Transcript: Regular Council - 08 Jun 2026

Good evening. Good evening. I'd like to call our regular council meeting on Monday, June 8th, uh to order at 6 PM. I'm Mayor Cliff McNeil Smith. Uh are my colleagues at the council table uh this evening? Uh to my far left, councelor Richard Novik, councelor Terry O'Keefe, councelor Chad Renul, and to my far right, councelor Steve Duck, councelor Sarah Duncan, and councelor Scott Garnett. Uh good evening to members of the staff uh both in the chamber and to those who may participate uh in the meeting virtually. We do introduce all staff uh before they speak. Uh and good evening to uh to members of the public uh in attendance here in the chamber this evening. Uh and to those who may be watching uh the live webcast or the recording of a meeting at a later date when it's posted on our website. I'd like to respectfully acknowledge that we're holding our meeting uh in the territory of the Wenich people uh the Sey Nation, the

Slip Nation, the Pacquian Nation um the Sikum Nation and the Malhat Nation. And I would next go to approval of the agenda. And there are um uh there are three things um three changes uh to the agenda that was published last uh Thursday. Uh the first is that we've received uh 13 additional pieces of correspondence with regards to um the official community plan amendment uh bylaws that include the tenant protection development permit area. uh and so those will be included. Uh we are having a public hearing this evening and there are four written submissions that were received when before the agenda was published and these 13 uh submissions uh council has received them this afternoon has had an opportunity to re view them. So by me bringing them up now and when we pass the motion to amend or to approve the agenda as amended they will be considered part of the uh official agenda. Uh and then um after the public hearing, we will be going to

uh the item where council deliberates uh and those uh letters all go to that item as well and council members can speak to that. So uh we're adding 13 pieces of correspondence and that will fall under 7 C one and then again under the agenda item 8A. And um second is um I would like to switch I would sorry I would like to move uh the presentation that we have this evening from the Royal Canadian Legion uh Sanage Peninsula branch uh to the first item uh after uh after public participation. So that's a relatively short presentation and the we anticipate the matter will be uh dealt with rather briefly by council uh and that will allow us to take the time we need for the public hearing uh and then go into the agenda item following that.

Uh and the third change is I would like to just provide a brief update under mayor's report from the uh access awareness day that was held at the Schaw Center on Friday. And with those changes I would seek a motion to adopt as amended. Motion to amend is to approve. Second and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you. And if I could, I'll seek a motion to um uh adopt the minutes of our regular council meeting on May 25th. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Any corrections to those minutes? Seeing none, all in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you.

So, we're next going to our public participation period. And as I've touched on earlier during uh during approval of the agenda, we do have a public hearing this evening. So, if you're wishing to speak to any of the particulars associated with the official community plan amendments, we ask that you wait until we uh have that public hearing. However, we have several other matters on the agenda this evening. uh and we would uh invite members of the public uh to come up during public participation if they wish to comment uh at that time. So uh when you come forward, we ask that you uh keep your remarks to to four minutes to be fair to everyone uh that you provide your name and the municipality that you reside in or the or the organization that you represent. There is a little button at the bottom of the microphone that you just have to just have to press and it will uh turn the the light on the on the mic uh red and live so it's a part of

the recorded meeting and everybody in the chamber can hear. So I'll call for a first time if there's anyone wishing to come forward during public participation. Please come forward. your worship mayor and members of council. My name is Bob Earl. I live at 9964 Street in Sydney and I'm here to offer some clarification on the points that I raised in my written submission to mayor and council. I attended a public information session held on May the 29th, 2026 regarding High Street Ventures proposal. I speak briefly on behalf of fellow citizens who share similar concerns and wish to see a thoughtful workable outcome for this important site. First, I'd like to address the traffic study submitted by High Street Ventures. The study relies heavily on a broad average traffic data.

In doing so, it fails to capture the specific driving patterns, peak time pressures, and real world occurrences that residents experience daily. Traffic flow, pedestrian safety, and the potential for bottlenecks are not just minor details. They are essential components for a livable neighborhood. On street residential parking, as proposed, is extremely difficult to enforce. At this time, it is also unclear what additional roadway costs might arise or who would ultimately bear those costs. Second, the proposed design appears to prioritize maximum density and infrastructure over long-term livability of the people who will eventually reside there. The original intent, affordable, lowcost family oriented housing has largely disappeared from the current plan.

A development of this scale would should enhance the community, not strain it. Density alone does not equal good planning. Smart density requires thoughtful integration with the surrounding neighborhood, respect for existing conditions, and a clear commitment to quality of life. Third, I'm deeply concerned about the Mterrey Cypress trees on the property. Under the current layout, these trees are at significant risks. These are not obstacles to be removed. They are part of Sydney's natural character. We should also not place a developer in the impossible position of trying to force a maximum densified design onto a site that cannot reasonably support it. A more balanced, realistic development would both strengthen the town's tax base and preserve these trees for future generations.

We live in a time when artificial intelligence is used every day to solve complex business and engineering challenges. Yet, despite the tools available, High Street Ventures has not produced the plan that many residents consider feasible and does feasibility mean profitability for the developer alone as the question. This leaves the town of Sydney with a difficult decision either to push this development forward despite its shortcomings or pause and reconsider whether this design truly aligns with the official community plan and the needs of our community. I'd like just to offer constructive suggestion. I propose that council may engage an independent engine firm engineering firm equipped with modern AI based analytical tools to review this proposal in detail.

Their role will support the development of department of development services in an evaluating alternate layouts, traffic solution, environmental impacts and overall feasibility. This would not delay the project unnecessarily. The demolition phase is already underway and must be completed regardless before construction proceeds. It is reasonable and responsible to ensure that the design is truly workable. These observance observation are not hinderson. They are the founding of good planning. In closing, I respectly request that council may reconsider the current trap building layout design and referred back to the drawing board to the town's advisory committee. With modern tools, independent analysis, and a commitment to community values, we believe better outcome is possible that meets housing needs without compromising the character, safety, or the livability of town. Thank you your worship and members of council for your time and definitely your dedicated service and your consideration of these comments.

Thank you for coming forward this evening. Sorry, did you indicate at the beginning that you had submitted uh your correspondence to mayor and council. So the the item as you may know is not on the agenda this evening but uh but we do rece we have received some letters at at previous council meetings and any uh um any correspondence that we have received to date or receive prior to the next meeting when it does come on the agenda. Okay, all of that correspondence will be forwarded to that agenda that agenda. Thank you again. Y I'll turn if there's anyone else wish please come forward. and the microphone also adjust in height if you wish.

Thank you. Um my name is Jan Humanick and my husband and Mike and I have owned the sixplex at 9882 um second street since the year 2000. Is that okay? Sorry. Oh, I'm ahead of you. Yeah, you may be a little ahead. We're we are going to come to that during the public hearing and you're welcome to come up to and speak to it during the public hearing. I can come back. Yep. You bet. Promise. Anyone else on any of the other agenda items uh this evening wishing to come forward? And I'll call for a third and final time. Seeing none, I'll close the public participation period.

And as I indicated during the agenda, we're going to actually now begin uh our agenda items with the presentation. And I'm um looking to welcome uh Kenny Podmmore, Centennial Chair for the Royal Canadian Legion. Good evening, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, counselors, our wonderful town staff, my fellow veterans and colleagues from branch 37. And ladies and gentlemen, my name is Kenny Podmmore, 1012354 Breath Avenue, Sydney, and I'm here as the centennial chair for branch 37, the Royal Canadian Legion, Sanage Peninsula. It's always an honor to come before you and given the opportunity to speak with you about a special project we hope to undertake as our branch approaches our significant milestone, our 100th anniversary.

For the past century, Legion Branch 37 has served veterans, military families, and the residents of Sydney and the Sanich Peninsula through remembrance ceremonies, advocacy, volunteerism, community events, and support programs. Generations of Legion members have worked tirelessly to strengthen our community while ensuring that the service and sacrifice of our Canada veterans is never forgotten. As we approach our centennial, we would like to create a lasting tribute that recognizes this history on our longstanding connection in Sydney. We believe that Sydney as the home of our branch and the community we have proudly served for 100 years is the natural place for such a memorial. The concept we are proposing is simple and a modest in scope. a commemorative centennial plaque accompanied possibly by a memorial tree and bench situated in a public location where residents and visitors can pause, reflect, and enjoy the space. We envision a memorial that not only recognizes the Legion Centennial, but also contributes something meaningful and lasting to the community.

To support the project, the Legion has applied to Veteran Affairs Canada's commemorative partnership program for funding towards the plaque component. We are hopeful that this application will be successful. However, regardless of the of the application, the Legion is committed to ensuring the project proceeds and is prepared to fund any remaining costs required to complete it. We recognize that any project on public land requires staff time and careful consideration. We have therefore included funding in our budget to help offset installation costs and we are committed to working collaboratively with the town staff regarding the final design, location, landscaping and any other long-term maintenance considerations. We are flexible and welcome staff recommendations throughout the process.

At this stage, we are simply seeking council support for the concept and authorization for staff to work with us in identifying a suitable location and implementation plan. Potential locations might be Beacon Park, Toister Park, or another suitable public space, but we have no predetermined site and are happy to be guided by your staff expertise. We believe this project represents a meaningful opportunity to recognize 100 years of service by the Legion while creating a small but lasting community asset for the future generations we can enjoy. And I would like to say that branch 37 was one of the very first branches in Canada to be chartered in uh 1926.

However, Russ Hudson and I weren't around at that time. Um, if I may just give you briefly some some facts. We have approached two vendors in Victoria, Stewart Monumental as well as Mortimer Monumental, who are both preparing designs and quotes for our considerate your consideration. The vendors are committed to work be working with the town and the legion timelines when confirmed and assisting in installation if needed. It has been suggested that an engraved stone plaque rather than a bronze one may have longer life. We take advice on that. The federal grant does require however the project to be completed by July the 31st or at least the installation of the plaque. The Legion is prepared in spending up to $7,500, but mindful of being prudent with our Legion donated funds. We have had discussions with staff on a totally open to their continued input and ideas. We had initially applied for a larger 25,000 grant to pay for refurbishment and wellness of the garden at the library, but that uh application was declined. that they did not support the project.

Our branch has added over a 100 new members in 2026, which could be down to the free membership that we're offering, but nevertheless, that is wonderful, and we continue to recruit. We would like to draw the town's attention to a federal grant funding of $10,000 per year available for updates to our town senate. And if you would like any further suggestions or assistant with that grant, we are happy to assist. And on a final note, we are having a centennial hanger dance uh on June the 20th over at the aviation museum and you all have an open invitation to come and attend. That concludes my presentation, Mr. Mayor, if there's any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Podmore. Um I will turn to colleagues if there are any questions. Thank you for the correspondence as well. Thank you for working with staff. I'll first turn to councelor Duncan and councelor Gernette. Yeah, thank you and thank you for bringing forward um another project. Uh my question I guess was just about locations. Um you've mentioned all of the parks are kind of the hightraic ones by the waterfront. Would you consider something like like breathau park? We've done a lot of improvements and it's kind of brought more people and it is near where there's already kind of might be people going towards the uh flight museum and you know near the airport. Um or or is it something you really want to have the because just because you mentioned that it was a place of reflection. I thought something like Wrath Down or Rest Haven or Brethor which do get a lot of traffic but they're not quite as busy would be more

appropriate for reflection. Or is it you really want to key in on the waterfront? Well, um, as I said in the presentation, we look for guidance, if we may, from town staff, uh, on this, but for me personally, just to get this centennial memorial in place anywhere in Sydney where it can be seen would be absolutely wonderful. I'm not sure whether that answers your question. I No, I I mean, I think it means you're open. And I think it means that if we found somewhere that was seemed really appropriate based on the location, you'd be you'd be happy to have it. So yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, please. Thank you, mayor, and thank you, Mr.

Podmore, for your presentation and for your continued work and advocacy for uh veterans? It's uh very impressive to see. Um did the uh committee give you any indication how long it would take for them to to make it I'm looking at the timeline. Are they must be making a decision relatively soon as far as the granting? Yes, the the the feedback we are getting that decisions will be made pretty soon because there obviously there are other branches like us are in a similar position similar proposal etc etc so we don't foresee it going on for a long time but as I said we do have this commitment anyhow from the branch great if I mayor can I ask a question of staff please do okay thank you through you to staff so um looking at the recommendation of a refer to report we have a meeting on the 22nd and we have a meeting on the 13th of July and the time frame is July 31st. So is that something that's workable with staff?

Mr. Edwards, um barring any unforeseen um challenges or surprises, um staff would attempt to get a report back on the June 22nd uh agenda so that there would be sufficient time. I think the July 13th would make it nearly impossible to achieve the deadline that has been stated and one more if I may uh through to staff probably for Mr. Hik. Uh I'm not sure in terms of something we obviously didn't budget for. So, I'm not sure about room in the budget for something like this, but I did look in uh our general capital reserve fund and noted that there was 25,000 that was allotted for all bay, which we probably are not going to spend for that based on the decision made relatively recently.

So, is that funding that we could if we needed to we could access from that fund? I'll turn to Mr. Hik online, our director of finance. Good evening. Sorry. Good evening through the mayor to councelor Garnett. It doesn't sound like they're asking for financial support here. Uh but it's something we can flesh out for the report on the 22nd should it become necessary. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, councelor. Uh seeing no further questions, we do have a recommendation. Counc. I'll move the recommendation that uh this be referred to staff for report back to councel. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion?

Seeing none, I just want to congratulate uh the Royal Canadian Legion, in particular the Sanders Peninsula branch 37th on the 100th anniversary. That comes from all of us. I appreciate that and I will pass that on. Thank you. Thank you for bringing initiative forward. I'll call the question. All in favor? Carries unanimous. Thank you. [applause] Okay. So, we're now going to u go to our public hearing this evening. And I'm just going to speak for a few moments on process. Uh so this is bylaw number 2315 uh amendment number two to our official community plan bylaw and it's to establish a new tenant protection development permit area expand the areas where temporary use permits may be issued align heights height limits across residential areas and make additional minor amendments.

Um so I'll begin with a statement about the public hearing uh which is uh council's role and the public's role in in providing input uh and then um and then turn to our corporate officer uh and then I'll be opening the public hearing to uh to speakers. Uh public hearings are a statutory requirement under the local government act. Sir, just pause a moment here. My apologies. We're going to have it clean for you. Public hearings are a statutory requirement under the local government act for official community plan and various zoning amendment applications. They are an opportunity for any person who believes that their interest in property is affected by the proposed bylaw to be heard. However, it is not an opportunity for the public to ask questions. Council's role is to listen to the public and ask questions, possibly ask questions for clarification, not to debate or challenge what is being said. So during the public hearing, uh, council will listen to all representatives, have an

open mind, give an opportunity for the public to present all views, and possibly ask questions for clarification. We will not make our own views known during the public hearing, disclose any deliberations or opinion, debate the merits or otherwise. And council following the public hearing will deliberate on the issue and disclose its deliberations when the B bylaw is brought forward for consideration later in the agenda. We've organized the agenda this evening such that that session will come immediately after the public hearing is closed. Council welcomes input from residents and those who wish to speak will be given reasonable opportunity to be heard. No one will be or should feel discouraged, intimidated or prevented from making their views heard.

Therefore, please refrain from applause, inappropriate outbursts, or criticisms, and please keep the dialogue respectful at all times to all persons. Written submissions have been copied and circulated to council and will not be read aloud. Once the public hearing is closed, council must not receive any additional information other than to clarify issues raised at the public hearing. We would do that with staff and council will deliberate and make its decision. I would now like to ask the corporate officer to please read the public hearing notice. Thank you, mayor. This is the notice of public hearing for official community plan bylaw amendment uh 2315. The council of the town of Sydney will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 8th, 2026 at 6 PM to allow the public to make verbal or written representation to council with respect to proposed amendments to the town's official community plan. The purpose of bylaw 2315 is to amend the official community plan to establish a new tenant protection development permit area, expand the areas where temporary use permits may be issued, align height limits across residential areas, and

make additional minor amendments. All persons who believe that their property is affected by the proposed amending bylaw will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the bylaw at the public hearing. Council will be holding this public hearing this evening in the council chambers at town hall. Members of the public may provide written submissions or speak in person at the council meeting. Members of the public wishing to speak to council electronically must register in advance by contacting the administration department. A live stream of the council meeting will be available through the town's website. Written comments can be submitted until 4 p.m. on Monday, June 8th by the following methods: email, mail, or the dropbox at town hall. All correspondents submitted will be will form part of a public record and may be published in a meeting agenda. Copies of the proposed bylaw background documentation can be viewed at Sydney Town Hall from 8:30 a.m. to 400 p.m.

Monday through Friday excluding statuto holidays or at on the website. This uh notice was first advertised in the potential news review on May 28th and the second advertisement on June the 4th. Thank you, Miss Nelson. I would now like to open the public hearing and uh those wishing to speak uh can please approach the microphone uh and when you do come forward please provide your name u the municipality that you reside in uh your motivation and uh it's helpful if you indicate if you are in favor or opposed to the bylaw. We do have one uh individual who wishes to participate virtually uh uh online. So I'm going to go to that person first. I'll turn to Ashley O'Neal if you can confirm your audio and video and then I will turn the floor to you.

Good evening. Good evening, mayor and members of council. My name is Ashley O'Neal and I am speaking tonight on behalf of my family to express our concerns regarding proposed tenant protection development permit area. For over 35 years, my family has proudly owned and managed Georgia Manor, a 20-unit apartment building that has consistently provided rental housing in this community. Members of our own family have lived at Georgia Manor for more than 25 years. Our long-standing commitment reflects not only an investment, but a genuine belief in the importance of offering stable, well-managed rental housing in this community. As council is aware, the proposed amendment to the official community plan applies to eight older buildings, including Georgia Manor. Of those eight, only three currently operate as 100% rental properties.

Georgia Manor is one of those three. These are precisely the types of property that have supported the rental housing supply for decades in this community. We understand the pro that the proposed OCP amendment would require owners to comply with forthcoming tenant protection bylaws. However, council has not yet released the details of these bylaws, including the procedures, costs, obligations, or policies that owners would be expected to meet. This creates a fundamental concern and great uncertainty. It is difficult to reconcile how council can consider amending the OCP to incorporate these obligations before the full policy framework, including a draft tenant protection bylaw, has been made available. Equally concerning is the absence of meaningful consultation with owners who have for decades been responsible stewards of rental housing in this community. In over 35 years of ownership in this municipality and in other municipalities across BC, we have not encountered a situation where such significant regulatory changes are proposed without clarity or transparency.

To be very clear, our family shares council's objective of preserving and expanding the rental housing supply in this community. In fact, we have prioritized rental housing operations long before such designations were emphasized by the provincial government. However, the issue before council is not the objective. It is the process. The redevelopment of aging rental buildings is an extremely capitalintensive undertaking that carries significant financial risk without a clearly defined regulatory framework including permitting requirements, timelines, costs, and tenant compensation obligations. Owners cannot reasonably assess the the feasibility of redevelopment to increase the house rental housing supply. This uncertainty persists regardless of current or future ownership and may ultimately discourage reinvestment in aging properties directly directly impacting residents.

In practice, it may lead to deferred maintenance or delayed redevelopment, both outcomes that run counter to the policy's stated intent. For these reasons, we do not support council advancing the OCP amendment and bylaw framework where the scope and obligations remain undefined. We respectfully request that council remove the proposed tenant protection and development permit area from the OCP at this time and we strongly encourage encourage urge council to first release the completed policy package including the drafted tenant protection bylaw and undertake meaningful consultation with impacted owners before proceeding with any amendments. Thank you for your time and for your consideration. Thank you for coming forward this evening, Mr. Neil.

I will now call in the room uh anyone wishing to come forward, please come forward. Thank you, your honor. Council, good evening. You can adjust the mic. My name is uh Ted Chapman. I am part of the 62 plus waterfront apartments tenants association, some of them here today. The majority of our residents have tenencies of over 10 years through three ownerships. They have also written eloquent and meticulous letters to this council pertaining to this bylaw and its impact on our building and its tenants. Uh would the waterfront apartment tenants please identify yourselves? Uh yes uh we have selected a spokesperson to speak on our behalf. We hope she can be allotted more time in lie of us speaking. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you.

I'll call upon the next speaker please. Mayor and members of council. My name is Patricia Hirs and I'm a 10-year resident at the Waterfront Apartments in Sydney. I've been a renter on the island since I relocated from Vancouver in 1996. For many years, renting has been a viable option to purchasing a property. Most tenants have stayed in one rental property for decades, as is evidenced by a woman in the waterfront properties who has lived there for 23 years. She's 97 years old. On a side note, where does someone that age relocate to once renoviction or demov eviction is in place? Care facilities too are not easily accessible.

With the recent corporate acquisition of the waterfront of properties, we as tenants find ourselves in the vulnerable position of Davids to their Goliath. The offers of monetary incentives to move out have already been initiated. Maintenance is now at a bare minimum. This strategic degradation along with strategies like cash for keys compromise and intimidate tenants in order to further development agendas. If not for some conscientious tenants, the building would be in dire straits in terms of curb appeal and improvements. This all makes the newer build designation all the more absurd. And to offer some background on the residents of the waterfront apartments, we're mostly seniors, many on mixed on fixed incomes, long-term residents whose lives are rooted in Sydney. And we are voters. As such voters, we need our elected and appointed officials to represent all of us in Sydney, particularly the most vulnerable with policies that serve not just developers, but actually enact the campaign promises made for housing and affordability.

In drafting bylaws for tenants, it's paramount that tenants voices are heard. That's why we are present today. The current tenant protection um protections policy is strong but not enforceable apparently, as was evident in the third street debacle. So, an enhanced bylaw that's not exclusionary is vital. As it stands now, this bylaw creates two classes of renters, those protected and those not protected. The distinction between those two classes is arbitrary and in our case somewhat discriminatory. We might still face identical displacement in the future, yet not have the legal entitlement to transparency, the informative process, alternative housing supports, compensatory considerations, first refusal, and substantial notice under a tenant protections umbrella. 260 current tenants are at risk of losing their affordable rental buildings under what's been rather cavalerely described as candidates for redevelopment. We as tenants prefer to think of them as our homes much like council persons who are perhaps homeowners think of theirs. The irony regarding the waterfront apartment's omission is a tenant protected in a tenant protected bylaw in spite of it being built in 79 so before the cutoff and the Botox and fillers

renovations that were undertaken in 2011 is that we find ourselves in that peculiar sort of limbo where we are too new to be protected according to an arbitrary line drawn and too old to be sustained. In 2011 the renovations were limited to architectural cosmetics i.e. kitchen, bathroom, hallway, and window updates. Balconies were excluded. No infrastructure was remediated, but a newer elevator installed in 2021. The original owner was adamant this building via purpose-built rental. We were a community. Now with the Langfordization of Sydney North Sanage, the devolution to commodifying housing and gentrification, displacing low-income residents for luxury developments, we're rapidly losing those connections. Added to the threat of losing one's home is the questionable categorization in considering the waterfront properties as a designated new newer build unlikely to be redeveloped for decades. Any city engineer during a cursory evaluation around our building would likely determine otherwise. The exclusion of the waterfront apartments based on a technicality is unfair, inequitable, and deeply concerning.

It just exacerbates tenant anxiety for those who are on the priv in the privileged position of ownership. You have only to imagine how precarious one feels when the rug could be pulled out from under you with abbreviated notice and your very existence in the community in which you live, work in, have medical and support services is deemed irrelevant to an outside developer area. Idea of um housing exclusivity. Most disheartening is in this current climate, renters are somehow not deserving of views, beach access, gardens, usable balconies, windows that open to the sea, and proximity to your neighborhood and spacious rather than kennel style living quarters. So, in closing, please enact a bylaw for those of us vulnerable to rampant housing insecurity. If we are to lose our affordable housing and with them the old growth trees, foliage, hedges, and parking, then at the very least, let our laws in the most minimum but necessary way protect the tenants. Thank you, council, for your consideration and your time.

Thank you for coming forward this evening. I'll call call upon the next person to come forward, please. Good evening. Good evening. Um, my name is Jan Humanick. My husband Mike and I have owned the Sixplex at 982 Second Street since the year 2000. So, like the um O'Neal family, we're been longtime uh rental owners. Um, we're not a corporation. We're not a business. We're simply a couple owning a rental property in a town that we fell in love with years ago. Um, we understand that you're currently drafting for inclusion in the newly proposed community plan and that we're one of the eight that may be affected by that plan.

Um, we cannot speak for the other seven, but we al well along with the O'Neal family, we also adamantly disagree with the inclusion of our property in this bylaw plan. Um, in fact, we disagree with the plan entirely as it places an unfair burden upon older existing rental properties in an effort to bandaid an issue we feel for which a solution is not even required. We have um the property on 9882 is only a six flex. So there's six units. Um as a suggestion, you know, and we've talked about it. If Sydney would like to increase the stock of rental housing, there are other avenues that can be explored such as the town purchasing properties and building tiny homes, small multifamily buildings or purchasing existing buildings as being done in other towns and cities and making affordable uh rental places. Um, and maybe more leeway could be given to private homeowners to build carriage houses on their properties for rentals, uh, basement suites or, uh, mother-in-law suites that could be subsidized through the tax system.

Um, I think people think being a landlord is a cash grab, but in our case, it's not really a reality. Um, our rents are, as you know, um, regulated. Um, a lot of our tenants are longtime turn tenants. Um, we find that the burdens of property owners have increased substantially and have resulted in huge financial and negative impacts. And the protections that tenants enjoy under the BC Residential Tenency Act are much broader in this province than in a majority of Canada. Our properties located, as I think you all know, in a small quadrant surrounded by four and six-story condominium developments. Um, in 2024, we were reszoned from R7 to RM6-R.

uh placing a large potential loss we feel on the VA value of the property. Yet the property taxes we believe don't reflect this change. Over the years we've invested in the interior and exterior upkeep of the building. Um trying to maintain a more than affordable rental property. And the president present government capped rent regulations make it difficult for us to keep pace with all the increases with taxes, labor costs have increased, materials, uh increased utility rates, insurance costs. Uh we've been uh evaluating the property and we were ready to look at park at paving the parking lot and the quote came in at about $35,000 which we were very surprised at, but we wanted to do a really nice job. And then we realize uh the interiors are excellent, but there's some work that needs to be done as my letter as our letter says um to the exterior. We're replacing and removing some of the older decks, railings, facial boards, painting, and uh we've got a few quotes on that and it was around 65,000.

And uh we'll be honest with you, our um our net profit last year was 60,000. So we're not looking at a huge huge corporation at all. And we'd like to keep the building up to standards and uh take really good care of it because we're very proud of what we own. But uh with as uh Miss O'Neal said with with with just not knowing what's going to happen in the future, we put a a halt on that um until we have a better idea of what the town is moving forward with. Um, I guess to summarize, we're just discouraged with the council's approach on a small property as ours and just ask the council to reconsider their direction and um decide not to restrict some of the older rental properties as part of the tenant law or community plan. I think that's it. I'm a little nervous, not used to speaking in a microphone. So, I hope you heard me. Okay.

Yes, we did. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to come forward this evening. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I'll turn to the next speaker which please come forward. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor and Council. get my reading glasses here. Uh my name is Robert Braramley. Um I live at 1390 SS Road in North Sanage. Uh my wife and I own rental property at 9891 Rest Haven Drive. It's a 10 unit um apartment. Uh so de dear mayor and council, we are writing in regards to the OCP amendment bylaw number 2315 tenant protection development area. We are owners of 9891 Rest Haven Drive, one of the eight older purpose-built rental properties that this law that this bylaw directly targets for inclusion in the new tenant protection development permit area. We are deeply concerned by the total lack of meaningful consultation with affected rental building owners prior to this bylaw being brought forward. Uh we feel strongly that the town is putting the cart before the horse. According to the town's own public statements, the actual tenency,

the actual tenant protection bylaw, which will dictate the structural rules, developer obligations, and the cost to evict or compensate current tenants, is still currently in development. It is a major failure of inclusive governance to pass an OCP amendment that penalizes and restricts our land title today when council has not yet verified what measures will they put on developers or what the financial liabilities will be. Uh for example, what length of tenency would equate to the amount of compensation that the owner would have to pay to the tenants upon redevelopment? Who determines this amount? How can housing providers evaluate the viability of of upgrading Sydney's aging infrastructure when the core financial implications remain completely unclarified?

According to the town staff reports, this DPA acts as an empty regulatory shell because the actual tenency protection bylaw, the TPB, outlining developer requirements and precise eviction cost is still currently in development. This means the town is effectively restricting our property rights before they have even finalized or revealed the rules, the costs, and the compensation formulas. Currently, 80% of our current tenants monthly rent is below market value, and 50% are paying half of the market value rate. Having been good landlords over the past years, we feel this amendment actively put punishes housing providers who have provided stable, affordable, long-term housing for tenants in our community.

[clears throat] There is already rent there is already strict rent control in place and structural protection for displaced tenants under the provincial government, which requires one month's rent compensation and three months notice to vacate for redevelopment. It is highly concerning that by stacking additional unverified municipal costs onto redevelopment, rents in new buildings will continue to skyrocket to recoup those growing expenditures. This does not serve the tenants's best interest. Sydney needs to increase the overall number of rental units, but there is zero incentive for property owners to invest when faced with escalating development costs and completely unidentified financial liabilities. Encouraging the redevelopment of older buildings rather than adding vague obstacles to deter that deter growth is what will benefit the community at large.

This is proven by the new 180 unit rental development being built in Sydney and new secure housing in neighbors central Sanich both of which succeed by creating supply not by choking existing properties with unfalized regulations. As building as building owners who pay a considerable amount of tax to the town of Sydney, we deserve a transparent process. There must be greater discussion and a formal opportunity for effective property owners to have their voices heard before this restrictive DPA framework is accepted. We are asking council to deter the third reading of the bylaw number 2315 until the draft tenant protection bylaw is fully drafted, publicly disclosed and evaluated alongside property owners in the collaborative consultation process.

Thank you and we look forward to your response sincere uh reevelopments limited uh Robert and Michelle Brownley. Thank you for coming forward this evening. Thank you. call for a second time if there's u any further speakers this evening at the public hearing please. Um good evening. My name is Sarah Wington. I'm a resident of Sydney. I'm here to urge council to reject the proposed reduced scope of the amendments um in pursuit of a tenant protection bylaw. Instead, that I instead I ask that you restore the comprehensive equitable protections originally established under the current policy DV16. I want to underscore I support the creation of a bylaw, just not in the way it has brought been brought forward at this time.

I am a former tenant of the recently demolished Serest Apartments at 9972 Third Street. When High Street Ventures purchased my building along with the neighboring Charme Apartments at 99603rd Street, the tenants faced displacement from their homes. The resulting process was incredibly confusing for tenants. It was an experience that prompted me to request council create a tenant protection bylaw. While I am grateful council passed a motion to explore this, I believe the reduced scope of protections proposed in the OCP amendments brought forward tonight missed the mark. The existing tenant assistant policy applies broadly to all rental buildings in Sydney with three or more units. This policy does not discriminate based on zoning, building age, or past renovations.

Unfortunately, it was discovered during the displacement of tenants at the Serest and Charma Apartments that the current policy is uninforcable should developers refuse to meet the requirements outlined in this policy. To make matters worse, the applicability of this policy was further diminished following the 2025 zoning bylaw update. I tried repeatedly prior to my eviction to bring these gaps to your attention. Now, instead of closing those loopholes to protect people, the pro proposed bylaw is moving in a direction that strips away protections even further. It also moves away from the re recommendations seen in the report on tenant protections conducted by wiser in particular regarding the scope and accability applicability recommendations made in that report.

The research conducted by wisers was an undertaking that came with substantial cost. Not only do the amendments proposed in their current for form move away from the recommendations in the report the town paid for, but again a robust framework already exists in the current policy which could have simply and more cost-effectively been adopted as a bylaw. By limiting the proposed bylaw scope to just eight specific buildings based on building age, this draft excludes over 50% of Sydney's rental buildings that contain three or more units. This massive reduction in tenant protections was decided before any public engagement even took place. Additional arbitrary criteria such as renovations has gone even further to exclude buildings such as the waterfront apartments who do otherwise meet the reduced criteria but who are still being excluded from protections.

Excluding some buildings while including others creates two groups of renters in Sydney. Those worthy of protections and those who are not. Sorry this is so long. Um tenants have not been given a fair opportunity to shape this bylaw is currently presented much like the landlords are saying. I guess um most renters in Sydney are likely unaware of these discussions are even taking place let alone how these how these changes will affect their housing security. With a large demographic of seniors, tenant protections could serve a particular need when it comes to seniors living in Sydney. One in four BC seniors earn less than $23,000 a year. And the most recent seniors advocate advocates report states that over 1,600 people were on the wait list for senior subsidized housing at the end of 2024 2025.

Where are we expecting people to go when they face displacement from their homes? Seniors in particular. The tenant protection bylaw should protect all tenants, not just a handpicked few. Please reject the restrictive amendments and require an enforceable by bylaw that mirrors the full fair scope of the existing tenant assistance policy. And I'd like to state on another note, um, I wanted to address the statements made by staff at a previous council meeting on May 23rd. Sorry. Uh Liam Med Liam Edwards is quoted as saying that when working with High Street um sorry when working with High Street he noted that High Street had provided resources regarding relocation and information on external agencies um who could report who could provide relocation support to tenants. This was not my personal experience with high streets, so I find this statement questionable and believe it paints the developer in an unreasonably unreasonably positive light.

I would like to further underscore that some of the tenants who relocated from the High Street development site ended up relocating to the Cedarwood Inn. One of my neighbors informed me that High Street had pointed them towards the below market units at the available at the Cedarwood in to which some of additional tenants of 9960 and 99723rd Street also ended up moving to and not long after faced eviction from. If staff had been involved in relocation discussions with High Street to the extent suggested in the statement made at the May 23rd council meeting, I cannot see staff supporting um this move u to relocate tenants to the Cedar Wood in a situation that led to a mass displacement of renters.

So I have to question the extent of the dialogue staff had with High Street regarding relocation as these statements do not align with the outcomes that actually occurred. These are the kind of details that are often left out of discussions and seldom are heard. The realities that tenants actually face. It's clear that many people were struggled as a result of these redevelopments and to paint the developer in a positive light diminishes the hardships that several tenants faced. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward this evening. I'll call for a third time. Is there anyone wishing to address council during the public hearing? Seeing none, I will close the the public hearing and we will now turn to uh turn to the agenda item which is under 8A.

So again, this is bylaw number 2315, official community plan, amendment number two to the official community plan. Um, so I just want to uh to indicate some of the process. So at the April 27th meeting, uh, a staff report was presented to council with regards to the uh the proposed amendments. Um, council gave it first and second reading. We also um ask that staff initiate a public consultation process uh immediately uh immediately and continue to invite comment until the public hearing. Uh that is this evening. Notification letters were sent to those properties proposed to be included in the tenant protection development permit area and um notice of the public hearing as indicated by the corporate officer was uh was published uh on two occasions. So this evening um council we have the um uh the first item to consider is uh to give third reading and upon third reading we could then consider giving uh adoption. Uh before uh I seek uh a member of council to

consider moving uh third reading I would turn to colleagues if there are any questions of staff. Uh, councelor Inul, please. Uh, thank you, mayor. Uh, if, uh, one of the themes, uh, certainly this evening that we heard during the the public hearing and, um, I know myself and my colleagues colleagues certainly appreciate so many people coming out and speaking to this. uh was around the uh uh the tenant protection bylaw itself and and in part uh how it may uh impact both tenants and and property owners. And if staff could just uh speak to the rationale in terms of the timing and uh process of addressing uh this item first versus uh that in keeping again with some of the comments that we heard this evening. I appreciate it. Thank you, mayor.

I'll turn to our director of community planning, Mr. Nukem, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh through you to councelor Renul. Yes. So, the intent was to establish the uh development permit area for the tenant protection bylaw first. Uh this is a necessary step um in order to ensure that the bylaw is uh able to be implemented. Um by itself, the development permit area uh doesn't really do anything uh in terms of um sort of on the ground uh enforcable uh activities. It just sort of sets the stage for the tenant protection bylaw. The tenant protection bylaw is where uh as council knows all the details um in terms of what council would like included in the bylaw for tenant protections. That's where they're all they all go. um that that bylaw is adopted separately through a separate process. Uh council may wish to have a public consultation process go along with that bylaw so that the details of the bylaw itself can be publicly reviewed, discussed, uh

provided feedback on. Uh and so that was the intent here that the council has expressed uh an intention to uh have a tenant protection bylaw developed and so the development permit area sets the stage for that. Uh and the tenant protection bylaw itself would be a separate process with its own separate uh consultation process if council so wishes and uh and adopted separately from this OCP amendment. So they are uh related but they uh the they're very different in scope. One is very broad. This OCP amendment uh doesn't include any details at all. Whereas the tenant protection bylaw is a very specific bylaw in terms of uh what it would require of property owners. And so staff's belief was that those details would be best left for that bylaw process that it would be to come if this bylaw is adopted.

Thank you. And I may uh continue through you may merit to staff. Uh in your opinion uh would it actually impede the process of developing the tenant protection bylaw if this matter with respect to the changes to the OCP were to be tabled until such time as that document is ready? Uh certainly I think staff would like to see the OCP amendment uh to establish the the de development permit area um in place prior to the bylaw being adopted. Um and so you know to the degree that uh if this portion of the OCP bylaw amendment were tabled uh that that delays the process then conceivably yes it would push things back a little bit. I'm going to first turn to CEO, Mr.

Edwards. Thank you, Mayor. I did also want to just add as a friendly reminder um to council and to the members of the public present tonight that this was brought forward to council earlier in the spring in March where um council was provided information about the wiser report as well as um looking at options to pursue is whether or not to even pursue a tenant protection bylaw. Um and it was at that meeting when the recommendation to create a DP area uh followed by and the amendments necessary with the OCP for the DP area followed by a tenant protection bylaw to come later. And so and at that meeting there were some specific elements of the tenant protection bylaw discussed. And so I just wanting to make it clear that this isn't um something that's just being brought forward uh here tonight or or just in uh April even. It has been on the table for a few months now.

Thank you, Mr. Edwards. You had the floor. Council Yeah, thank you, Mayor. But I I'll concur. This has obviously been under consideration for for some some time and and I guess it culminates in a public hearing and and you know, take away is that not hearing anyone who's happy with what we're suggesting. So, I'm a little concerned. I I appreciate um what's been uh suggested by the by the CEO that this has actually been in the works for some time and I appreciate the effort that staff have have put towards this. U I'll leave my comments Sarah at this point. Mayor, uh thank you. We are at questions at this stage and and I will follow up on on some of those points with with the questions. So appreciating that um first I I I just want to clarify the statement that um the provisions under this OCP that we're considering this evening are enabling. They are not uh they do not um put something in place that is enforceable.

Um the um so I want to turn and and what will happen is is it wouldn't be until a bylaw is passed and there's an entire process for that that any tech tenant protections would be uh would be enforceable. So there is nothing enforcable in terms of creating the tenant protection uh uh area in the uh in the OCP. Having said that I want to turn to to process Mr. And that is uh um the town of Sydney and other municipalities have been through this process where before you bring in and conduct a process a thorough process for a bylaw which does have all of the detail uh you you generally provide the enabling uh the ability to enable that in the OCP amendment. Um so having said that and appreciate that that is the typical process um is would it be possible if the um uh tenant protection development permit area uh did not carry forward from this evening. There are other provisions within the OCP. The

tenant protection development uh permit area is not the only provision that we're looking to amend in the OCP. So, if we if we chose to not u move that forward this evening, uh could we commence with a tenant a draft tenant protection bylaw? Uh there could be an engagement process uh with uh with the public. Um, but we wouldn't uh initiate the approval of that draft uh tenant protection bylaw until we came back and did the amendment to the OCP. Uh yes, the draft tenant protection bylaw uh could be put together, brought forward and essentially uh if this portion of the OCP amendment were tabled to a later date could run somewhat concurrently uh together. And so the details of tenant protection bylaw yet to be drafted. it would need to be put together uh so that it would take time to do that but uh yes it could be structured so that they would happen more or less simultaneously the adoption of the OCP uh would still ideally happen prior to the tenant protection bylaw uh but that's just an agenda organization

type of thing and I understand legislatively you do have to make the OCP amendment before you you can't adopt the bylaw if it's not comp with the OCP and and if I might just add uh to your earlier remarks on the enabling side of things. Um it is true that if a property is not included in the OCAP amendment, the tenant protection development permit area that then of course the bylaw wouldn't be able to enable those protections for that property. So just to clarify that the the all the properties that we want the bylaw to apply to do need to be included in that uh OCP segment for that for it to be enabled. Yes. Thank you for that clarification.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Nukem. I'll turn to councelor O'Keefe, I believe, had a question. Uh, yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, so if we wanted to add properties to the tenant protection area, um, I know we had some email traffic about how that might happen and then we got some other advice later about um, how that would work. But now I'm wondering um what would be the route to go if if if we now seem to be if we were to consider kind of postponing things for a while to get the bylaw drafted. I'm just wondering at what point whether tonight would we have to uh indicate interest in broadening the the area for tenant protection if we're not going to deal with that now or should we sever or remove that that whole thing to do with tenant protections out of out of the uh discussions tonight? Okay.

Yeah. So, we've discussed this, discussed this with staff. So, uh for members of the public who who are here and I know you have a keen interest in this, we do have process that we're required to file follow. So, I want to go back and indicate that at the April 27th meeting, we gave first and second reading to these bylaw changes. We're then required to have the public hearing, which we've had, and then we can consider providing third reading. to answer councelor O'Keefe's question and for the benefit of everyone is that if we wish if we do not wish to move the tenant protection development permit area amendments to the bylaw OCP amendment bylaw forward this evening then we would resend second reading of that by of the bylaw. We would then make reference to those sections that they be severed and then we would give second reading as amended and then we could proceed with third reading.

When you've provided second reading to a bylaw and you advertise for a public hearing and you have the public hearing after the public hearing, we can't make changes to the bylaw that adds something to the bylaw, but we can sever something from the bylaw from the from the draft bylaw to uh to consider um further at another time. So that would be the the process. Keith, I think I got some of that, but um I'll I think I I I need staff to or or for yourself to clarify. Do we need to make any motion tonight? Yes, councelor O'Keefe. I'll just I'll repeat it for everyone's benefit. Thank you, C. If council wishes to proceed with the bylaw, but would like to remove sections regarding the tenant protection development permit area and have staff come back with another bylaw to do something with the tenant protection bylaw and or the sorry the permit area in the OCP andor the bylaw then we would resend we would pass a motion to resend second reading of the bylaw amendment. Yes. And I Yeah, I understand that.

And then what we would do is we would pass a motion to sever the specific sections. And I do have the specific sections here. We would pass a motion to sever it and then that is going to that is going to be considered separately and then we can proceed. we can give second reading to the to the bylaw as amended that it it has been amended by remove by severing the tenant protection permit area and then give third reading and adoption. Okay. And I'm just wondering then at what point would it be then when it comes back to us that if if we wanted to make an amendment to that say if we wanted to include another building or other buildings that we would be making that recommendation not tonight but when that comes back to when would we give that direction to staff?

Thank you for the question. I'll turn to Mr. Edwards. Uh if if C if council was comfortable um this evening would be fine to provide that direction for a different development permit area. So if that was to include or exclude properties or changing the DPA, having that direction tonight would be helpful. If there uh direction is to sever the um or to resend second reading and then um sever that from the OCP amendments and bring it back at a later date. Uh it would be helpful to have perhaps it's a motion arising to identify other areas. So and that would be that would be a mo a possible motion arising after we've concluded with the so do the severing and then a motion arising. No no correct first resend. Yes.

Um uh sever and motion arising. No no the motion. Sorry, because we're dealing with the bylaw, there would be motions with regards to the bywwell. We would conclude with the bylaw, decide to give second reading, third reading adoption with the portion being severed and then it could be a motion arising with regards to direction on the tenant protection permit area. That works. Yes. Thank you. Uh councelor D. Uh if there's no more conversation, I'll put the motion forward to resend. Sorry. If you can if you have a question I'll go to questions. Councelor Gernette. Thank you mayor. Um just thinking regarding the comments by councelor Renul around delaying to try and have them running analogous and then working together. I guess the the one question that comes to mind for me is is that something that um one staff has capacity and time to do in terms of their workload and two something that can complete be completed before this council term is over because I wouldn't

want something like this to be starting off a new council. Turn to Mr. Edwards and possible Mr. Nukem uh through the mayor council Garnett. Um, yeah, I'm not sure I can answer that question to be honest. Uh, council, thank you for the question. It's it's I think it's a good question. I think it's it's partly impacted by if council has a decision, okay, to provide guidance on on engagement with regards to the uh to the bylaw. But so it sounds like it would be challenging if we were to go in terms of a longer approach, Mr. That is right. It it does add time um to the process. Uh we do need to provide another two weeks of of notice um and two consecutive uh postings in the paper. Um and we hadn't contemplating contemplated uh fully completing the tenant protection bylaw itself um uh necessarily by the end of this term.

it's uh it it would be in the works and I think it's fair to say that the provisions of the tenant protection bylaw would be similar not identical to some of the provisions within the policy. And so um it's entirely possible that it could be completed prior to this council term completion in October. Um but it it you know time is running out so to speak and um there are other priorities on our agenda and uh and you know barring any unforeseen circumstances or or other things that might come our way. Uh it it it may get delayed. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. Are there any other questions?

Yep. Councelor D, please. Yeah, just just to be clear that what we're talking about here is the development permanent area. These are the properties that are going to be included in the and be covered by the tenency protection bylaw when it comes forward. It does not have any elements of what the tenant protection bylaw will carry. That's going to come later. I think that just to be clear to people that we're only talking about the properties that will be included at this point and there's some concern about what those which those properties are but not about the specifics of the tenency protection bylaw and I think that's just clear for people.

Thank you councelor Duck. Not seeing any further questions if I'll entertain a motion please. I'd like to make the motion to resend second reading of official bylaw number 2315. Second. We have a second. I'll turn to the movers first. Yeah, I think it's been apparent through the conversation and public presentation or public um uh today that we need to go back and look at this. Um personally, I think it needs to be broader relative to the properties that not just the ones that are indicated right now. Um and and I think that that'll give it a bit more ump as to what it has to impact on the community. I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you.

Thank you. So, speaking to rescending, um I'll turn the secondary. Uh thank you, mayor. Uh I think our eyes have have been opened by the hearing today. Uh we've heard uh comments against this uh tenant protection development area, both from landlords and tenants alike, which suggests to me that we've gotten off on the wrong foot. So, I'm glad to see this um severed and re-evaluated uh alone uh so that we can focus on what the needs of both tenants and landlords are. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Duncan and Councelor Garnett. And we're speaking to rescending now. That's we're not motivating on other aspects coming forward.

Yeah, thanks. I'm I was ambivalent about rescending simply because I'm not sure how much we can actually uh change by re-evaluating it because I don't think we've received actually any new facts or data about what would be in it or what this would enable that would require us to do that. I what I've heard is that people don't understand it. um looking at you know my notes from the landlords many of them suggested we should do other things which are of course already enabled in Sydney so I think it's a matter of you know people who don't already know what we can do didn't know and I don't know how much our increased education of that would affect what would happen if we if we did this now um we also know that the the facts of the criteria we used to designate these areas on wanting to protect lowincome rentals has not changed. Um and so by delaying I don't think we will make sure that we have a product that protects more people who are actually vulnerable. Um,

and I'm also not sure that we have seen that we've actually followed a process wrong whereby if part of the reason we could not enforce what we already had in place was because we did not have a bylaw and now we're not having a bylaw, we're back at square one. And this is an enabling, as it's been pointed out, an enabling bylaw, which means it doesn't actually say what's going to be in the tap. people already know what's going to be in the tap and when that tap is finished then we can only talk about what would be in there at the time. So no matter what happens the people who own these rental properties know that some sort of enforcement legislation or enforcement by law is coming. Whether they are in the area is guaranteed because they're multi-unit rental housing that's already of an age. The question isn't whether those people are included. It's whether other people would have been included as well.

And so I'm not I don't think we're actually aiming to address any of the points that were made. I think that the points that were made I I think were just made because uh as we've we've seen as we had this discussion about what the process even would be to split these and change them. Government ease is sometimes difficult to parse. And so people didn't understand um what was happening and have an emotional reaction that isn't necessarily in line with what what the facts will be or how they'll be affected. We do know that they are affected and I can see uh that council is obviously chewing on that trying to figure out we don't want to put a bylaw in place that makes people uh think that something came down in a punitive way even if it wasn't. We don't want a perception of that. We don't we want people to feel good about bylaws that come. And so, um, just just clarifying, we're speaking to we're speaking to rescending. I'm speaking to the rescending. Yeah.

And and so I suppose on balance, uh, though I don't think there's new information or new things that staff can do to make what will eventually come different. Um, I'm okay, I suppose, with rescending because it gives everybody a breather to figure out what we could do instead to bring people into the fold that when it comes down, which will probably be the same, um, they don't feel frightened and, uh, caught unawares when it does. Thank you, councelor. I have on the speaking list councelor Duncan, Coun or sorry, councelor Gernette, councelor Renul. Thank you, mayor. I'll support the motion. And I think uh having heard everybody and read all the letters, I think it's important for us to give uh reconsideration for that particular component that's being severed. But I also think what's not being discussed overall is that the other components of this amendment are necessary to move forward to align parts of legislation with the government, but also to allow other uses in the community. And I think it's important that we get this adopted

to to have it on the books and ready to be able to be used. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, counselor. Councelor and thank you mayor. Um, I support rescending second reading. Uh, I I actually think it's important that we see the tenant protection bylaw in conjunction with uh addressing a tenant protection development permit area. And so for that reason, I I support uh rescending second rating. Uh I think we heard this evening quite clearly both from tenants uh that that uh protection area is perhaps not broad enough and we've certainly heard from uh small u small building landlords uh local residents who are really concerned and perhaps confused at the absence of of those parameters in the policy itself and and in all fairness to those people that do enable those housing opportunities uh I think it should be addressed in in a more wholesome approach. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further speakers?

Seeing none, I'll look to call the question. Those in favor? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. And so an appropriate um appropriate wording for uh the next step would be that section 11, 12, 13, 14, and 14 of bylaw 2315 regarding the tenant protection development permit area be severed. So moved. Second second by I'll turn to the movers councilors Duck and Rul. Yeah, I think as council Garnett pointed out, there's still other components to this um amendment that have to go forward and I think that's important to recognize and then we can uh once we've completed that, we can come back and revisit the this severed part and address that. But I think we need to get the first part in place. Thank you.

Thank you, councelor. Councelor Angel. Yeah, I'll concur. This just enables um the OCP to u be addressed in areas of temporary use permits for examples and height limitations and and as void then around the tenant protection development aspect. So uh I support. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call a question. Those in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you. So thank you to members of the public and to those uh all those who wrote correspondence. So the the item has been severed. We do have there are other components to the bylaw. So, we're going to be continuing with that bylaw without the u without the tenant protection development permit area and then we may have motion a motion or motions arising uh after we finish with the OCP amendment bylaw.

Uh so, um council, now that that has been severed, the appropriate next step if we wish to continue with the other amendments to the bylaw would be that bylaw 2315 be given second reading as amended. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Not seeing any. Uh as councelor Garnett uh made reference to uh there are and as we spoke to both when I introduced the item and when the corporate officer read the notice of the of the public hearing. There are other important provisions within the uh the OCP amendment that we wish to proceed with. Third reading. Sorry, I haven't pulled a question yet, but I will I will do that right away. All in favor. That carries unanimous. Thank you, councelor. I'd like to move third reading. Second. All in favor?

That carries. Thank you. And we can move forward with adoption. I so move. Adoption. Second. All in favor or sorry, any discussion? Uh, I'll call the question. All in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you. So thank you very much again everyone. Um so we've now concluded with those bylaw amendments. So coming back to the tenant protection development permit area. Um uh we can give direction to staff uh as Mr. Edwards uh indicated uh we could do uh and I will turn to a colleague if they wish to do that. Uh, councelor O'Keefe, please. Uh, thank [clears throat] you. Um, I'll move that, um, staff prepare another OCP amendment and public hearing to add all purpose-built rental buildings to the prot tenant protection area.

Second. We have it moved and seconded. I'll turn to the moves. Um, I think what I've gathered from feedback that we got here and other things that I hear in the community, I I know that some of the buildings are are newer, but as time goes on, they'll age and um I think it's important rather than peacemealing and having uh certain buildings uh to have a policy that applies um across the Now, I'll leave it at that. Thank you. I'll turn the second. Thank you, mayor. Um, I agree with this. I I think if we're going to go in the direction of tenant protection, uh, it should include all uh, purpose-built rentals. Uh I would note for those listening that this would not include uh single individual rentals or private building rentals or that sort of thing would only include rental properties or purpose-built rentals. I think it's important for people to understand that.

But that being said, I think that's where the majority of uh issues uh come into play. And so uh with this uh with this motion will encompass all of these rental properties in Sydney and I I think this is something that most people will be able to get on board with. Thank you. Thank you. I'll turn to councelor Runul. Thank you mayor. Not sure I'm one of those people who can get on board with this uh this boss yet. Um, so I think I guess what I appreciate with with the spirit here is that this would introduce a level playing field throughout the community. And so uh you know all uh landlords, all tenants would be uh you know evaluated at the the same uh under this if they were u owners or tenants of a purpose-built rental. Uh my my challenge with it is I don't think it addresses some of the confusion some of the confusion out there for tenants in terms of what their actual protection would be because that we still don't

have the tenant protection biology for us to consider. And again in all fairness to uh property owners to uh landlords they don't know what the implications may well be of this without that u policy piece in place or without an opportunity to participate uh in consultation around that. Um, so I'm inclined not to support u this motion at this time unless it were to include a reference uh to include it with respect to bringing forward a tenant protection uh bylaw at the same time. Thank you, mayor. So council has the council has the option to proceed with the motion that's on the floor. Uh we could amend the motion to include direction to staff with regards to tenant uh protection bylaw drafting such a bylaw. uh that could be the second part of the motion u or it could be a separate uh motion arising. So speaking to uh speaking to the intent um council does have the option to amend the motion that is on the floor to including direction to staff with regards to tenant protection bylaw.

Council, if it may comment on that um potential direction. Um, yeah, I think a motion arising and my opinion probably is is not the way to go. An amendment to this probably is is more appropriate. I'd rather yield at this time and just see what my colleagues are are thinking. Um, and if it doesn't come forward uh with support at that stage, uh, I may not intervene and put forward amendment, but I'm contemplating that. Thank you. Thank you. I'll turn to councelor Duncan next. Well, thank you. Since councelor Renul asked what his colleagues were thinking, uh I'm not in support of this uh uh motion. However, a motion that brought forward the next uh the next public hearing and uh the OCP amendment in concert with uh the tenant uh with the details of the tenant protections, I would be in favor of because I think that's actually the part that we could clarify at this time. Um, I am not in favor of extending rental protections to all of the purpose bill rentals in town for the same reasons which have already been discussed. Um,

which is that just because it's a rental doesn't mean the people in it are actually financially vulnerable. We have many purpose real estate agencies in town whose entire clientele are convincing people to move in um from further abroad because this is a destination luxury location. Many of the new purpose-built rentals that have gone up recently um are very expensive. Certainly I could not afford them when I was looking to rent. I am a renter and um I think a lot of people don't understand what vulnerable means either when I know that some of the people in these purpose but rentals are often only one or two bedroom which almost by definition means they're not families.

Now, I know as a renter and being on council council, I wanted to be able to represent people in my demographic and the average renter who is a family um is a single parent. I'm not one. So, I'm much more privileged than most uh renters with families and uh they have children in the school system. And so, if they were to move, they may not have a car. They often don't because they're lower income. That kind of is one thing you can get rid of if you live in town. Um, and so they'd have to move their children to a new school. As we've heard in other council meetings, bus services are being reduced. And so that would be potentially very devastating to families uh trying to find both a new school where they'd put their kids and even get them to school in the first place. They have jobs in town. They may lose their jobs if they can no longer commute.

And if they're like me, they also share custody with somebody, meaning that if they have to try to move, that might really affect their ability to do that and change their entire legal situation with another parent or their even access to their children. That is not something that people take into account when they say um there's, you know, people who might leave a newer building that are paying market based rents for one or two bedrooms. It's so much easier. There are so many more on the market. Took me three years to find a threebedroom. I just spoke to somebody else who's looking for five. She hasn't she probably won't get it because the landlord told her they wanted someone who is quiet, i.e. not a family.

Um, and that's a single family home, five bedrooms that would not be covered. This would not actually be protecting a lot of vulnerable people. This would be expanding something to protect more people who were not vulnerable while we were still powerless to protect people who actually were. And so the way we had scoped this initially was to get genuinely older buildings where we know people have been there for long enough and the buildings were in enough disrepair that they were likely to be paying far below market rent. And we also knew that because of their age, they were in the next five years or so potentially going to be renovicted or demo evicted. Places that are new or built, they have another 40 years and we don't know what will happen in 40 years.

40 years ago, this was an affordable place to live. It might be in 40 years again with absolutely no tenant protections. When I moved here in 2011, it was extremely affordable to rent. It was not by, you know, five years later. So trying to say we're doing something because we think a situation in 40 years might exist isn't helping anybody right now. This doing this right now won't help anyone who's actually vulnerable in a newer build either. It won't lower the rents in their newer build for them. Um I know we've heard from a lot of people in a building where there are units for rent and so it's publicly available knowledge what those rents go for. I know that at the rental rates that are the units in that building are going for, they are much higher than the rest of the CRD where rents have been falling five, six, 7% [clears throat] year-over-year for several years now.

It's actually cheaper to move. And so I know that there are people who may have been in that building for 10 or more years who h aren't paying what they would rent those newly renovated suites for. Um, and they they might have a problem. Unfortunately, if we extend things on a building by building basis in a building where they've undergone repairs and people have been turning over and the rents have been increasing to the illegal amounts, that means that there's a mixture of people in the building, some of whom are paying very low rates, some of whom are paying market rate and some of whom are paying well above the market rate for the CRD.

We would be protecting all of those people indiscriminately and that would cost us money, money we could be putting into actually protecting the most vulnerable. And I understand I've taken up a lot of space, so I'll finish with one more piece, which is that when we did our final report out on who used our um cold weather shelter, there's an interesting piece of demographic information that councelor O'Keefe brought out, which is that 80% of the people using it identified as indigenous or matei. Since only 4% of Canada is indigenous, that's fairly staggering disproportion. I would say less than 4% of people who actually live in Sydney are indigenous or matey. Um, we knew from one of the women who came forward from point of order. I'll listen to your point of order.

The 80% that I mentioned in that data uh I believe was for persons with disabilities um not indigenous matey was my there but it was indigenous councelor Duncan go ahead and disabilities as well but I would also say 80% [laughter] of people who live in these buildings are not disabled as well but the point is that when people who were displaced from the actual low uh or actual affordable building that was demolished who ended up in the cedar wood in came forward those were some of the identified demographics and so we knew knew that when we were starting to look at this that some of the buildings we'd already missed actually were housing people in vulnerable groups that are already known to be identified. Cities already know when we start putting in these things we were trying to protect very specific groups which are disproportionately identified which is usually people of color, single parents, um seniors who've been in a place for such a long time their rent is highly controlled. uh those with disabilities who are on uh disability income. And

by moving it to newer builds where things are already market rate, we know that those people are currently not moving living in those buildings and staying there another 40 years isn't going to place them necessarily into those demographics um simply by them staying put. And so I think it's important not to kind of try to broaden something and do what we can even though it won't work to protect the people who need it. Um and therefore end up limiting our ability, our financial and our staff resources to do things that actually do help the people who are in those vulnerable vulnerable groups. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Duncan. Are there any further speakers? Councelor If I may through you mayor to a couple questions to staff, please.

Um, one is just to give a definition of purpose-built rentals in this community. Is that is there a certain number of units or is it a certain design through the mayor to councelor Duck? So, generally that definition would be set in a tenant protection bylaw or to determine the applicability of it to purpose-built rentals. Um, commonly what you see out there is a a a building used for residential tenencies with rental agreements uh with five or more units in it. Thank you. And and to that point, um, do the the new legislation covering the what were single family lots where you can have up to four units, would those be considered under a tenency protection bylaw permit zone?

Uh I mean there are municipalities that have chosen to designate those uh as purposebuilt rental buildings uh if they are rental and apply a tenant protection bylaw to them. Yes. Uh I mean I would go back to my previous comments from April about the scope of this uh action that the town is proposing to undertake here um and the reason for the limited scope of what's being proposed. uh we have no staff who are available uh to do this on a dedicated basis. We have no staff who are trained to deal with these types of issues. Um you know it's it's very much an off the side of the desk thing at at this time because the resources to uh look at this issue as a you know standalone function of the town do not exist. And and so uh I would remind council that the reason for this scope is because we lack the resources to apply it to buildings, you know, with one, two, or three units. I mean, the bulk of Sydney's rental properties are single uh secondary suites, small, you know, rental duplexes, things like that.

Um and you can pro apply a tenant protection bylaw to those properties. Uh, however, the amount of work that that would create far outstrips, I would argue even the larger municipalities ability to deal with it. Yes, thank you. I I appreciate that. And that was the point of the question was that we do need to identify what the lower limits of that are um protection of the town and and and tenants. And again, we're only looking at the development permit area and those are the selected properties. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Duck. I'm turning to councelor Garnett now. Thank you, mayor. Um, I'll support the motion that's on the floor. Um, and just would like to thank everybody who came out to speak tonight, everybody's in the audience, actually, and all the letter writers. It's important that we get that feedback. Uh, because there's always two sides to every side of it. So, every discussion we have, and it's important to get both perspectives. Um, with regards to the comments around the

tenant protection bylaw, I think it's I think uh if if although we haven't got one that's in play yet, as uh our CEO had mentioned, we have had a meeting about it where there were potential options on the table and they very much mirror our tenant assistance policy with the with some exceptions. But so I think if you if you are concerned about what may or may not be in there, that would be a starting point to look to to to as to what might at some point. Um, sorry. I'll turn to Mr. Nukem, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, we're I'm going to just make a comment that we're the motion on the floor is whether is is to give direction to staff in terms of broadening the um tenant protection development permit area.

We're getting into questions about what the what a bylaw may or may not be. Um, so, um, I think that would be more appropriate if we're making an amendment to this motion with regards to staff proceeding with the bylaw or it's a motion arising. Uh, Mr. Nukem, I'll turn to you to answer the question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll withhold my comment. Thank you. Yeah. No, I'm not speaking specific to the bylaw, just that the comments around the concerns around the permit area. So, you know, if people wanted to get an idea of what was out there, they could, the information's available. So, um, in terms of the in terms of it the the for me it's more about the consistency across the whole community having all of the purposeful rentals under under that are covered under it. Um, and you know, the fact is that there there is a building and many members of the community who live in that building spoke tonight and there there are many vulnerable members of our community that

live in that particular building which at this point in time is not covered in in the in the existing eight unit eight uh buildings that are proposed. And by allowing for this um to take place, it will be another public hearing. So that gives another opportunity for everybody to to bring back specifically to that portion of this, not just the whole bylaw we talked about tonight. So I think that's important too because then we can ease out just this particular thing that's coming forward. But I think it is important, you know, we it's the we can we can talk about buildings where they are now and how long they were built and how long before and how old they are and and when you when you set a date and I understand staff's rationale fully like those are the buildings most likely to be redeveloped first, but you just never know. And so I I want to make sure that we get something on and that we have the potential in the in the OCP in the areas that we're going to cover that everybody will feel a sense of of that they're valued as a renter.

And I think that kind of gets lost in the shuffle through all this. Um we talk about units but we don't talk about people and as some speakers have mentioned these are their homes. So uh I think that's important for us to have consideration in terms of the broader context of the community. Thank you mayor. Thank you. Um, I'll speak for the first time and and say that I'm supportive of of the motion. Um, we've heard from several residents both in person this evening and uh through correspondence uh from the waterfront on on Second Street. And there isn't u there isn't a process tonight whereby we can include that uh rental building in the uh tenant protection area. We have to go through the process that we're going to consider it. And so while I appreciate there are um uh that council has received information at a at a March meeting at an April meeting with regards to possible provisions and attendant protection bylaw um and these OCP

amendments. Um uh I'm in favor of it coming back which would include the waterfront uh and the other areas that councelor O'Keefe has identified uh and that we can deliberate at that time in terms of whether uh we are going to add all of the properties or uh or the waterfront and and some other properties. So I I'm not motivating in terms of which properties in terms of how the breadth of this motion. that I think it's worthy to come back and consider which properties should be uh in the tenant protection uh area. Um Miss Nelson, everyone has spoken for a first time. I do have a second time speaker. I'm going to turn to Miss Nelson if you could read uh the motion out that's on the floor, please.

Yes. uh that staff prepare an OCP amendment bylaw and hold a public hearing to and hold a public hearing to add all purpose-built rentals to the tenant protection development permit area. Okay. So, a question process-wise because I think the direction is clear is that um uh staff would bring the amendment back uh to uh to a future council meeting. Uh we don't know what date that is, but it would be a future council meeting. Um and um as we did in April, council would have uh the option to give first and second reading. However, I'll turn to staff and ask the question while that uh provisions of the bylaw um sorry of the amendment came forward. Um council could choose to refer if if we also wish either through amendment or a separate motion to uh to start the process of a draft bylaw. We don't we wouldn't have to consider first and second reading. We could we could have the amendment, see what the amendment looks like, have discussion on it, whether we want to change that at all. Um, and then uh we could refer it

if we so choose in this meeting to uh to also start a process with regards to the tenant protection bylaw. Is that as clear as mud? I think I'm following you, mayor. Um I think um yes, if if council um if if staff brought back an amendment with the um purpose-built rentals um or trying to cover all the purpose-built rentals. At that time, council can um debate the proposed uh recommendation and and information from the staff report and choose to advance it through to second reading and then to give notice for a public hearing if that's the wish of council or to ask staff to go back and make further amendments which would then require to come back at at another future meeting. I think that's what you're referring No. Thank you.

Um for a second time, councelor in councelor Novik. Thank you. I'd like to move an amendment to the motion, please. Uh I'd like to insert and I will yield to the expertise of the corporate officer in terms of where we may do that. Uh the following language perhaps. Here's what I want to here's what I want to say. I want to say at such time as a draft tenant protection bylaw comes forward to council. So whether or not most suited as a part two to or inserted somewhere in the existing motion. I'll yield to the corporate officer. Okay. And I'm going to direct a question to this to the CEO. Is is that while it's making reference to tenant protection bylaw, we haven't given direction to request staff to bring a draft of the tenant protection bylaw.

So you're indicating you're inferring by that motion that a tenant that we're giving direction to staff. I think we should be more more intentional in saying in in requesting a draft a draft um tenant protection. My understanding from the the staff comments that those are already anticipated. So I I I felt like that intentional aspect has already been established by council. But I'll look to uh perhaps Mr. Num to confirm that with the motion that is on the or without the amendment stuff would or would not be bringing forward a tenant protection bylaw. I I believe sorry, mayor. Um I would have to double check the uh resolutions from the March meeting, but I do recall that there was a recommendation to draft to initiate drafting of the bylaw. Um, but I I know I'm not sure whether that recommendation was um supported as it was recommended and so I'd have to double check the actual resolutions from that that meeting. It was uh March 23rd and

uh but regardless of that council direction uh staff have been you more focused on the OCP amendment and the designating area and u I know that staff had originally planned to be bringing forward um I'm sorry just just a moment Mayor please. Yeah, we'll pause just a moment. Yeah, that's staffing. So, so yes, that recommendation on March 23rd uh to direct staff to bring forward a draft tenant protection bylaw um with with several criteria attached to it was carried six to one. And so, uh, however, as I was saying, staff have been more focused on the O enabling OCP amendments and have not yet turn their attention to the bylaw itself. And with the amendments to the OCP, um, while uh, reasonable and and workable, that will further delay our ability to address the bylaw itself. And so that that may mean that we end up uh um with a fairly compressed timeline depending on when we're able to bring uh one or both of those back. So we don't have a secondary yet at any rate.

Right. Right. Right. Right. Okay. So, so, so but but regardless, um the direction to amend the OCP uh is clear and so that would be um uh delayed, not likely to come back at the June 22nd meeting. So, it would most likely the earliest it would be would be the July 13th meeting. um pushing us to the August 10th um for the public hearing and and then following that would be the tenant protection bylaw hopefully in September. So, I'm just trying to paint a bit of a picture that time is is fairly compressed and um and we don't we need a little bit of time to understand the the sequencing of of things.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. So your amendment, if you would like to repeat it, I believe it's in order um based on council already having passed a motion in March for a draft tenant protection bylaw to come forward. So if you could read that again and I will seek a second. Thank you. And again, I was yielding to the corporate officer's recommendation of where this fits in the existing motion, but I'm looking to include the words at such time as a draft tenant protection bylaw comes forward to council. I I believe it can just be a comma after afterwards. Thank you. Do we have a second council duck?

Oh, sorry. I just saw councelor Duck first. I'll turn to the movers. Yeah, thank you briefly. I I think I've spoken to uh the rationale uh for this previously, but but again briefly, um I feel like this alleviates some some concern we heard this evening from from tenants around, you know, what level of protection is actually being afforded. But currently what we're doing affords no protection and changing the OCP. It enables the next step. This is the next step. Uh but also it would enable a um uh a consultation with the community which includes landlords around what this uh draft tenant protection bylaw would look like and uh getting input from um in this case all purpose-built rental uh owners uh to get their insight as well as tenants and and uh perhaps a more wholesome uh opportunity to uh to consult. There was some suggestion that perhaps the process wasn't uh transparent that many people weren't aware. That may be evidenced, you know, by the fact that we really only saw the one building uh come forward and concerned that they weren't included in this instead of a broader tenant group.

And we only really heard from about three of the uh uh owners of the eight properties that were in question and now we're looking at including all purpose built rentals in Sydney. So I think this probably is is the fairest way to move forward with this. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. We'll turn to the second. Councelor Duck. Nothing that Dunker. Thank you. Councelor Keefe. Yeah. Uh, sure. Yeah, I'm supportive of this also because um I think no matter what we do um I I'd like to get it'd be nice to have this done by the end of the summer and I know staff were kind of hoping that maybe they would do this the tenant protection bylaw later after we got this. But this allows us to bundle it together so people can, as colleagues have said, get an idea of what something like this would uh encompass. So I I think that's worth doing. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Garnette.

Thank you, Mayor. Three to staff, just for my clarification. Um the motion as it is worded, is staff comfortable with that? Yeah, councelor Dette I'll I'll I'll let the question stands but but we haven't specified a time frame and just in terms of staff capacity being able to done as speaking to the corporate or the CEO's comments earlier about it the timeline I think staff are are comfortable with it and we'll you know we'll endeavor to do what we can to bring it back in a timely fashion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, councelor Jeff. Um I'd like to suggest a further amendment which is to um limit the number of PBRs to five plus units as directed by staff. is just to me sorry that's that's um I think given the direction we're giving with regards to um an OCP amendment and the tenant protection by draft and it coming back at the time of the tenant protection bylaw that that would be an appropriate motion arising or that would

be more appropriate as a motion arising rather than as an amendment. to the amendment. Generally, amendments to amendments clarify the um the the amendment that's on the floor. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Uh any further speakers? Uh I'm I'm supportive of this. Uh we've heard from the public. We've heard from both the tenants and the uh and and certain property owners. And I think it's reasonable uh for all to see um provisions within the tenant protection bylaw. uh before we commence with the uh with the tenant protection um permit area in the uh in the OCP. Seeing no further speakers, I'll look to call the question. Those in favor on the amendment? Yep.

That carries unanimous. Uh and now I'll look is there any further discussion on the amended motion? Not seeing any. I'll look to call a question on the motion as amended. All in favor? Opposed? Councelor Duncan is opposed. The motion carries. Point of order. Yes. Five minute recess. Uh thank you. I will call a fivem minute recess. We'll uh come back at 8:05, please. Okay. So in terms of timing staff staff staff wanted the next shelter.

Okay, we'll reconvene our meeting and we're next turning to item 8B, which is bylaw number 2319, which is amendment number seven to our land use procedures bylaw. And I'll turn to our director of development services, Miss Verhagen, please. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you. This bylaw introduces changes to the land use procedures bylaw. Uh namely to remove the words commercial and industrial when it's referring to temporary use permits as per the OCP change that council just made a few minutes ago. Um this broadens the scope of where council could consider a temporary use permit through that permit process which is regulated in this bylaw. Um there's some information in the report about temporary use permits. The other change we wanted to make is remove the application form from the bylaw. That's very administrative and allows us to make formatting updates and just information updates to the application form without having to go through a bylaw amendment every time. I'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff on this? Uh seeing none, we can proceed with three separate motions. Councelor De, I move the bylaw be given first reading. Second. Um all in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you. I move the bylaw be given second reading. Second. Second. This is the time we have discussion on second reading. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Motion carries unanimous. And I'll move the bylaw be given third reading. Second and seconded. All in favor? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hagen. We're now turning to item 8 C, which is the bylaw number 2318, amendment number five to our streets and traffic bylaw uh to establish roads with maximum speed of 20k uh per hour and 30k per hour lanes, sorry, lanes with maximum speed of 20k per hour and authorize the municipal engineer to establish school and playground zones.

Uh we'll turn to our director of engineering, Mr. Murphy, for an introduction, please. Good evening. Good evening, mayor and councel. So, this uh bylaw amendment or amending bylaw brings forward proposed changes to the streets and traffic bylaw. And this is based on a discussion we had at committee of the whole some weeks ago. And so there's a number of changes proposed to be made and some new additions that I'll touch on specifically. So, in general, the proposal is to replace section 13 of the streets and traffic bylaw and to expand section 13 a little bit, but in particular to add a new schedule to the bylaw so that the specific roads with specific speed limits don't have to be listed out in in written description form. they can be in the schedule making it easier to reference. And so there will be new parts to the schedule. Uh part one a roads with a maximum so that's roads with a maximum speed limit of 20 km per hour. 1B roads with maximum speed limit of 30 km per hour. Part two lanes with maximum speed of 20

kilometers per hour. And then part three designated school and playground zones. We'd also like to introduce a definition usage for elephants feet markings which are used to designate where a a bicycle can cross without dismounting. And then we have all the various speed limit changes that were discussed at committee and approved by by motion at council. Uh so we have roads at 30 kilometers per hour. We have Mills road east. We have roads at 20 kilometers per hour. Uh blank at 20 kilometers for all lanes and then the lanes are specifically listed out in the schedule. And then municipal engineer authority for school and playground zones. Uh so those were all items that we discussed like I say at the committee meeting and through council resolution. a few items to propose adding based on things identified as while putting this together. So uh proposed to add in Corser Drive and Linda Place uh to designate at 30 kilometers per hour and so that comes from recent requests from residents and staff

support uh that request uh as Corser is highly residential and local road and Linda Place is connected to Corser. So if we're doing Corser we should do Linda. Uh then we have a few culde-sacs connected to roads that are already being reduced and so these were just essentially missed uh in the previous discussion. So, small culde-sacs to add on. And thank you to councelor Garnett for the correction in the the labeling. And then as a new addition, uh proposing in addition to all of the existing playground zones and school zones that will be listed in schedule A, proposing to add on at this time a new formal playground zone in front of the Green Glade Community Center. So on land and way uh there's already signage there but not a reduced 30 kilometer per hour speed limit. So we'd like to propose to add that on.

And then as a a point out of the discussions previously, Sterling Way uh had been posted at 40 km per hour but was not designated as anything different in the bylaw. And so we discussed returning Sterling Way to 50 kilometers per hour and the airport authority has agreed. So we've changed the signage already. Does not require a bylaw amendment because it's just the default 50 kilometers per hour and uh happy to answer questions from there. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I'll turn the questions and begin with councelor Garnett. Thank you, Mayor Staff. Uh just wondering if it's possible under the communication and public engagement if this is something we could do as an overview in our town talk at some point in the future through the chair. Absolutely. Perfect.

Uh and one other thing with regards to the actual bylaw itself um under 1B roads with a maximum speed of 30 km an hour and this is just to provide accuracy and remove any ambiguity. uh North Brook Drive between Westbrook Drive and East Brook Drive there. It's not west, it's west. There's no T. We've I've hear from people who live on that road. They take they they take the name of their street pretty seriously. So, appreciate [laughter] that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Um if there's no questions, I'll turn to a um um sorry, we can uh proceed with u u three readings uh and then a second motion. I so move that bylaw number 2318 be given first reading.

Second. All in favor carries unanimous. The bylaw be given second reading. Second. Any discussion? Counc. Thank you, mayor. just I just like to thank staff for the inclusion of uh the Green Glade and uh community center in L and Way uh as a longtime resident of that area. I think anybody who's lived there a long time remembers it was an elementary school so they always drive 30 anyways but for anybody new there they wouldn't have remembered that attachment. So I think it's an important change. Thank you. Thank you counselor councelor Keefe. Uh thanks. Um it's not that I disagree with all of the the roads that are included. My my opposition to this is just that I think that once we started putting in all these exceptions for now Corser's going to be 30 and uh all these other places there's a whole lot of other roads and local roads. I'm thinking of my my street Amelia Malibu um all of those off of Bower Bank. Um I would have preferred

something that in that was more broad to say 30 kilometers on those neighborhood streets and rather than just uh you know including a handful of them. So that's um my opposition to this. Thank you. Thank you council. Not seeing any further discussion. I'll call the question. Those in favor opposed. Councelor Keefe is opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. I move third reading. Second. All in favor? Opposed. Councelor Keefe is opposed. The motion carries. And we have a second motion. Uh councelor that staff pro I so move that staff proceed with implementation of required signage and related measures following adoption of the amending bylaw. Second. Any discussion? Those in favor? Cares unanimous. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We'll uh we're now turning to the mayor's report. I indicated that I would give a verbal update on access awareness day. In the interest of time, I I will forgore that. It I just want to thank Beacon Community Services for hosting the day uh for members of council for attending. Um and I'll turn to council reports and we have councelor Garnett who's our leazison to the Shaw Center for the Sailor Se. Thank you, Mayor. And before I proceed with that, I just do a public service announcement. It's Pride Festival this Saturday through the SBIA at Beacon Park from um 11:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. for anybody who wants to attend. Uh the actual Sorc Center board meeting was on May 26th.

There's some figures for you. Visitors to the center from June 1st of 2025 to March 31st, 2026 was $69,130. Net income to March 31st is $46,000. and they've spent $91,000 on capital which I believe I mentioned before, majority of which is to the um wheelchair lift. Uh they have a new giant Pacific octopus ambassador and he's been named Gandalf. They haven't mentioned whether that's gray or white, but uh Gandalf it is uh rather large and he's very friendly and active as opposed to the shy guy they had before. Uh they named it basically because they wanted to keep that theme of their magical night fundraiser they had and that fundraiser event netted them $40,000.

So, it was very successful and just thank you to everybody who participated and I believe Adam Olsson was the MC. So, everybody says they had a great time. Uh, the one-year-old cohort of Shinook salmon was released in Souk on May 12th. And a new cohort of a new cohort of 170 fry is now in the center. And it's interesting because this is a unique batch. Um, of the 175, there are two that are albinos. And I learned a new word. There's one that's lucistic. So, I actually had to go and look that up. And these are all genetic mutations uh to with the pigmentation. And the albinos have red eyes and the lcistic has normal colored eyes. That's the distinguishing feature. Um and but when you look in the they're all small but these are noticeably small. So we play like where's Waldo? Trying to find these guys in the circle. I already counted him. Um it's very unique and they were very fortunate and they had a connection

with the hatchery and one of their staff and is why they were able to get these specific. So, it's going to be interesting to watch them grow and see if they get to this full size of the other rooms or they are always a little bit smaller. Anyway, it's quite interesting. The next exhibit at the center will be beginning in October and it's called Forgotten Giants: Basking Sharks in the Pacific Northwest. And um as a little teaser, there will be a life-sized basking shark model that'll be constructed. So, I won't tell you where it's going to be if you go there, but um they're pretty excited about that. Uh World's Ocean Day was held yesterday, June 7th. Weather conditions were not spectacular. It was windy and quite chilly, but they still managed to have 500 visitors they estimated at the park and 483 guests uh entered the center and it was by donation. Um and the last thing I'll mention and this is I say I'll close with a fun fact. So if anyone has watched the Netflix movie

remarkably bright creatures, it's a really good movie. Um there's a local connection to the center. So, the octopus in the movie is CG, but its actual movements are based on the videographer John Roing's filming of the one-time ambassador to the center uh sequin. So, if you watch the movie, if you haven't watched it yet, if you go to watch it, that the movements of that octopus was actually from an octopus that they had at the center at one point in time. And so, I I knew that and then I watched the movie and it gives a different context. So, I thought I'd end with that. Thank you, mayor. Thank you for all of that, counselor.

Are there any uh any questions? Uh seeing none, let's turn to the next item. We are going to committee reports. Under 12A, we have the San Peninsula Accessibility Advisory Committee. Uh we're receiving their minutes of April 23 on our agenda. Uh we don't require a motion. Uh there was one recommendation coming from that meeting and I'll turn to Councelor O'Keefe, our representative on the committee to uh to take us through that. Uh thank you, mayor. Um, I'll read in the recommendation, but you'll see in the comments that staff have already advised they're doing this. So, it's a quick item that uh the recommendation was that staff be directed to review the guidelines for installation of tactile markings at intersections and report back to council. Um, and staff have already advised that they do conform to the master municipal construction documents uh for this sort of thing. So I I don't know whether we actually have to pass that motion or whether we can just receive this for information.

Thank you for reading it in. I won't seek a seconder and perhaps counselor you could consider a motion to uh to receive recommendation one for information. Sure. That council receive recommendation one for information. Second move and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Cares unanimous. Thank you. Uh and then we're turning to uh 12B which is the um uh we're receiving the minutes of the um accessibility committees um uh meeting minutes from May their May 28th meeting and there are two recommendations uh from that. Councelor O'Keefe. Sure. Uh thank you. So the first one is that the town communicate with the Victoria Airport Authority regarding accessibility concerns raised by the Sanage Peninsula Accessibility Advisory Committee.

And do we have a second? Second for discussion. Second, if you could provide some clarification, councelor. Um, so this came one of the SPACK members mentioned they toured the the Marriott hotel. They identifi there was a lot of good things there in terms of accessibility, but there were a few things related to parking and the dimensions of one of the accessible rooms. Um, and so concerns about that uh staff who were in attendance at the meeting uh informed the committee that because it's airport project that they don't nec they don't need to follow the guidelines that that we have. Um, however, uh, staff indicated a willingness to, uh, to discuss what our, uh, re our, uh, recommendations are in in our zoning bylaw in regards to accessibility, just further information.

And, uh, so that's that's where we were going with that. So, it's not not uh making the airport authority u do anything. It's just here's some concerns that came up and here's how in our municipality uh we deal with these things as well. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, I'll call the question. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed? Carries. Recommendation two. Uh the next one is that town staff during accessible parking awareness month in November undertake an information campaign directed to the business community regarding best practices for accessible parking. Seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Carries unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Keefe. We're turning to U 12C committee of the whole.

We're uh receiving or the minutes from that meeting are on our agenda. Uh we had um four recommendations coming from the meeting. Um I'll let you pace yourself council who chaired the meeting uh to take us through those recommendations please. All right. So the committee recommended and I so moved that council approve in principle the June 1st 2026 revised concept plan for the Sydney transit hub as proposed on slide five of the BC transit presentation. And number two, the council reaffirms approval in principle for the planning and design work to continue developing designs and cost estimates for the Sydney Transit Hub to support a business case and future funding application.

Second move and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you. Please continue. All right. Moving on to recommendation two. The committee recommended and I so moved that owners and tenants in occupation of property within 75 meters 246 feet of 9522 Lockside Drive be notified regarding development variance permit application number DV1000390 to allow a longer extension to the preliminary letter of approval for the subdivision application and to defer subdivision requirements for off-site improvements for the proposed lot two until the time of development on lot two and that any written correspondence received to be forwarded to council at the time of consideration of approval of the variance.

[clears throat] And number two, that as a condition of approval of development variance permit application number DV1000390, the property owner shall, prior to subdivision approval, register a covenant on tile on title prohibiting any construction on lot to until proof of payment to install underground electrical and telecommunication service is provided to the town. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you. All right. Recommendation three committee recommended and I so moved that policy WS015 public dench bench dedication be approved as amended which includes introducing a new separate fee of $4,000 for dedicated benches located on the Bevon Fishing Pier and maintaining the existing $3,000 fee for all other dedicated bench locations. Number two, that the updated policy apply to both new applications and renewals on the Beavenon Fishing Pier. And three, that staff be directed to bring forward an amendment to the town's fees and charges bylaw at an appropriate time to reflect the updated fee structure.

Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor? And that carries unanimous. Thank you again, counselor. Okay. in the home stretch with recommendation four. The committee recommended and I so move that staff consider alternate wording for minimum Actually, I'm not moving this. Yes. Go ahead and read it and then Oh, okay. And then you'll Okay. Uh that staff consider alternate wording for minimum score thresholds, including other trafficcoming measures and notes on other non-tracomming measures. And number two, no, just just number one. Just leave it there. Okay. Because we do have some additional information from staff which uh you'll follow up on. Yeah. So, thank you, councelor Ke. So, um that gave direction to staff to consider amendments uh to uh the policy and uh staff uh quick as a flash have uh have done that and it is included. the the amended uh report is included in our agenda. And so with staff having concluded that uh we could look to the option two recommendation um that the policy uh be approved as amended.

Uh but before we do that, are there any questions for Mr. Murphy of his amended report based on the recommendation one that we made at at Cal? Not seeing any. Councelor Keefe, would you consider recommendation? Should I um resend my recommendation? We don't we don't have a seconder. So, okay. We're not looking for a second. So, I will uh move the the alternate recommendation that policy WS24 traffic calming for residential installed requests be initiated requests. Initiated requests. Thank you. That's okay. Be approved as amended. And number two, that staff bring forward a proposed dedicated traffic common capital budget for consideration in the next annual budget cycle.

Second moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, want to thank staff for for the turnaround on on that to this meeting. I'll call the question. Those in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councelor Keefe, for taking us through all those recommendations. Uh we're turning to item 12D which is u we're receiving the minutes from the advisory planning commission on our agenda. There's no motion required. Uh there is uh one recommendation uh and I will turn to councelor Duck our leazison to the APC to take us through that. The recommendation I so move that development permit DP1000859 to permit the form and character of a 4-unit residential development for the property at 96166 street be approved subject to the condition that the property owner shall prior to the issuance of a building permit one address design guidelines 25.4.4 four, private outdoor space, and 25.36 provide weather protections such as awnings and canopies at the primary business entries and two paid to the town deposit in the amount of 115% of

the estimated cost and complete the hard and soft landscaping for the development. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Uh, sorry, I'll turn to the movers first. Uh, councelor Duck. Yeah, I just I mean everyone's seen the record of decision and and certainly uh overall um I think the APC was satisfied with the structure and did some minor tweaking if I can consider that but there were some concerns over other parts but not by the majority of the commission. Great. Thank you. Nothing further. Thank you. I have councelor Garnett and councelor O'Keefe. Yeah, thank you mayor and through councelor Duck as our representative. I'm just curious about the um the two design guidelines that are being addressed because it's not clear in the minutes what conversation led to those recommendations primarily on the accessory units at the back where the stairs go to the top was providing some protection at the top of the stairway for exiting and entering the units. So that was on the for the awnings and yeah or or whatever

structure you want but but putting some coverage in there and the and the the private outdoor space was um just to create some sort of um barrier between the the front units and the back units so that there's some sort of sense of privacy. uh and that was to kind of uh working around the uh emergency procedures and access to the buildings but to create some sort of space that was separate from the front property primarily. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, councelor. Councelor O'Keefe. Uh thank you. Yeah, I was just looking at the the record of decisions and about the roof form and uh the living environment uh with need for storage and privacy. Are there Maybe the question is not for you or if it's for staff whether are there any specific guidelines for these type of developments in regards to those those sorts of things? Um or is it just like because it it's it's a smooth development. Is it different than other residential or is there something specific for that for those?

I'll turn to Men. Sure. Thank you. through the mayor to councelor O'Keefe. Um there aren't design guidelines in the OCP yet for smooth a small scale multi-unit housing type development in this neighborhood. That is a future amendment that we would be making to the OCP. Um there are guidelines about new development should respect the the scale and form and character of the neighborhood around it. The neighborhood around it is developed with a real mix of architectural styles and sizes and roof types. So, I think the majority of the committee felt that this development would fit in with that mix of styles of buildings. Regarding the interior storage space, I can't recall a design guideline off the top of my head right now about that, but um in the meeting there was some discussion between the committee members and the applicant about how storage could be added in those units through the use of built-in cabinets, etc.

Okay. Thank you. Is is storage something that that would would or could be in a design thing or is that we have no say in that sort of thing? Uh I think sometimes it does get discussed at the APC meetings just about general livability of the proposed dwelling units being built. Um on a floor plan you could see a closet if it's built in or it could there could just be a cabinet built as part of the finishing of a of a room in a dwelling unit. Yeah. Um, and sorry, I was just I was thinking ahead to you mentioned that there would be guidelines coming at some point and so I was just wondering is storage something that would be included in such guidelines or is that beyond the scope of what we're permitted to ask for? It is getting to be a bit of a stretch from what the local government allows municipalities to designate as development permit areas for the form and character of a building which usually tends to the exterior appearance of the building.

Okay. Thank you. I can I can just add to that that there was the discussion as staff indicated that the proponent was very forthcoming in identifying internal storage but the reality of just the space availability there's you know we've all well I don't can't say that about everyone but I've lived in a place where there's no storage and that's something that comes with small properties that you live in and so but the pro proponent definitely recognized that and said you know even looked at the design to where you could take a a triangle and turn it into an interior closet. So, I thought he was very receptive to that idea.

Thank you, councelor Duck. Um, seeing no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor? That carries unanimousness. Thank you. So, returning to item uh staff reports under 13. Under 138, we have the monthly uh building report for the month of April. Uh it's for information. There's no recommendation. Are there any questions or discussion or comments? Not seeing any. We'll turn to correspondence. Under 14A, we have uh an email from Aco um regarding the installation of scaffolding on Beacon Avenue when we have a recommendation from from staff. I'm prepared to move the recommendation that staff reply to the writer. We have a second. Second. Any discussion? Councelor Duncan.

Just a question through to staff if I may since obviously to write this recommendation in here they already have some idea of what they will say and I'm just wondering if they have some recommendations they can help this person with when they write back to them or if because normally they can respond if it ends up in the 15 section. So there must be something more they're going to say for this to end up in 14. Can staff clarify what they're going to do through the mayor to councelor Duncan? the um there's there's nothing unique or different about this other than the I guess there is a bit of a uniqueness element in that we're a member of the strata um of this building um and so normally we wouldn't necessarily res respond uh to something of this nature because uh the the bulk of the work is uh private and um it is roofing work And this is roofing season and so it is

really unfortunate timing. Um and I know staff have uh there has been some verbal um exchange, you know, to try to cons, you know, ask for consideration to push the project to the fall, but that comes with its own associated risks of trying to do roofing work um uh in the fall. And so uh the the response will be of that that sort of nature acknowledging the concern um but recognizing that there is limited scope for the town to even um impose any kind of restrictions on this but that you know we uh would try to support or encourage a alternative time frame um recognizing that we can't uh mandate that.

Thank you. And I guess a followup if I may. Is there a way that that the town can help I know scaffolding it's not very flexible in what they can put up because of safety and stability reasons. Is there some way the town can support other measures to help patrons perhaps get in there uh additional signage we can help them with? Any any ideas? I see people pointing at the back to each other. [laughter] Turn to Mr. Nukem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh yeah, so town has had some discussions with uh represent property management representative about uh ensuring that the businesses that will be behind the scaffolding have some visibility. And so in this case, the scaffolding will be partially out on the uh town boulevard and the town is willing to allow uh signage directing passers by to the businesses behind the scaffolding out uh on the scaffolding so that there's some visibility for the businesses there.

Thank you. Great. Thank you, Councelor Novik. Sorry, Councelor Garnet. Councelor Novak, councelor O'Keefe. Thank you, Mayor. Three to staff. I I guess from a perspective of and I appreciate that was one of the questions I had. I appreciate the answer. Um, and there obviously safety requirements when you do that kind of work. Um, but I could see how that would impact a business people not wanting to go underneath of that. So I I just not sure what my question here is. like I I just I I guess when we we have the conversation or the communication with the with the um the applicant or the letter writer that um how we convey the that the I mean we have a level of understanding the concerns but I like you know given what the the CEO has said like I'm not sure what else we can possibly do but I I do see the concerns of somebody who sells ice cream in the summer that's a pretty important time of the year for that business and how this might negatively impact them. So

I mean how do we convey how I mean I'm sure not sure how we even like what we can do in this situation it becomes quite challenging for the business owner. So um not sure what my question is here. I don't know how to address it. It's difficult. Yeah. Through the mayor to um the counselor. I think it's a we're on the same page. It's a concern and it's the timing is what it is. is that the nature of the work has to be done in fair weather. Um and that's part of the reality of having a business um anywhere. Uh it could be that you know some perhaps we have to replace the water man in on Beacon Avenue one day and that will disrupt all businesses. um you know larger urban centers like the city of Vancouver have multi-year projects of putting in um subways uh that that really have massive negative impacts on businesses. We don't like the impact but it is the reality of the infrastructure that that we have in our town. So thank you. Thank you mayor.

Thank you councelor. Uh thank you mayor. Uh I see from the letter that the uh scaffolding is is uh to be installed as of June 1st and I haven't actually gone or gone to see if it's there today. In fact, I was there today. I didn't notice it, but maybe it is there. The question is, do we know how long it's going to be there once it it does get up? That's my first question. So So I'm going to interject for you here. We're we're getting a bit into the weeds here on on on this. Staff, Mr. Edwards has clearly indicated uh where our purview is and isn't with regards to this and uh we've had we've heard staff say that they've had conversation already and that measures to some extent will be taken such as signage on the exterior of scaffolding.

So, uh is it going to is it going to impact uh direction to staff? The question I I don't know. I was my my followup was simply going to ask if and and it has been partially addressed uh to ask if there's anything at all we can do to mitigate the impact of this on the business. I'm assuming that staff is doing what they can and hope they will do what they can. Thank you councelor Keefe. Uh thank you. So, as part of this work, do we do they have to have a permit from us to allow them to use our sidewalk and space to do their scaffolding? And I guess what I'm wondering is can we um can we impose conditions in terms of when when the work is going to be done?

So, could we ask them okay you can you can do this but you know do the work um in the morning or after five o'clock or on weekends to to to mitigate. Mayor, if I may, um I'm sorry to interrupt, but um we're talking about roof replacement. Um this is not something that we can, you know, ask the company to do in the evenings and Okay. Okay. And we we we don't have much authority here to intercede on private properties repair and renewal of their asset of which we're a strata member. Um so I I think to the mayor's earlier comment I with with all due respect I I do hope that council can recognize that staff take this seriously. they recognize the inconvenience. We've already engaged with the property management team to try to mitigate uh the issues as as best as possible. We're working with with the uh the stores. Um but I don't think it's council's um prerogative to get into the details of directing uh timelines um hours of work and and and the like uh for this matter.

Okay. Thank you. Colleagues, I'll look to call a question. Councelor Duck. Yeah, I I agree with the CEO. This is between the landlord and the tenant and there's business interruption in insurance that covers that. This is not for the town to get involved in. Thank you. Look, all those in favor. That carries unanimous. Thank you. And uh we're receiving uh correspondence for information. We have 10 items there. We have no notices of motion or motion. We're not going in camera this evening. Motion to adjurnn. Moved by councelor Zovic. All in favor? We are adjourned. Thank you council. Thank you staff.