go

through it word for word and I'm sure that that's not the intent of this motion. I appreciate the comments. Is there a motion coming from this or you want to leave that? Yes, just to uh to streamline the um the mandate for each for each um committee. Okay. Thank you. Um do we have a recommendation of staff? Um do I have a motion on missed on staff recommendation? Guess not. Just need a second. Who who did the motion? I just did. Oh, my apologies. Do we have a second? Council. Sorry, Chair. I just need to make a point of clarity. Your comment was just making a motion on the staff recommendation. Yes.

Council Mcccleintoch was talking about altering the terms of reference. So, I don't think he motioned what you were suggesting. Just clarify. What is your motion? My motion was that there's a lot of redundancy and as far as these committees are concerned, we don't want three committees looking at the same issue when it really doesn't relate to them. Let's and and I brought up the uh the example of accessibility. It should be directed to the appropriate committee as opposed to broadcasting the u the recommendation. Okay. Do we have a second? Councelor Deatista. Uh further questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor of the motion? Those opposed?

Motion fails. 43 with councelor McConi, Mayor Jones, councelor Sanjie, and councelor Marshall in opposition. Now again, I ask for a second time. Do you have a motion based on the staff recommendation? And if you don't have a council marshall, uh, I'll move that council approve for the reasons outlined in staff report number CS26017, the proposed amendments to policy number CO1 150, community planning advisory committee terms of reference. The proposed amendments to policy number COU49, Agriculture Food Security Advisory Committee, terms of reference, and the proposed amendments to policy number COU 148, Healthy Community Living Advisory Committee terms of reference. Thank you. Seconded. Council me. Further questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor?

Those opposed? Motion carries. 43 with councelor Debatista, councelor Stark, and council mccllintok in opposition. Move on to item four, which is district north mail bailout authorization. Staff, anything to add? Nothing to add through the chair. Thank you. Um, happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you. Um, again before I look for a motion or perhaps do do we have a motion on the floor based on recommendation of staff. Councelor Deatista seconded. Councelor Stark. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Um, now any questions, comments? I see none. Um, those in favor? Those opposed. Motion is unanimous. Just make sure I got the right one.

So we're still in seven late item one V and Z. Okay. We now move on to the next item which is um item five which is Shalley Creek Emergency Repair Contract. staff. Thank you, chair, and um and through the chair. Um quickly, this is just requesting a pre-approval for um uh a tender for construction works um um to replace the chalet culvert underneath West Sanich just south of Tatlo Road. So, if you all recall on May 11th, we did contract we executed contract A overnight and that was to allow um contract B or the major works to proceed in the next in the next month. So, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you.

Again, I Oh, that's what I was going to ask for. Okay. Council stock motion as read. Uh, yes. I'd make the motion as read with regard to the Shalet Creek Culvert emergency repair. Yep. Thank you. Seconded. I go to Council Me. Any questions, comments? See none. Those in favor? Unanimous. We move on to the next item, which is Firk Avenue storm drainage improvement contract award. Staff. Thank you, chair. This is another exciting engineering project. They're very excited. Um, this is a smaller uh drainage works. Um, and this is actually in a historical issue um that we have and and it requires trench rock excavation and um we've been starting to address some poor poor poor drainage areas and this is one of them. Um it's a quick it will be a quick quick job um and is detailed in the report. If you have any questions again I'm happy to answer them. Yeah. Thank you.

Uh yes. Thank you chair. I'd like to make the motion the staff recommendation that council authorize the award of the Fall Avenue storm drainage improvement contract 2026-03- NG to R or TDR sorry to Collican Contracting Limited at a total tender bid of $179,960. Thank you. Second. Did I see council council datista? My apologies. Any questions, comments? See? None. Those in favor? Unanimous. So we move on to 7B which is council leazison reports and um we got two from councelor Debatista. So councelor Debatista any comments? Um just um welcoming our new uh members to the accessibility committee and that our representative Miss Fern was elected as the vice chair. Uh and I did want to note that national accessibility week is May 31st to June 6th. Um there there was some conversation um that sur uh surrounded the center of uh the seniors loneliness center and the quality of life and age friendly committees and that spac uh you know is feeling excluded from those conversations and would certainly like to be a part of those conversations uh when those

committees uh start to form and take place. So um just to put that on council's uh minds. Um the other is from the recreation commission. Yep. Um and just that we reviewed the fees and charges bylaws um and our annual report. Um and just for the public's general awareness, I think I say this every year when we do the fees and charges bylaw. Uh the PRC really strives to maintain a 50-50 balance between requisition and user pay. Um and that just minimizes the impact um the tax implication impact and then focuses 50% of those uh the revenue needed uh to user pay. So uh those the two highlights from those reports. Thank you chair and I can move that we receive both reports for information. Thank you councelor Stock.

Any questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. So now we move on to the committee reports and the first one is um item one. So on item one, let me check it again. I want to make sure I'm not going to make an error. Okay, before I get before I ask for a motion on this, any questions, comments? I see. I council manki. Uh, thank you through the chair. I didn't know whether you wanted me to do this now or later, but I'll do it now. Just uh comment on the committee reports that at the last meeting on May 5th, there were three me recommendations that came from the community planning advisory committee. One of them were that the community planning advisory committee resolves to support the north senate zoning bylaw number 1606 2026 attaches appendix A-B of staff report PCS-26-011 that the community planning advisory committee is not in support of prior prioritizing marine foreshore zoning changes and that the community planning

advisory committee supports the establishment of a tree bylaw working group and appoints DHart and Jay Taylor and G Bunan to that group. Okay. Before I look before I look for a second on that one, just a a suggestion that on item 27 and 30 that that we move that forward to staff for their consideration. And then with regard to item 31, that we do a motion based on that um a motion that council um establish the tree tree bylaw working group. I'm looking at timing. Okay. I'm um through the chair or to the chair. The recommendations on May 5th, those were forwarded to staff because those were questions that um Mr. Parks had wanted answered as to whether or not a they supported the zoning bylaw, b the comments on the um prioritizing the marine for zoning changes. So, I assume that has gone to staff already. I'm happy to if you'd like me to make a motion or whatever, we can do that. But that was my understanding.

Yeah. I'm I'm assuming staff has already got it, but staff staff you haven't when I'm assuming that you received that those I'll use the term notes. Thank Thank you. And through the chair, um I do think it valid for council to endorse them as motions as well. Yeah. um account. Yeah, that's correct. Mr. Parks did receive this. He was at the meeting, but to have council um provide that motion, he would um receive that direction to actually ensure it's uh considered in his zoning work. So, does that help? I'm fine and I'm happy to go with your motion if you like, mayor, or I can make it, too. So, I'm sorry. I said I'm happy to make the motion um if you like or if you have them recorded you can take the helm too.

No, I haven't got them recorded. It's just a suggestion because this is your your committee. I don't want to override anything that that you're looking at. It's just a suggestion is that we move 2730 to staff and get staff to come back back with us with with with recommendations and then we do a separate motion for item 31 which is it doesn't go back to staff. We simply decide here at this council table that we move forward with the tree bylaw working group. I'm fine with that. If you'd like to make a motion, I'm happy to second it. Okay. Do I have a second on that?

Sorry. On the f on the first one, which is item 27 and 30? Councelor Marshall. Okay. Any questions, comments? See none. Those in favor? Those opposed? Motion carries 61 with councelor DB still in opposition. And then we look for motion number two which is regard to item 31 is that um that the council approves the tree treework bylaw group and appoints dehart J Taylor and G Bunan. You okay with that? Okay. Thank you. Second council manki questions comments yes a question on that. um how were um and I don't know these people's um background in tree bylaws or as far as being arborists are concerned. Um but how did the names come forward? Were they just selected from the committee by the committee? And um before I would vote in favor of them being in that working group, I'd like to see um the resumes.

Staff, I'm going to go. Okay. Council me. Uh thank you, Chair. Perhaps seeing the in regards to the tree bylaw working group. That was your notice of motion. Um, and I know you were in attendance at the meeting that day. Perhaps you might want to address councelor McClintik's comments. Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you. All righty. We'll try this again. Um, seeing the notice of motion to establish the tree bylaw working group. Was your notice of motion? And I believe you were in attendance at that meeting because I had to leave early. Perhaps you might want to address councelor McClint's comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Um yes I was at that at that meeting and uh what happened at that meeting was is that um the members of the committee were selected first of all the committee was asked who would like to be on that comm be on the tree bylaw uh committee and certain number of hands put their hands hands up um on the on with one of them I remember there was three that put their hands up we originally looking for two but there was no restriction on the maximum number so the determination was then made then by the committee that the um three in this instance would go on would go on to the tree bylaw um working group.

And with with no uh disrespect for these individuals, um um did they present to the committee uh as far as their um unique um history on on understanding uh tree bylaws and and arborist um or the science of of of uh of plants? Um, how were they drawn just because they they wanted to do it or because they were qualified? It's it's because of what the t the task that they have. The task is not to make technical determinations with regard to a a tree bylaw, but the task was to fan out into the public, obtain talk to the people in in the public that are arborists, as an example, talk with the farmers as an as another example with regard to what would the farmers like to see with regard to the tree bylaw. where is it failing them right now and what appro what improvements can be made. So their job is to go out into the community uh talk to the uh the talent so to speak and then come back with a with a report and finally a report to council.

Thank you. No council datista. Yeah thank you chair. Um my my question actually surrounds the appointment of three people and I'm looking at the notice of motion from April 13 and it says two members from each committee will be appointed. Um so we have three. So who is making the decision about which two of those three are going to be appointed because the motion which was point two was that two two appointed members two two appointed members to be appointed from each by each committee. Yeah. The determination at that time was there could be more than two and I made the dec I made the decision then that that could happen.

Mr. Mayor, can you speak more into your speaker? It's really hard to hear. Okay. Whoops. My apologies. Um yes, the determination was made at that meeting that because three members put their hands up, instead of selecting the two, the determination was we would select the three. Um and again they were volunteers and having three out in the community rather than two I felt was um more time not timeconuming sorry I could get to more more people in our community. I mean thank you thank you for the rationale. I just we this council endorsed a motion to only appoint two members. Yeah. That was a council endorsed motion.

Yep. So that it hasn't come back to council to amend that motion. So, um, what happens if every other committee comes back and wants four people? They have like at what point who when does that come back to us? Cuz that motion was approved at two people each. They haven't. All all three committees now have made their made their selections and that's what's been coming that's coming forward. Oh, staff. I'm reluctant to get into the into the the mix, but perhaps I can offer some advice. Um tonight right now this this council can provide a motion to accept three. I know that in the healthy community living advisory committee we struggled to get one.

Sorry I know you're looking at me but um actually it was councelor Deista who sat at that meeting because there are other council alternates that are involved in these committees and he was at meeting so he'll have to comment. Thank you. I apologize. Okay. Well and then and Okay. Yeah, I mean to to to my point is do we then like there was one intro there was some discussion about other people only one really put their hand forward but I told them that it was two those were my words that was the motion so do we then have to go back and say actually we can do more I don't know that's that's my question because the motion was very clear that's what I presented and now we're doing something different we're not going to delay this to go out into the community because it's it's a valuable um asset that we have and we need to get um u public input into the tree bylaw with that's not part of the bylaws that are being written right now but will be coming up shortly as separate items. So staff can tell me

if I'm wrong. So what I will add to to my motion and um or do I withdraw the motion and then restate a motion uh through the chair? You can just make council can choose to make a a new motion to allow a third member from the committee. Um just because the committee gave a recommendation doesn't mean that council has to choose to go to that recommendation. So you can make a motion now choosing with how you'd like to proceed. That's right. But but the question was is that right now we got a motion on the on the floor. Do we have a motion on the floor? Oh, sure how much I know.

Okay, councelor Majel. Uh, three you chair to staff. I think that's what Mr. Martin I think was saying as well. So, thank you for that staff. Um, I'll make that motion then. Okay. Thank you. So, we have a motion on the floor. Uh, seconded. Council McConkey. And any further questions, comments? None. Those in favor? Unanimous. Sorry, I was early. I was voting. Oh, my apologies. Okay. Um the vote was actually uh 61 with council deputies in opposition. So we look for the draft minutes of the agricultural food security advisory committee committee and I go to councelor Sanji. Anything to add? Thank you chair. Yep. Uh there's been a lot of robust discussion that took place. Uh Mr. Parks had presented about the zoning and based on that there was an very extensive discussion uh which resulted in several uh recommendations coming from the committee as presented. Thank you.

Um motion as read as received. Okay. Thank you. Seconded. Council me. Any questions, comments? Councelor Deatista. Yeah, thank you chair. I appreciate the work of the committee. Um but I won't vote in favor to receive um number 29. So I'll be voting against it. Thank you chair. Thank you. Any further comments, questions? Council Mcccleinto. Yes. Thank you. Um and then council stock. My honor, these are just minutes and um whether or not we agree with the um with the uh the committee that came forward with these with these recommendations. Is irrelevant really at this time? I would I would believe um there are some things that I agree with and I don't agree with but um isn't this is just a simple matter of of receiving a report.

Thank you. Thanks, Council Stock. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Uh I had a just wondered you know number 29 and number 32. I'm not quite sure you know what there must be reasoning for that and it just and obviously councelor Tristava would know that just why why was the um the mo that motion made number 29 that the principal residence be reduced from 5,000 to 3500 square ft and then uh does not support increasing the maximum allowable persons from 6 to eight for occupancy in a principal resident and from residence and from 4 to six in the additional dwelling unit. I just and then I noticed that under healthy community living I know I'm jumping ahead but number 25 under there has exactly the same thing from 6 to 8 for occupancy and I just wondering does that mean like anybody's house or is this a special residence or I couldn't figure that part out. Thank you.

Thank you. my answer. Thank you. The the question about number 25 and 32. I don't want to speak for agricultural committee, but that was actually part of the presentation that staff brought forward with the zoning bylaw specifically related to short-term rentals. And that was our motion to ask those committees to consider whether or not we support the increase or not. So, you can see the agricultural and foods community uh did not support. However, the healthy living community did support. So, and and just for clarity, the reason I'm I take these when our committees make discussions and have decisions on these, our staff are there for their feedback, right? So, I'm just saying I'm not endorsing the decisions in that one committee. Okay? Because staff will take that feedback. So, I'm just publicly saying I don't support that one portion.

Thank you. So, again, I agree with what you're saying. There's two in here that I I would like to get further information on, but it's here. We're just doing approval of minutes. This will staff will review it, I assume, and then come back to us with recommendations. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Any other council mccllintok? Yes, a brief one. I don't recall sending this um sending this to the committee in regards to number 29. How did they uh how did they even how did they even come up in conversation? Thank you councelor Sanjief. Thank you chair. This was as part of the presentation by Mr. Parks with regards to the zoning.

Thank you. Does that help? Yes. I wasn't aware of it. So Mr. parks said to the committee um they wanted their input in relation to the size of homes on agricultural land. Would that be correct? Through the chair, the fact is that the zoning bylaw is being presented to all the committees as well as to the council. In the process, the officers in charge of Mr. parks was seeking feedback from the community, sorry, from the committees and that was the feedback that was given to them. So, thank you. Thank you. Further questions, comments. See none, look for a vote. Those in favor, those opposed. Motion carries 61 with council datist in opposition.

We move on to the item three which is health and community living advisory. Councelor Marshall uh through you chair I guess to staff or to councelor Datista. I'm just wondering at this meeting and and I could have missed it so please let me know if I have but I thought that they appointed members to the age friendly uh committee as well. Okay. And just um so thank you. I'll I'll let councelor DPA talk to that one because he came to this meeting. Um, just a note too though that they're great questions, but if I correct me if I'm wrong, these are live stream meetings that are available on our website if anybody wants to look at the minutes, but if anybody also wants to look at the meetings and counselors can come and attend the meetings. So, thank you.

Yeah, and thank you, chair. My apologies for that. Um, there was one uh Mr. Mr. Robinson put his name forward for the tree bylaw and uh Mr. Fancy and Mr. Thornberg uh for the quality of life and age friendly. Um and that's not reflected here. My apologies for that. No problem. Councilor Marshall wish to make a motion based on uh I'll let I can do that but I was going to let councelor Debata do that. Oh well you okay because he was there you weren't. Just that we receive the minutes from the healthy community living advisory committee held May 7, 2026. Thank you. As amended.

As amended with those names. Thank you. Seconded. Second. Okay. And councelor stock. Any question, further questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. Take that one off. So, we moved right on to item D, which is committee the whole report. And I will ask uh councelor Debatista has he chaired the committee of the whole report. Yeah. Thank you chair. Just that council ratify the motions from the regular committee of the whole meeting held May 11th 2026. And there are um three listed. I'm not sure if you'd like me to read them out loud. Yeah. Staff. Sorry to interrupt to the chair. Um, we I was looking at this beforehand in preparation and in light of Sydney's vote against um this topic, I'm just wondering if there'd be some of these some of these motions speak to further engagement. I believe so perhaps um a perhaps a different a different direction as in no further direction at this point from staff.

Yeah. Not but if if if I may. It was my omission. I was going to bring this up. I was looking at it and I was simply looking at other stuff. So my apologies. So that's part of perhaps we should discuss it now is the fact that one of the reasons we did the initi that initiative at council as the whole um was based on the fact that we thought that um Sydney may well vote in the positive and then we would be the last one to look at. Well, now Sydney has voted in the negative. um going forward um at this point would I'll use the term be a waste of council time and staff time that should it rise you know come to the forefront again at some other point in the future we could always resurrect it.

Yeah if I may chair I actually did think about that myself um but given their window for bringing forward motions for reconsideration and given our extended timeline um I'm okay with it remaining as planned. It's over a month away and if Sydney were to bring it forward for reconsideration and we've pulled it now we have to start again. So given that we're already on the path, we've got two more meetings before we get there. I think we should just kind of let it sit. That's just my opinion. I'm not sure. I I actually like that. I didn't even think about that. So that was a good idea. Council, any other council's talk?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Quick question. You know there number 13 cow, the one about writing to the CRD and do you remember that I was I think three of us were not in agreement with that particular one. Are we going to I guess we just leave it there anyway and we're still going to do that? No, no, it didn't say we're going to do it. We leave it there. Um what I could say is that staff doesn't move for forward on it right now. Would that be okay, Council Debatista? Yeah, I mean the these are minutes and that was direction. So, yeah, I'm I'm I'm not sure how you'd like me to word that. Maybe that council directs staff to not take any action on 13-w until the June 29th, but that would take a motion, wouldn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Uh through the chair. Yes.

Yeah. So, I suggest we leave it as it is. Well, that's why I was just wondering. So before we adopt the minutes, since it is part of the agenda right now, I'm wondering if I just move that motion to direct staff not to take action on 13-C's. Okay, that sounds good. W until June 29th when we can have that further discussion. And I'll second that. Okay, thank you. First and second comments, questions, see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. Uh thank you, Council D. And then that we just approve the minutes as presented, which I think we still need to motion and second. So I'll make the motion that we receive the minutes uh from our committee the whole from May 11th 2026 as amended.

Corrected second. Council stock questions comments see none. Those in favor unanimous. Uh we move on to bylaws which is um I believe staff. Uh thank you through the chair. Um, so originally this bylaw was put on the agenda for adoption, the District of North Sanage by law enforcement bylaw number 1589. Um, however, we did notice uh behind the scenes that there was an a part of the bylaw was missing when it was given third reading at the last council meeting. So um staff are looking to repeal or rescend uh third reading um and then give third reading as amended. So, just so council's aware, it was the appendix C that was missing, actually missing out of the bylaw and it was brought forward. So, in your late items package, you will see a new bylaw with the um the missing section in it. And so, we are just looking for repeal of third resend of third reading and to give it third reading again as amended.

Okay. Thank you. Council questions, comments u look for a motion. Thank you. Uh yes. Uh, thank you, chair. I'd like to make the staff recommendation that the District of North Sanage bylaw notice enforcement bylaw number 1589, 2026 be adopted. Not at all. We have to repeal third reading. Oh, we have to repeal third reading. I'm just trying to find the actual motion in the late agenda item. No, through the chair. It's in the late items package. I've got my late items on the cover page. Oh, okay. So, sorry. Number one would be that third reading of District of North bylaw notice enforcement bylaw number 1589 be rescended.

And then number two, no. Oh, we got a We're going to do them add seratum. We have a second. Councelor Datista, questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. Please proceed. Thank you. Uh that the District of North bylaw notice enforcement bylaw number 1589 be amended by adding schedule C excluding subsection in brackets XV. Thank you. Seconded, council. Um, councelor Devatisa, any questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. And then number three, that the District of North Sanage bylaw notice enforcement bylaw number 1589 as amended be given third reading. Thank you. Seconded, Council Datista. Any questions, comments? Councelor Mcccleintok. Yes, thank you. I'm still um very concerned about the schedule B screening officers, but um I'm prepared to to support this motion and see how this part of it plays out.

Thank you. Any further questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. So, we move on to item nine, which is motions and new business. And uh we've got um a late item here, which is a um a letter from T. Ralph. So, so this is a motion that I'm bringing forward and I'm going to bring the motion forward uh to put to put it on the floor for discussion. The council directs staff to prepare an amendment to the current officer bylaw to align it with the strict legislative requirement to establish as officers of the district only the positions of corporate officer, financial officer, and chief administrative officer and report back to council with a draft amendment bylaw for council's consideration at a special meeting of council on May 27, 2026.

Do I have a second? Stock I put it on the floor questions, comments, ju just a comment, chair. I mean, we we've had lots of public speakers tonight and I noted one or two actually asked for us to provide our thoughts. So, I thought I I would do that. Um there's been a lot of conversation about the erosion of democracy and and this just doesn't do that. Um the the reality is is our job as as elected officials is to govern. Um that's our job. Our job is not to weigh in on the administration of the district. Um, and this is just bringing into line what I can't remember what the chair said, you know, the majority of the province, specifically 10 of the 13 municipalities to within within the CRD. Um, so I'm in support of it because I believe we should stick to governance and we shouldn't be involved in in some of the processes that we have currently endeavored to be involved in.

So, thank you, Sher. Thank you, Adam Stock. Yes. Thank you very much, chair. And uh when I was discussing this with Mr. Lavender, I think I stated most of my uh ideas and uh experience uh with governing. I've been a counselor for 16 years here, one year in Yellow Knife and almost 40 years of governance work with the federal government of Canada. And so one of the things that I know and reading all of almost all of Mr. cuffs books, not every one of them. We are, our job is not, and the mayor and I and various counselors have discussed this over the last almost four years, is not to interfere in the bureaucracy.

Every bureaucracy that I've ever worked in has one employee. The Minister of National Defense has one employee, the Deputy Minister of National Defense. We as municipal governments have one employee in BC, the CAO, chief administrative officer, and it is that person's power and prerogative to look after staff. The CEO does not run the community. Whoever is spreading this information is spreading false information. The CEO is in charge with the mayor of the executive function of the city or town or district or village. And that's the CEO's job. And our job as counselors is to stay in our lane. And staying in your lane means not interfering with staff procedures, staff hiring stuff. That is not our function.

I take my function very seriously for the last 16 years, which is to assist the mayor and all the other counselors in governing. And governing means looking at all the information we receive from our staff and then making a decision as a council. And often some of us won't be in the majority, but that's just the way democracy works. And I believe in democracy and I believe in the freedom of speech. So uh and I always have done. So I think that my thoughts uh and ideas on this are all have been fairly well known over the last 20 years uh 21 years I've lived in North Sanage.

Uh and thank you very much. Further questions, questions, comments. Councelor Sanjief. Thank you, chair. Um I've got 18 pages of commentary to give. So I'll stick to as minimum as possible 3 minutes. Okay. Just before I uh put the whole process out of place. Firstly, I do am struggling with the decision of why we are changing something that was approved by this very council on 15th of May 2026 sorry 2023 when the majority of the council had approved the several positions that were created. My biggest question I have is what has changed between then and now that requires the change of the officer bylaw. Before I actually get into the answers, the one of the things is there is a reference made to the term strict um in the strictest definition of the positions that can be created. The fact is the community charter provides a minimum. It does not provide a ceiling as as to how many positions can be created through uh through the stat

statutory requirement. Also, if there is actually a deficit in the current system which hampers the functioning of the CAO, there is a provision within the uh community charter delegation of council authorities section division 6 of section 154 which allows special powers that could be given to the CAO to execute the function that may be of concern. Given that I feel that going through decreasing the number of people who are put through a governance model of accountability, transparency and progress, it actually undermines the it creates a narrow wind opportunity of public engagement. It creates narrow information bases. We do not have any uh policies on whistleblowers within the system. This is not about a person. This is about a position. I'm trying to decipher the two. Sorry.

Yeah, but you're going into whistleblowers. That's got nothing at all to do with this. It is it is about creating a um sorry but okay thank you chair. I'll I will resist on that part. So I'll continue with the other aspects that are there unless somebody wants to say something before the motion is arrived. Council McDuck. Yes. Thank you. Um first of all, I'd like to thank all the speakers, all the all the members of the community that came forward and spoke to council about this matter. Um, in my 12 years on council, there have been a few um, items that have come before council that have brought as much or very nearly as much um, support or or uh, a contrary feeling by the community.

At any rate, I believe the community some of the community has been heard. However, not all of the community has been heard. I would agree with councelor Stock in so far as there is a a um a duty by council to do council work and there's a duty on staff to do staff work. Again, it's been mentioned that the CEO was our only employee. I believe and I would thank Mr. G for for bringing it up that counselors elect people come and go. Some of us will last one council and some of us last many councils. However, the the the business of running the district is up to staff and we've put our faith and our our our um our trust in our CEO who was a very very competent person.

I believe that um this this particular bylaw was well I didn't vote for it and I don't know where Mr. um or Mr. Odiski got his information, but I don't recall ever supporting this um whenever it came up. I believe as councelor Stock had said, we should stay in our lane. We should stick to the business of governance and the business of governance does not mean um that doing the work of a CEO. Unfortunately, there has been um things on social media, and I'm not a social media person. That was only directed to me specifically, that this will somehow upset the OCP. It will not have any effect on the OCP. It'll continue. It's been approved by council and it'll continue. There is no threat that this particular bylaw, if it's passed tonight, will have any effect on that. when you wake up tomorrow morning, the governance of the district of North Sanage will will continue as it has um for years. So, I am in support of uh again, I've never been uh in support of um the bylaw as it was created prior to this, but I will be supporting this.

Thank you, Council Sanjief. Thank you, Chair. Uh just a point of uh note, councelor Mcccleinto mentioned that he did not support it. The May 15th, 2023 when the motion was brought in the bylaw uh the minutes of the June 3rd meeting actually indicates that you moved the motion. It was seconded by councelor Datitua. At that stage there were six council members and only one of them was in opposition and that was myself. I was in opposition to the bylaw that was brought at that stage. That's just a point of correction uh to the chair because given that this is such a issue that has significant impact on not just what we're trying to do and what the public is looking for and what changes the pro the existing model. If we are worried about it not being good or there are deficits in it, then there should have been a review that should have gone through it. For that reason, I would suggest that an independent governance advisory committee be formed

consisting of a retired judicial officer, a public administration and governance expert and a conflict resolution mediation expert who then can do the review of what we have. This is no different to what then what we did similar to the council uh remuneration committee to actually do an assessment of what is going on and let their report come to the public and to the council and then we can make a decision of how we would like to go further. Without that we are again triggering one issue after another. Something that this very council had approved we are now regailing on that. So that's my suggestion to think about. Thank you.

Council stock. Yes. Thank you very much chair. I uh just wanted to comment on the fact that um I am not a participant in the next door. Um I'm not sure. I guess it's a Facebook uh or it's a social media platform but I have read uh uh some of the comments on it uh today and it's very untrue that our uh new OCP is in jeopardy. Very very untrue. And uh this uh officer by law has nothing to do with jeopardizing our OCP at all. Uh our OCP as councelor Mcccleintoch just stated will continue. Um council is the only body which has any authority to amend the OCP.

uh staff uh recommends to us as I said previously and we decide and it's very very dangerous when elected officials start to get involved in trying to administer staff and trying to run what staff does. That is their position. That is their function. That is why we pay them, you know, the salaries and they have the professional experience, the professional credentials and the knowledge to do what they do. Uh anyway, I just wanted to say that people should not be worried that the OCP is going to go away or change or be jeopardized because of this decision. Thank you, chair. Um, is there any other first- time speakers? I see none.

Thank you, chair. Um, my question that would arise is what has changed in the district between 2023 and 2026 that a bylaw of this nature needs to be altered. to the chair. Obviously, I have to be very very careful in answering that question. I consider it a load a loaded question. Um I'm not going to just No, I'm not going to I I cannot comment. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions, comments? Council Mckento. Yes. Thank you. Um, again, I have to I have to press my memory and I can't for the life of me ever remember voting for this. I remember um not long ago we voted on something similar to this or identical to this.

And the vote was 4 to3 with uh councelor Deep Pata, councelor Stock and myself voting against it because we we had this understanding of staying in our lane. Now I would like to again for the for the life of me I cannot remember voting um voting for this in the past. Now if if I'm if I'm wrong if I may Jack if I'm wrong then I'm wrong but um I apologize that I wasn't trying to mislead the public. Oh, no, no, no. And I appreciate what you're saying. I was going to ask staff is that do you have the ability quickly to pull up that those minutes? No. Okay. I just want to ask because if they could get quick access then we would know know the answer. We'll move on.

Nope. Okay. Uh any further comments, questions? Um I'll give a few few comments because I hear the words that are out there. I hear I I wh I'm actually I'm on next door but I don't really read it. It it's been said here whatever happens here tonight it does not negatively affect the OCP the regional growth strategy or anything else associated with the OCP that was done the OCP that was done was by staff was done at the direction of this council. It was this council that decided what would come forward and what what would not come forward based on a minimum of four votes of this council.

a one or any member of staff does not have the ability to make any inroad on the OCP on the regional growth strategy on the regional contact statement or anything else with regard to the bylaw with regard to bylaws without minimum four votes of this council. So pretty much every single thing that's being said in the public by certain individuals with regard to the risk is incorrect. And what it also means to add to to that list, it does not change the urban containment boundary. the province could change it, but as long as this council v votes the way it has been voting for the last year with regard to the OCP and and and the bylaws, there is no risk.

So when I look at at at this I also look look at it and say the claims to be made about dictatorships and to totalism um is ridiculous. Staff cannot pass bylaws. We do. We approve budgets independently not staff. We set taxes not staff. staff cannot overwrite council decisions or exercise political authority. So what what I'm saying is is that all major decisions are made by majority of this council. This council has the ability to give delegated authority to staff members. We have the ability to remove it from staff. We have the ability to make to tinker with it with with regard to staff. And when it comes with regard to well you know staff could end up firing certain people because they no longer have a protection say of the office of office of bylaw that's not correct.

Even if council decided contrary to certain beliefs the employment law comes into effect the province has stipulations which council and staff has to follow. So, so therefore when I read what I'm reading, I find I'm offended by it be quite honest with you because it's replete with innuendo and incorrect information. And one member of the public said to said tonight there, I think they said it was majority 93% of the province of BC municipalities have three or less officers of the corporation. 93%. We only put this on in in 2023, one of 12. If this was such a major problem in the municipalities, there'd be an uproar in this in in this province based on 93% have got a problem.

So therefore, I look at what I believe I have to do in the best interests of staff and particularly the best interests of this community. So I will be voting for this motion and that is why I put it forward. Um any questions comments arisen counc through the chair if I recolct the reason why we had brought in so many officers was because of delegated uh statutory authorities to different members to act as officers for the district in their role at a different capacity. Um that was the reason I recollect going through the video on what happened at the meeting. Uh that was what was presented that the rationale was that we have we have delegated responsibility to directors to act on behalf of the district which does not give them the statutory uh authority. By designating them as an officer, we are actually giving them the statutory authority to act. That was my understanding based on the rule at play.

So unless something has changed, I would hopefully the staff could enlighten that aspect. Would staff even wish to enlighten that aspect? I actually can. Okay. Yeah, chair. Um I I can and the re and the reality is is Yep. That was part of the conversation. Um, and what if you look to the June minutes then we had to do an approving officer and that was for our director of planning. And so when this originally came forward, I was under the impression that there were multiple for the people who asked the question why the change the way it was the way I understood that conversation that there were multiple delegations that needed to be covered off. That's why we were including them. As we later learned, there was one and we delegated that very specifically later when we hired our director of planning. So I do recall the conversation and that was the rationale. It's also the rationale for the change for me for the people who are asking um and that that's why because we later approved the one thing which is

our approving officer for the director of planning the just uh if I recolct that is when we had hired the person that is why it came to it it's not an automatic so it was giving a confirmation to the name and person that they are now designated as a statutory authority that was the reason why it came back. Thank you. Any further fine any further questions, comments? I see none. So look for a voter inflavor of the motion. Those opposed? Motion carries 43 with councelor Manki, councelor Marshall and councelor Sanjie in opposition. We move right on to item 10, which is correspondence. And we got a first correspondence May 12 from B. McKenzie, short-term rentals.

Uh we'll just leave people leave. What's that? Where the hell was I? Oh, yeah. is okay. It's people are leaving quietly.

Is Ben coming back? I suspect so. I'm sure you can continue. He's probably just walking people out. Just through the chair, then I I'll happily make um in regards to 10 AB and then there was the late item from Miss Copeland, which also referenced short-term rentals in their letter and the zoning bylaw. Um just that we receive all three for information and direct staff to include them in uh in any further conversations about the zoning bylaw. Okay. Makes consent. Council Sock seconded questions, comments. I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. Uh we now move on to item 11 which is correspondence information. I look for consent resolution from A to H. Are there any late items?

Nope. A to H. So moved. Councelor Marshall. Seconded. Councelor Sanjief. Question comments? None. Those in favor? Unanimous. Uh we move on. Oop. That's H. Uh there is no rising report. So I look for a motion of adjournment. So that's all council stock and was a fast council deputy seconded. Those in favor unanimous you want this