Transcript: Regular Council - 13 Jul 2026

Good evening again. Uh I'd like to call our regular council meeting on Monday, July 3 13th uh to order at 604. Um my name is uh Mayor Cliff McNeel Smith. Um colleague council or council colleagues uh at the table this evening to my far left councelor Richard Novak, councelor Terry O'Keefe, councelor Chad Venul to my far right councelor Steve Duck, councelor Sarah Duncan and councelor Scott Scott Scott Kernet. Good evening to members of staff. um uh who are in the room. We do introduce staff um if they are going to be speaking uh which which does occur through the meeting. Uh and good evening to members of the public um who are here in attendance and we do have some presenters as well this evening. I do want to make a note. I referenced a technical challenge uh at 6:00. Uh we haven't overcome that challenge so we're not able to live webcast the meeting as we normally do. This is a rare occurrence. uh we are recording the

meeting uh which we do each time as well and the meeting uh tonight's meeting in its entirety will be posted if not uh soon after the close of tonight's meeting then first thing after we open uh tomorrow. So our apologies uh beforehand to those who may be watching the recording of a meeting uh at a later time. I want to respectfully acknowledge that we're holding our meeting, our gathering this evening in the territory of the Wasenish people, uh the Seot Nation, the Sartup Nation, the Pakuchi Nation, the Seikkum Nation, and the Malahhat Nation. And um we express our gratitude to the US people for their stewardship of these lands and waters for millennia, that is thousands of years. Uh we appreciate their enduring connection to these lands and waters. uh and the responsibility that we have to work together with uh with Senage for the stewardship of these lands for current and future generations.

Uh in turning to approval of the agenda since it was published uh last Thursday afternoon, we have uh some additions and some changes. So I'm going to go through these and then when we have a motion that will be for the agenda amended as I'm uh now describing. So the first is we have some uh additional or we have some new items. Uh, one item is um is actually the wording uh for uh bylaw 2317 uh regarding item 8A, which is the 9972 Third Street development. Uh in the very large agenda, I think 478 pages that was posted online, this page was omitted. Uh but it has been provided to council. we are aware of it and um it will be included as a um as part of the agenda.

Now uh the second is we did have um and I will when we come to the uh specific item on the agenda I will indicate uh that we have received correspondence uh that is included on the agenda I will indicate uh the number of folks who corresponded on the particular matter. Uh but since the agenda was published, we have received many more uh uh pieces of correspondence from uh from members of the public and I'll now make reference to those. So under item 8A uh the 9972 Third Street development, we have seven different seven additional pieces of correspondence. Under item um under item 9A uh we have 51 additional uh items of correspondence and item under item 9B which is the fifth street development application coming to council for uh well it's coming back to council. It's it's a revised application. Uh there are six additional pieces of correspondence. So those are the additions uh to the agenda. Um item 7.1 uh 7D1 uh under presentations. We were to have a presentation this evening uh from Arianne Stevenson regarding a petition

being submitted and we I will make reference to this petition later in the meeting um to submit a petition but they also wanted to present uh the petition a petition uh at the beginning of the meeting. uh they're unfortunately not uh able to attend this evening. So we we will be removing the presentation of the petition because the presenter is not here. However, the petition is part of the agenda uh under the um uh under item 9A. Those are the additions and um and deletions. Uh one change is uh I'm just going to go through the beginning part of the agenda for a moment. We're we're going to have public participation where members of the public can get up and speak about any item, any matter on the agenda. Um and then uh we're after public uh general public participation, we are going to have uh two presentations. Uh we're going to have a presentation on the fifth street uh development application and then we're going to have a

presentation from radio Sydney on an application for a broadcast license. on our agenda as published. The next item was to consider the uh bylaw zoning amendment for the third street development. However, um I gather uh many of the individuals in the uh in the gallery this evening are here regarding the temporary use permit. So, we're going to go to that item uh immediately following the presentations. Uh we will then go to uh item 9B which is um the fifth street application and we'll be doing that because the presenters are here this evening uh to present that application and then we will be going to item 8A the third street uh development application. So the change is 8A will now come after 9V for my colleagues on council.

Uh and lastly, uh Council O'Keefe has requested raising item 15.2, which is uh under what we call correspondence for information, which indicates that council is just receiving it for information and not going to discuss it. Councelor O'Keeffe has requested that be raised to correspondence and we'll be making some comment regarding that correspondence when we come to it. So item um nine or item 152 becomes item 141. So with those additions uh that one deletion and those um uh those changes I would look for a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Motion to move as amended. Second moved and seconded. Any discussion from council? Uh seeing none I call a question. Those in favor? Uh that carries unanimous. Thank you.

And if I could have a motion perhaps the same movers uh to adopt the minutes of our June 22nd regular council meeting. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Any corrections to those minutes? Uh seeing none. Those in favor? That carries unanimous? Thank you. So now we are turning to public participation. Um it's our what we have at this time in each meeting where members of the public can come forward and address council. We ask that you provide the name and the municipality that you reside in. There is a button at the bottom of the microphone. If you just press it uh gently, you'll see the red light go on, which u uh allows everyone in the room to be heard, but also records it as part of the meeting.

I will be calling a number of times after there are speakers if there are any additional speakers. Uh and we'll I'll begin by calling the first speaker to the podium, please. And you're you're welcome to line up. I know there is very limited room for doing that, but you are welcome to do that. Uh good evening. Hello members of council, staff, members of the public. Uh my name is Eric Diller, uh resident of Sydney and here to speak to item 9A. And uh I just want to start off by saying that uh uh it is only when communities and members of the community work together that great things can happen.

And I'm really really happy to see that St. Andrews has come forward with uh with uh this proposal and I would like to see uh council uh approve it. And I understand that there are some detractors and uh that um that they may have some points, but uh overall after witnessing the tobacco of the uh Wakefield Manor uh issue last winter, I would like to see this this uh temporary use permit approved. Thank you. I thank you for coming forward. And I think I I'm sorry if I didn't, but I I will repeat if I did. Uh that speakers have up to three minutes and I will be watching the clock and and trying to be fair to everyone. I I I believe we'll have a number of speakers this evening, so let's be fair to everyone. Please. Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Brian Hed. I'm a citizen of the town of Sydney. I am in favor of the emergency weather uh shelter and I believe fully believe that the reason we are here is focused on our beliefs and demonstration actions and I'm referring to the word compassion and I'm using a definition from Wikipedia feeling of kindness and care for another. Compassion is a social emotion that motivates people to go out of their way to relieve the physical, mental or emotional pains of others and even ourselves. Compassion is sensitivity to the emotional aspects of the suffering of others. When based on no such as fairness and justice and interdependence, it may be considered rational in nature. Everybody knows where I stand. Thank you.

Thank you for coming forward. Just a light touch on the light switch there. Uh please come forward. Good evening. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Lois Amy, a resident of Sydney for 47 years, currently living on Ardwell Avenue in Sydney, and I'm a senior. I'm speaking in support of the temporary use permit application number TEM0000003 to allow for an extreme weather response shelter for the coming winter facilitated by Beacon Community Services at St. Andrews Church. Beacon Community Services has an excellent track record with running all kinds of shelters for diverse populations all over the greater Victoria area. In January 2023, the issue of estab establishing an EWS in Sydney was first brought forward to town council and it has taken over three years to get to the point where we find ourselves tonight.

Let's hope that this important issue passes the first step to an extreme weather shelter for this coming winter. As I read the letter attached to the petition opposing the temporary use permit, I try to understand the complaint of the signitories by placing myself in their shoes. I must first note that a number of those people who signed the petition live outside of the immediate vicinity of the proposed EWS at St. Andrews Church. For example, persons who live in North Samich, Samichton, and Souk. Why would this matter to them in their lives? The petition mentions that a number of citizens are concerned, have fear and frustration about the establishment of an EWS at St. Andrews.

Our fears are of the unknown. Most fears are unfounded. Those who will seek shelter experience the same struggles, emotions, and vulnerabilities as ourselves. When we acknowledge each other as neighbors, we replace fear with empathy. Those of our citizens who are unhoused mainly due to no fault of their own. Many seniors themselves also have concern, fear, and frustration in their lives. concerned because they're living with illnesses exacerbated by having no housing, living on disability pensions, women fleeing violence, members of our First Nations, and others. They have anxiety and fear about being harmed out on the street, and frustration that they are to some degree shunned and not permitted the dignities that everyone is entitled to. shelter, warmth, food, kindness, especially during the coldest days of the year.

Mahatma Mandi said that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. Our unhoused citizens and our seniors both fit that category. We all want security. Many view the purpose of the church to be that of caring for the most vulnerable. What better place could there be for an extreme weather shelter, available space, and compassionate workers? What safeguards could be put into place to allow this variance to go forward without opposition? Thank you for listening and your consideration. Thank you for coming forward. Good evening. Good evening, mayor and counselors. This is with regard to TUP number TEM0000003.

If you could just just provide your name and misspell your Yeah, I was just telling her what it's about. My name is Pat Bastone and I live with my husband John and my and our little dog Marcy at 96755th Street. John and I, who are both senior citizens, are very much in favor of locating an extreme weather response shelter in the meeting hall at up St. Andrews Church. We live just around the corner from St. Andrews, well within 75 m. I'm a longtime resident and property owner in this neighborhood. The warming center at the library last winter was operated safely and was used mainly by older adults and indigenous members of the community.

These underhoused individuals expressed gratitude for the care given to them. The extreme weather response shelter would operate similarly only on nights of extreme weather. Last year only seven. I sincerely doubt that this would be a reason for more people who are experiencing homelessness to move to Sydney. Thank you to St. Andrews Church and Beacon Community Services and all others in involved in this endeavor. I'm not a member of the St. Andrews Congregation. In fact, I'm an atheist. I do believe in the golden rule. Treat others as you would want them to treat you. This is a tenant in nearly every major world religion. If I were outside freezing on a cold winter night, of course I would want someone to help me be safe and warm and give me a place to rest.

I also believe there is no right way to do the wrong thing. The wrong thing, Mar and counselors, would be for you to vote to leave vulnerable people out in the cold on the coldest nights of the year. Thank you for your attention and for listening to my concerns. Thank you for coming forward this evening. Turn to the next speaker, please. Evening. Good evening. Brian Johnstone, 2447 Henry Avenue. Honorable mayor and members of council, I am speaking to you this evening regarding the proposed zealing changes for 9972 Third Street. I urge council to vote against approving this application at this time or at minimum defer the decision until after the civic elections this fall when a newly elected council reflecting the community's current policies priorities can properly evaluate the long-term implications.

My concerns are specific ongoing and unresolved over densification of the area. The proposed zoning change would significantly increase the density in a neighborhood that is already experiencing strain on traffic flow, pedestrian safety, and public infrastructure. Many residents feel that the development is outpacing the town's ability to manage its impacts. Undesolved egress issues from the underground parking. The applicant has not adequately addressed the egress and circul circulation challenges associated with the underground parking design. This is not a minor technical detail. It directly affects congestion, emergency access, and overall safety. Serious safety risks along Third Street. Thresh is already a highly congested cor corridor for both vehicles and pedestrians.

Adding additional density without a clear engineered plan to mitigate these risks is irresponsible. Has the emergency services been asked for their input as to the potential hazards associated with the building design? The town should not be placed in a position where it must answer to for a serious incident that could have been prevented with more careful planning. Given these outstanding issues, it is neither prudent nor in the public interest to rush this decision. A deferral would allow for proper review, updated traffic and safety assessments, and more transparent conversations with the community. I respectfully ask council to consider the long-term safety and livability of the neighborhood and to vote not to approve or at least defer the zoning changes for 9972 Third Street. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you for coming forward.

Turn to the next speaker. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Wayne Bow. I live in Sydney and I live in close proximity to the Pingham church and I'd like to speak on the temporary use permit 00003. Um, let me open by stating that I do not have a solution to the plate of the people who need to use a temporary shelter to get in from the cold, but what you are proposing is not a solution to the people who have to live in the neighborhood. Excuse me. Sorry. Excuse me. If you could just pause for a moment, sir. We'll we'll give you a lot of time. We'd ask that there be no outburst from members of the public. We want to be respectful to the speakers, whichever view they're expressing. Council wants to hear all of the views from our community. And I'll ask again for respect. Please continue.

Thank you. Thank you. But what you are proposing is not a solution to the people who have to live in this neighborhood. pay our taxes in the hope that the town of Sydney continues to make improvements through our contributions to the well-being of of this wonderful town. Once upon a time, society had institutions where people could go to seek help or they could be ordered by the courts to do so. However, we no longer live in that society where this is even possible. A solution for the homeless or the unhoused continues to be a problem in the plagues modern society. And I think this is in part because we as a society have no solution.

What I do know is that this is a problem in every community in our great nation and throughout most of the world. Also, this proposed action creates many problems for anyone currently because it lives in near proximity to these shelters. Direction will usually use needles strewn about for someone else to pick up. There will be an increase in breaking and thefts in the area and there will be greater gathering of the people who want to use these facilities. It was also my observation that when these facilities close for the day, most of the clientele in the immediate so they can get in for the shelter the next night if required.

The people who offer the shelter have no obligation once they open the doors in the morning and send the people out into the street. This now becomes the obligation of the police force or the town of Sydney to control. In either case, the money event inevitably comes out of our tax base. Also, any of the services throughout the night will probably require the intervention of the police force. I also know that this proposal is being put to the citizens as a temporary use, but we all know there is nothing temporary about this problem. So once you open this door, I doubt very much that you will ever have the the roles to close it. Thank you for listening to me and allowing to speak on this crucial matter. Thank you for coming forward.

Thank you. [clears throat] We'll turn to the next speaker. Good evening. The mic is mic's already on for you. Still on. My name is Brian Gilbert. I live across the parking lot from the church 9679 Through Street with my wife. We sent a letter in and the closing line that my wife wrote was quite eloquent. Um, the homeless people deserve a place to stay as much as we do. So, that's the sentiment, but I'm here to speak beyond the letter that we've sent in to urge council to take a leadership role in this topic. This is uh looking like, oh, we had a solution for 3 years, we're done.

uh but there's a this is a bigger topic and you've already seen what happens with misinformation disinformation with this topic earlier. So looking for you to take better action in in leadership in disseminating useful information. Tonight's uh present or information is buried on your website. You have to go to link link link then you can finally read it. We need to get this information out to people so they can see it a lot easier. uh that might violate your violate strong word might muckle with your processes but that's what I urge you in this time of need to start to think outside of the box. Um I also encourage you to work through the um municipality unit to advocate to the province because they have their ultimate responsibility but you have the opportunity to speak and get those motions happening. We really need that.

Um, I'd love to not have this place in our neighborhood. Um, but what other alternative is there? So, in buried in your information is that you considered lots of other locations and a cortisol. This building, the building next door was considered doesn't have the space. The library was considered doesn't have the space. Fireh hall was considered doesn't have the ability because it has to respond to emergency. So, we're really in a rock and a hard place tonight. And thank you to the Anglican Church for stepping forward. And that's the type of leadership I'm asking council to start to find. Why should we depend upon a church to solve our societal problems?

We should take action in the in the broader sense. Um, recently the mental illness programs were shut down. Again, that's procial, but that affects us. That was in San Peninsula. And that's the type of services these people that are on the street need spot inter intervention with people that are professionals. So please start uh taking a leadership role in this. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward. Want to order mayor? Yes. Meeting send the public participation. Thank you. Second move [clears throat] and second. Any discussion? Seeing none. We're having this motion because we typically allocate 20 minutes for public participation because of the volume of business we typically have on our agenda. But we appreciate the importance of uh this evening's uh topics. So we are extending uh the public participation to allow other speakers.

Uh I'll call the question those in favor that carries unanimous. Please uh I'll turn to the next person to come forward. Thank you councelor. Good evening your worship members of council. My name is Eric Delarm development manager with High Street Ventures out of Colona, British Columbia. Um, today our zoning amendment application to reszone the eastern portion of our property at 99723rd Street from RM6R to RM7 is on this evening's agenda for first, second, and third reading. That's item 8A. So just to review, initially when staff and council changed the zoning from RM7 to RM6 on one half of the site, it was done to preserve rental stock as well as to start a conversation for rental tenure on new construction.

for our current project. We have since committed to providing rental, now creating new rental stock in Sydney, satisfying the intention of the initial resoning. Our current resoning application requests that the split zone nature of the site be returned to the original RM7 zone now that the mechanism to preserve rental stock has been successful. So, thank you. I do look forward to uh listening to the readings and returning to council at a later date for adoption. Thank you for coming forward. Good evening. My name is Rob Simon from CBC. I was in Vancouver earlier today about a fairy because this was an important subject for me. On April 30th, I wrote council intend staff about the lack of adequate display of signage for to the 9972 Third Street project. There's an obligation to the applicant to ensure the signage is prominent place to provide public information on how to engage. At that time, there were appears that the sign was face down here where the sign was leaning against the building, partially obscured from view, and it was moved to

face only the north direction against the existing hedge. In all cases, the sign was either obstructed or hidden from view. Tell the staff important that they instruct the developer during the week of April the 20th and contacted the applicant on that same day about the issue. The applicant was reminded that the sign must be installed on private property, a location from the street for duration duration of the application review until council read final decision about his own amendment application. And here we are again at this structure where council plans to complete first, second, and third reading of the amendment zoning only to have the applicant again completely remove the sign from public visibility. The sign is now face down on the line. How can council rush to first, second, and third meeting when there's a risk that important voice may never have been missed? The applica applicant has a simple obligation should sign visible during this whole process to the public and they failed. However, the sign up markers the property stays erect for the whole time. How ironic. I surely hope

this is not deliberate, but the timing again is quite convenient to the applicant's attention of secure approval of the zoning. I've asked council to consider whether it's necessary to complete all three readings tonight knowing that important obligation again has been disregarded by the applicant, especially that action may have potentially silenced a voice from community. I talked to a new resident on building and she thought that this was just a renovation. She had no idea that there was no application process going through. I informed her, but that is not my job. That is the applicant's job. It was late in the week. I likely would have had a chance to provide comment.

I'm confident the sign was in place, they would have been better informed. I cannot conclude my presentation without mentioning how this project along the property line of 942 Third Street impacts the cherry which are by protecting the property. The parade has zero clearance from the property line. It goes down through the reed smooth system. Currently for demolition is a fence protecting the drip zone. Disregard it when you build it. I urge you to at least do first and second reading tonight and please hold off on the third reading until the applic. Thank you. More than one person has discovered the light switch. Uh, thank you for coming forward. I'll turn to the next speaker.

Um, my name is Earl Benold. I live at 9688 second street. Uh, resident here for 18 years or something. Um, thank you for extending. Uh, I've got pages and pages of objections that I've um over the last few months. Um, one of a lot of people's concerns in our area is is someone talked about the fear of the future and what's going to happen. And I I'm not here to represent me. I can take care of myself, but I'm here to try and understand the people that don't have a voice in our area. Majority seniors, I can't understand why we have one area. They tell us it's 10 to 12 people. Um the proposal for the amendment um was to have a warming center which was turned down in another location with a majority of seniors. Then they shove it in our area as a proposal from beacon services housing and the Anglican church. Um, it's a sad quandry when churches see an obvious need in the community and it's a need that governments aren't addressing.

Um, when they try and help it, it creates more problems and I seriously believe that our area is not attracting the right future demographics. Um, I've got pages of people that are affected in the in in the the the so-called homeless community. I believe we have a drug and we have an addiction problem in in our country. Um, and we ignore it by flowering it up with different obligations. Um, as far as the previous speaker talked about compassion, compassion without accountability and responsibility is not kindness. It's neglect. Neglect for the rights and the freedoms and of the people who live in our area that don't have a voice. And there's a lot of them. Um, I go on my watch for the last three months digging up support and uh, I believe that there's a lot of people that can't be here. Um, the street people uh, I've talked to Andrew when he's on not in his psychosis. Um, he's on a, you know, probably meth and crack, you know, and that sort of thing. I I I talked to

um a number of the homeless people um in our area that they won't go to these shelters. They're dangerous. I believe the Anglican church, which I support in the past, my wife and I were married there um in an Anglican church. So, I'm not against the Anglican church, but I'm definitely against dumping the problems on them. So, out of the guise of funds and through Beacon Community BC Housing, um I want to perfectly um say that these um people that are on the street in our area, some of them are dangerous and and the police reports and the hidden stuff that was going on in the area, RVs, tents, clothing boxes, uh um guys of uh a one day a week cafe that they started.

Sir, I'm going to ask you to wrap up in 30 seconds, please. Thank you very much. Yeah. And and I think there is a lot of [clears throat] flack on it obviously with the petitions and a few other things. We haven't had much time and uh I I think we should give it time to consider this and I I know people on this on on the council and uh surely the heavens guys we can come up with something better than that. Thanks. Thank you for coming forward. I'll turn to the next speakers. Good evening. Sorry. Yes. Reversed. Very good. Good evening. The mic does drop down if you wish.

Hello. My name is Brenda Boonott. I live on Fourth Street near the church and I am opposed to making any homeless services in my neighborhood. Nobody with a growing sense wants homeless services plunked down in their neighborhood. I know the church is well-meaning and they're trying to do something nice, but it will be me dealing with the problems already. It's a mecca for drug use. There are people passed out in their parking lot, getting high, illegal camping, and they're creating this because they're offering services. If they offer even more services, the problem is only going to get worse. It's a peaceful, quiet residential neighborhood. And this will adversely affect the culture of our neighborhood.

And I remind all of you, you don't represent the church and you don't represent homeless people. You represent me. And if you can't vote for my best interest, which is to keep my neighborhood a happy, safe place to live, then you shouldn't be on council. Like, please, everyone I've spoken to, notwithstanding this meeting tonight, is against having these services in our little neighborhood. And nobody came to me in the beginning. None of you came and knocked on my door and said, "How do you feel about this?" Nobody from the church knocked on my door to see how do I feel about it? And government has shown demonstrated action. They cannot cope with this situation. Nobody can cope with this situation. It has to happen at a federal level. It has to happen at a provincial level. And it has to happen with healthcare and addiction council. And I can't cope with any of it. I'm not a policeman. I'm not a social worker. I'm not an addictions

counselor. And I don't want to deal with the problems that come with having homeless services in my neighborhood. So, I don't think we here can solve this problem. And downgrading our neighborhood to help a few people and affecting adversely hundreds of people doesn't make sense. So, please vote no to this warming center in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. I'll turn to the next speaker, please. Hello. My name is uh sorry. Hello. My name is Alexander Finch. I'm a resident of Sydney. um on sixth street. Should say of course good evening to u Mr. Mayor and his esteemed counselors as well. I should be formal here. I uh just briefly just touch on um a lot of issues that are being raised uh are not caused by social services.

Um and that in lie of government, social services, uh, any solution is better than no solution at all, which is a lot of what I've heard so far tonight. [clears throat] There is a solution that's been proposed a number of times over. It was extremely successful last winter at the um, Sydney Library. I understand that the situation there was uh, chairs in a blanket, which is uh, not the easiest way to spend the night, although better than freezing. Um the next best option is uh through temporary use permit application number TEM 0000003 which would allow St. Andrews Church to open its hall portion of its property of its building where uh mats and blankets would be provided people can actually lay down and sleep.

I'd also like to point out that these people who would be using the emergency warming shelter or emergency weather shelter um already live in the community and have for probably longer than I have. I've been a resident of Sydney for 6 years and I think most of these people through the work that I've done um you know providing um food and companionship through um some of the uh services that are offered through the St. Andrews or I should say the friends of St. Andrews um initiative. Uh these services have been in operation since the pandemic lockdowns in one form or another. So it should be about five or six years now and I don't believe I've seen any increase in crime or uh lack of public safety here in Sydney.

I know from my time that I've [clears throat] spent occasionally unfortunately uh on the streets that people um are people and like the routines. They don't go to new places far away from the people and places they know to get the things they need to have their day go the way they wish it to. The uh warming shelter at the at the library I think was zoned or rated to some 10 15 people and I think we saw a max we I should say the Beacon Community Services saw a maximum about seven people on the cold on the busiest nights more often more like three people whom were amazingly grateful and gracious. They helped put away the furniture in in the morning.

These people are largely over the age of 50. I know most of them by name and uh they don't come and go from Sydney. There aren't a lot of new faces from out of town. These are people who are seniors who are vulnerable and they would be both a vulnerable population being some many were disabled as well I should mention which are vulnerable populations be them housed or otherwise. So at this point I'm afraid that it's matter of uh whose seniors we value more um the ones that uh have voices or the ones that don't. And I think that it's a little bit glib to say that the unhoused have voices more than the seniors in the community. I'd also point out that it's erroneous to think that these unhoused people have never paid taxes in their lives. Many of them have worked for their entire lives until something happened and then they ended up without a house. just when that happens I'll just ask you to wind up in the next 20 30 seconds. Thank you.

When that happens it's incredibly difficult to get back up again even with the social services that are available through the government and charities. I sincerely hope that assurances can be made and agreed upon between parties of between the parties of outlying concerns and opposition to this much needed safety measure. This social safety net that we are so proud of as Canadians. I strongly support the temporary use permit to go ahead. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward. I'll turn to the next speaker, please. Good evening. Used to this public speaking. My name is Marty Dger. I uh I'm the [clears throat] president of Strata V 3607 Orchard Place. That's right on the right across the street from uh that's where Elizabeth Ray's office is. Uh we we've had the petition go around and then we only had three people not sign it cuz two were in Saskatchewan.

But the thing that I was concerned about the letter didn't explain anything. Didn't say what the rules were when they were out of there. Last summer we had people come camp camping under a tree and we had two places for sale. We called the place that did nothing. I got tired of power washing the the feces and the urine out of a parking lot. And then we had one fellow who threatened me because she tried to steal a chair out of our parking lot. Then we had another woman there and she says, "Elizabeth May owes owes me pot. Elizabeth May." And then she's swearing and cursing. And then another fellow parked there and had a stereo going.

So most of the people in my building I'm in I'm I'm over 80. My wife's over 80 and most of the people in our building are in in their 90s or late 80s and they were a little bit concerned about what's happening. The the only trouble is you guys didn't put any rules. What are the rules going to be? Where are they going to go after? And Adam Sterling and Cfax said the homeless should come out to see me because they've got lots of room there. I don't know if you you heard that. Let him say that it can look like just take a just take a ride down in Rock Bay. I went down Rock Bay. I hadn't been there for a long time. And there's people chasing people with a baseball bat. And these are the homeless, but they're the only trouble is they're in drugs. I know I know some of the homeless out here. They're harmless and they're nice people. They're just a

little bit mentally bad. But some of them are mental because they're on drugs. here. Thank you for coming forward this this evening. I'll turn to the next speaker. Good evening. Uh button at the bottom. Good. My name is Barry Manning. I live at 9710 Street across from the Anglican Church. Um I've heard people talk about compassion. I've heard people talk about uh responsibility. All that is fine, but most of those people drive in to go to the Anglican church and they're members of the church and that's fine. But I live right across the street from I see what what what happens just when last year when there were just two or three people over there camping by the trees and stuff. All I'm asking is as a homeowner that lives there, as a taxpayer that lives in Sydney and loves this area because it is a beautiful, beautiful area. All I'm asking you to do is don't let this go through. You're going to ruin that neighborhood. That's what's

going to happen. And I don't I don't have an answer for what you need to do. I know you're that you have the problem and I don't, but I just don't want it where I have to live and where my wife has to go out when I'm not there and I can't be with her. So, please do what we voted you in to do. Look after the people of the city, the people that pay you your taxes. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming forward. Turn to the next speaker, please. Hello. Uh I'm Violet Burlesson and I live on Mills Road, uh right across from the library. Uh and I just want to note, uh my window uh my bedroom window opens right across, you know, to the front of the library. Um and so and I was living there during the time that the library was a temporary warming shelter. I uh actually never saw any homeless people.

Like I never saw homeless people on the street. I didn't see them by the library. I didn't know which nights the warming center was open. Um I uh the uh so I don't know if it was being used uh by homeless people. Um personally uh I was even a little anxious. Sometimes I look through the Venetian blinds and see if there's anyone like lurking around um outside the library or inside the library. And every night I looked out, I could not tell. Um it made no impact on uh our neighborhood. And I was even anxious because I used the library. I like the library. I put holds on books from the library and I spent a lot of time at the library. It had no effect on the library. Um, so I don't presume to tell anyone how to vote, but I can uh tell from my firsthand experience that there was very very very negligible effects from the temporary warming center at the library. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward.

I'll turn to the next speaker. Honorable mayor, councilors, good evening. Uh my name is Bob Earl and I'm a resident of Sydney and I'd like to speak just to the for the record tonight on the development at 9972 Third Street. I just have an kind of an executive summary of all the information that's been given. These four points public participation, there's been an impediment. Public debate was bypassed when provincial housing legislation from 2023 stripped citizens of traditional public hearing formats. There's also been arbitrary coun municipal constraints. Mun municipalities face provincial pressures to approve developments that require changes to the established zoning rules. With this loss of public representation, written and verbal correspondence to council remains the only formal avenue for [snorts] public oversight where one resident may speak on behalf of many.

But council and staff are not alone with this bylaw development responsibility considering the public communication thus far brought forward for evaluation. Number [snorts] two, design building mass and neighborhood harmony. RM7, zoning versus the design. Compliance with correctly zoned land use bylaws means the intended use is lawful. Re the amended legislation. It does not exempt not exempt the infrastructure design shortcomings from being addressed and corrected. There is a contextual mismatch. The proposed structure is overbearing and lacks the form or character to match Sydney residential neighborhood space in the enjoining 9,000 block of third and fourth street. Green space green screen pace has not been enhanced or increased. There's loss of it. The scale of this new build permanently compromises and deletes the local natural canopy of trees in the new build approach direction. Number three, financial complexity versus bonus density framework.

RM7 zone threshold because the building is considered market rate housing without any affordable constraints. Question does it rely heavily on the bonus density framework for approval? This upzoning does not negate the need for attentiveness to the concerns raised to council. There are complex financial amenities. The underlying rental guidelines create an unstable operational structure for leasing residents. The amenities proposed within the design must be compliant with the quality of life rules in the BC building code for this building. There is an economic risk. The existing provincial housing construction glut and tight profit margins create high financial risk for developers and municipalities. Number four, the final one, due diligence and fair representation.

The public asks for priority of equal consideration. The task in front of council and staff is to develop is to balance developer stipulations versus concerns of the community and not the ongoing perception that out there that this is just futile action. Every night authorization will occur regard just ask you to wrap up in 30 seconds. Okay, almost done. Uh, the long-term vision. This facility requires an urban renewal review that focuses on Sydney's permanent long-term success before a viable development permit is given within the approval process. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Thank you for coming forward. Are there any other speakers this evening? Please come forward.

Good evening. My name is Jamie Wilborne. I live in Sydney. I'm speaking tonight in favor of the temporary use permit for an extreme weather response shelter at St. Andrew's Church. We know from experience at the library warming center that our most vulnerable and unheard of citizens are quiet, respectful people who only want somewhere warm to stay on the coldest nights of the year. Uh responding to a comment earlier that no one wants homeless service in the neighborhood. I do. If I live next door to St. Andrews, I would have no concerns about this proposal. Everyone in this room, including myself, is closer to becoming homeless themselves than they are becoming a billionaire. It only takes one or two issues to fall into hard times, and it can be difficult or impossible to recover.

Churches have historically been a place of refuge for asylum seekers, those fleeing fleing fleeing persecution, the poor, and those that need support. What better place to continue that tradition than St. Andrew's Angels Church in Sydney? On a light note, I'd just like to add that I'm also in favor of the street vending approval at 9429 Canora. Small businesses outside the core provide equitable access to services for more residents, especially in an underserved area like West Sydney. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward this evening on those two items. I'll call for a third uh and final time if there's anyone wishing to come forward. There's the fellow on online, mayor. Um, thank you.

So, if the person online could uh activate their uh video. Uh thank you. Um I'll turn the floor to you. You have uh four minutes uh to speak to an item. If you can please provide your name and the item that you're speaking to. Go ahead. Good evening uh town council. My name is Sudanchu Chada and I am the owner of the Sydney Vape that is on 2310 Beacon Avenue. So I am speaking about the development variance application uh for the signage purpose on 2306. So uh firstly I want to tell you like uh the vape store is the different category from all other 19 plus stores like the liquor store and the cannabis store. As per the health Canada uh the vape store can't uh open their windows and they can't show their products like uh liquor store or cannabis store can. So we have that point uh like the health Canada doesn't allow the miners to see or peep inside the window or they can't the

miners should not be hear any sales which is going inside. That's why this uh health Canada has issued uh that thing that the windows and everything should be covered and nobody uh can see uh from outside. Uh so that's why my consideration is that please uh when you discuss about this uh topic please consider the vape stores different from other convenience store and the grocery stores or the 19 plus liquor store and cannabis store. So it's like huge difference in that. Thank you so much. That was my point. Thank you for coming forward this evening. I'll turn back to the room. We just had that one person participating virtually.

I'll turn back to the room if uh and calling for a final time if anyone wishes to come forward. Not seeing any. I will close. I think there's somebody coming from the lobby. Uh mayor, good evening. Just a just a microphone or a button at the bottom to activate the microphone. No, you just push down. You're live now. Just provide your name and the municipality you reside in and the item you're speaking to. Uh my name is Pereira and I live on Oakville A. Uh I also have a business on Third Street, too. Uh I'm here to speak about the warming center. Uh but my experience, I had a business downtown for 12 years. I also lived there for 12 years. know 20 years and I watched similar programs like this be implemented over a 20-year period and I watched the environment degrade to a degree that businesses fled, people felt unsafe. So my biggest concern with this is we start small, we start with something that comes from a place of compassion and then eventually it grows into something where it enables this

type of behavior or bringing these types of people into the community that makes it more unsafe. Um, and outside of that, I just feel that it would cause uh, what's the right word? Unnecessary complications. Um, I find that Sydney is a beautiful place. You can leave your car unlocked. You can leave your car windows down if you want. Um, yeah. So, I just I think it's probably not the best idea, but those are my two cents. So, thank you. Thank you for taking the time to come forward. We do have another speaker. I'll pause just a moment. Good evening. Good [snorts] evening, Mayor and Council. Barbara Fel. I'm a proud resident of Sydney and clearly there's a lot of passion this evening regarding the warming center.

um passion on both sides and I don't think we're ever going to find a solution that makes everybody happy. I don't live anywhere near the proposed warming center, so I'm not directly impacted. But this is my community as well and what happens within my community will affect me um not directly and I acknowledge that it's not the same. But I wonder if we're also dealing with two perhaps slightly separate issues. One is the homeless and the other is um behavior that is not conducive to the surrounding neighborhood. Um and I'm not sure whether it is always the same individuals who are going to be in both both of those issues. So that is something to consider as well. Um, as far as senior levels of government taking on this issue, absolutely. But the thing is, they're not taking it on.

They're kicking the can down the road and it ends up in our place. So, where is it we put a warming center? Where do we house the unhoused in the extreme weather? Do we find some vague lot someplace out in the world? That's not the way we we take care of ourselves, our residents. And for all we know, it's going to be a family member or maybe even ourselves that is one paycheck or one crisis away from ending up on the street. This isn't about perfect and this isn't about um yeah, I like it, but not in my neighborhood. Then where do we do this? The other thing I want to take um take a note of is this is a temporary use permit.

And I would assume, correct me if I'm wrong, um that there is going to be a timeline to how long this temporal use permit is going to be and there'll be an opportunity to reassess it. We had the library this past winter and my understanding is from everything I've read, there were no problems. So, can we perhaps just dial down our our fears and our concerns and maybe even our anger and um poeness about what may be happening and give it some time and reassess. And if we need to call in the police because there's something happening, then that's what we need to do. But I think to not to not allow this to happen is not going to solve the issue. We're still going to end up having homeless and we're still going to have people loitering and sitting on properties.

That won't change. But at least by having a warming center, an emergency warming center, we know that those who want to take advantage of that facility will be safe that night from the extreme weather. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming forward this evening. I'm pausing just a moment to see if there's any other speakers who wish to come forward. Looking around the room, I'm not seeing any. I will close the public participation period and want to thank everyone who took the time to come forward this evening. Uh we are next turning to presentations and the first presentation this evening under item 7D2 is development permit application number DP1000852 and development variance permit application number DV1000372 at 9989 and 99915th Street. Um this is to relax. Sorry, I will pause for a moment. If there are people who are wishing to leave, we we we will be coming to the temporary use uh permit item um after uh this agenda item.

Sorry, after a couple of agenda items, two presentations.

Okay, we'll reconvene our meeting if we could. Uh thank you. Uh, I was indicating the development permit application number and the development variance permit application number at 98 9989 and 9991 Fifth Street to relax zoning bylaw requirements for uh front yard setback, rear yard setback, three bedroom number of three-bedroom units, unobstructed tree planting, and to relax off- streetet parking and loading bylaw requirements for number of off- streetet parking spaces and the percentage of small car spaces. I'll turn to the proponent proponent if you'd like to identify yourself. And I do want to remind you, I'm sure staff indicated when this was arranged that you have up to 10 minutes. I would ask that you that you please keep to that um uh this evening and we would ask that if you would consider taking questions from uh members of council after your presentation. Thank you.

Absolutely. Uh thank you. Um so at our last presentation uh Maryland Council directed us to revise its design to address the maximum number of storms uh and to uh the required setbacks. Um so we've eliminated the fifth floor entirely and brought the density down uh below the zone. So we're no longer reszoning it. Um so our our application uh no longer requires an OCP amendment or a reszoning application. Um and now I will just go through uh the variances that we're requesting and uh why we're requesting them and some of the measure measures we're taking to mitigate any impact. Um just said that stuff. Uh, does the clicker work?

Uh, go fer. I'm requesting evidence for two setbacks. So, 1.5 m off the front and 1.5 m off the rear. Uh, I'm requesting this to just obtain the permitted density of 2.0 go over four stories. Um, so the rear setback uh was chosen just because it's the furthest away from any neighboring building. U so as it's proposed, we would be roughly 19 m uh between our building face and the other building face. Um and along this south property line uh is also where the surface parking is for a neighbor. Uh so we would also be providing our uh vehicular access to our underground parcade in the same uh location there to consolidate that. Um the front setback was chosen because it's uh faces the street with the widest boulevard. Um so the distance between uh the north setback and then the closest uh building face across here would be about 27.53 m.

Uh and I'm just getting these off of Vic map or uh civic maps or your GIS maps. Um we are proposing public ground improvements along all of the boulevards uh in front of our property. So along fifth. Uh so we are widening the sidewalks. Um adding a curb bulb out for safety. Um we're going to be planting new street trees in the boulevard and we just uh hope that we can improve some of the visual appeal of the street. Um but yeah, to mitigate any setbacks and then also make the building look nicer. Uh yeah, here here's just some uh snips of the setbacks. Uh here's the civil engineering plan of the street bulb. Uh also yeah showing the improved safety and the tree planting.

Uh we are also requesting evidence for uh four or less parking stalls than is required. Um the OCP does provide a pathway for new developments to reduce parking if they provide the right amenities outlined in its OCP policies 1658 and 1659. Um we are providing transportation demand uh management uh measures um of a designated mobility scooter parking area on the ground floor uh 45 stalls of secured uh bike parking, seven of visitor um and a bike maintenance station and electrified outlets for all the bikes and uh EV readiness in the parkade for all cars. Um the town's climate action and transportation objectives uh in section 165 of the OCP uh actively encourage moving away from private vehicle reliance in favor of alternative eco-friendly transportation uh and alternate transportation um by providing these TDM measures uh and we believe that a variance of four less parking stalls uh that is required um aligns with the OCP and could be supportable.

Uh that uh we are also requesting that 11 of the 26 uh parking stalls be uh allowed to be small stalls. Um I we are just doing this to try and get as much parking as we can within the underground parking. Um and the parking is fully EV like EV ready and um EVs tend to be smaller than their gasoline or diesel counterparts. Um yeah, our rationale is that residents uh of the region will be incentivized in choosing like EV or even smaller gas field cars uh in this building um just for greater fuel efficiency or environmental concerns. But there still is uh plenty of regular car uh parking.

Uh we are requesting provide one less three-bedroom unit than is required under the zone. Um we're providing primarily just two-bedroom uh units uh just under the assumption that this is what we believe is in the highest uh demand in the area um and will just help make the proposal financially viable uh in this uh market in the way. I'm sorry. Uh so yeah, here was a uh one of the threebedrooms and uh here's some typical twobs, but it's kind of obscured by the zoom. Uh um we're requesting evidence to not provide a large tree planting area on the site. Um and we're just doing this to have as much parking as we can. Um, but the the trade-off we're hoping to make is to be planting trees all along the boulevard in front of our uh site.

Um, and then at our last presentation, I I received negative feedback of the form and character of the proposal. Um, and so to address this, we've fully redesigned its form and character on the exterior um by taking inspiration from some of the multif family nearby. Uh it was last summer now that I I walked uh around the neighborhood with some of the residents of uh the Strata and 9975 uh Fifth Street. Um and some of the developments they liked uh included uh the 2247 Henry down there on the corner, which I I really like. Um 9846. Uh there's another one. Uh 98613. Uh I don't there was a number of them.

Sorry. Um, but yeah, we've re incorporated a lot of these materials and themes uh that showed up uh in in these examples in the neighborhood. And I I hope that this new forming character is is something that um people like more more than the last one. Uh and it will fit well into its surroundings and its context. Um so yeah, I'll just show you some of the elevations now. So this would be from uh Henry. This is the north. Uh this would be uh on the east property line. So interior side. Uh this would be the rear. So this this is like the uh and then this would be along this street uh on the west.

Um and yeah, here's just a a rendering concept uh just to try and kind of show maybe the the boulevard improvements a little bit as well. Um yeah, I uh that's it. Uh I've also got some metrics here if we have get some questions about that, but I can pull that up after. Um so yeah, uh thank [clears throat] you so much for your time and uh letting me present again. Thank you for keeping your presentation under 10 minutes and I will turn to colleagues if there are any questions from the presentation. Uh councelor Gette, please. Thank you, Mayor. I'll I'll just ask the one and it's to me is the most obvious.

So when you presented in August of last year uh and in the staff report I went back and reread it. Um it indicated the staff had indicated that if you were to remove the top fifth floor which was four units uh there was 26 units in the four stories and that it would reduce the parking uh variance request at the time to one because at the time it was 25 units and or 25 parking spaces and five five units of um variance. So my my question is given that the building would be 26 units before if you just remove the top floor you wouldn't need a parking variance. So if you'd explain why you wouldn't just remove the top floor uh like go down to uh three stories from four.

No no the original proposal was and then there was four on the top 26 below. So, I'm just wondering why you didn't just stick with the 26, removing the top four on the fifth floor, and then you wouldn't require parking periods. Is that strictly just about financial feasibility? Yeah. Yeah. Uh, sorry, I misunderstood. Uh, yeah. So, yeah, we lost four. Uh, the parkade got rejigged slightly, so we gained one more stall. Um, but yeah, it it was for financial viability to keep it at like a 30 unit count. Um, so that's why there's less three bedrooms, but still 30 units. Thank you. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you, councelor. Councelor Duncan, please. Yeah, thank you. Uh, your previous letters had said you would part of your transportation demand was to have a moto car share and of course that's not in there now. Um, is that following conversations with Moto about how they would add another car? Because I know we've heard from developers before in the past that, you know, Moto makes that decision about when they add a new car and if that was part of the limitation there or if this was a limitation from your site itself for providing a parking stall or why you made that decision. Uh, Moto said that they had two cars very nearby and they would support getting memberships for those cars. Uh, and then they also said they were open to communicating about putting one right in front of it. Uh, but it would have to be energized and that would have like require some sort of right of way or the city provide that energization and I just didn't want to overly complicate the application at least at at this stage with that. Um, but if that is

something that like that is very supportable, we could look at it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you councelor councelor O'Keefe and councelor Novik. Uh, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Um, a few questions. Um, first of all, um, looking at the adaptable units. So, I note that you're meeting the requirement uh, for 20%. Um, but I noticed that they're all onebedroom units. And I know it's not a requirement in the bylaw. There's nothing specific there about how those are allocated. But in previous uh in other developments that have come forward, the kind of rule of thumb has been they distribute those um e evenly. So there would be some twobedrooms, maybe a threebedroom. So I'm wondering if that is something that is still feasible or what are your thoughts about that?

Uh it would be somewhat feasible on some of the ground floor units. Uh but as we get above it, we the only uh part of the circulation with adaptable clearances was the one right across from the elevators uh which just drove that. Uh okay. So I so just a concern of of mine. Um, and you know, I kind of understand your rationale, but if there was a way to um rejig that a bit to have maybe at least some two-bedroom units, that would be great. I think, you know, people who have especially mobility issues. um they have families, they have people come to visit, so they're, you know, I think having a diversity of housing options for them just as we do for able-bodied people is is something that would um be a good idea. Thank you.

Um in terms of the the um the the look of the building, I'm still having some difficulty with the appearance. Um Okay. what you know you gave us one of the things I noticed was that there aren't any balconies um which I think is uh a nice feature especially for residents to have some outdoor space and in fact in the examples that you showed uh just now about buildings that you took inspiration from it looked like they all had balconies so I'm wondering um if if that's something that's possible or is that something you gave thought to uh it requires further variances to setbacks which is why that was trimmed up. Um I I like balconies. I I would provide balconies. Okay. Yeah.

Well, that's that's uh yeah feedback. Um and I guess the other similar to councelor Garnett's question about the number of units um you know when this was approved before um you know it was 19 units all parking provided no variances and so this is and that was four stories and so now we're at gone from 19 to 30 units and I obviously we're in a current economic climate where uh land is expensive expensive construction is expensive. I understand that. Um but I'm just getting the sense from the number of variances in terms of you know the parking, the setbacks, um not having an unobstructed tree planting area and a few other things of the reduction of the three-bedroom units. I I just getting the feeling that we're trying to cram a lot into that space and what what flexibility is there to if if it worked before for 19 units and then I know that was a few years ago and as councelor Garnett says uh you know there seemed to be some flexibility uh in the past. So whether that is whether that's still an

option or not, yeah, I I don't have uh insight into the last developer's actual um perform or anything, but I can say that he wasn't able to build what was approved. He went into foreclosure, which is how we got the property. Um, I maybe foolishly assumed I could cram this much into here and I'm trying my best to make it at least livable units that are tasteful, but I it it can't be trimmed back down to 19 units. Uh, little tweaks can be made here and there, but I also don't want to have to go bust on this as well. Yeah, understood. Yeah. Okay. Thank all for me. Thank you.

Thank you, councelor O'Keefe. Councelor Novik, please. Uh, thank you, Mayor, and thank you for your presentation. Um just just to make sure that we're all on the same page here, th this [clears throat] is to be um stratified condominiums or apartments rentals. Uh yeah, stratified condominium. Stratified condos. Okay, great. Um one thing I notice in your project information um listing is that um you've achieved a lot coverage of just under 52%. uh and the uh the the bylaws allow for 55% lot coverage. My question is could you have built the building um within that 55% lot coverage and not have the variances or at least the the two major 1.5 meter front and rear variances uh for setbacks? No, it's not physically possible. Um, so yeah, it's it is a it's a great zone. It's a blanket zone, but sometimes it doesn't fit every lot. It's applied to the RM7.

So yeah, it would be impossible to reach full lot coverage without any setback variances. Is that okay? Yeah. Okay. Um, I've noticed uh in your renderings or your artist renderings that you have very big flat roof. Uh, have you given any thought to either rooftop amenities such as rooftop deck, barbecue area, whatever. Since we don't have balconies in in this building and we've really maxed out the building so that there isn't a lot of space for residents to enjoy much in the way of out of doors. So either rooftop decks or or failing that perhaps solar panels to power your common areas and help reduce costs for um um for your owners.

Uh yeah, I had not considered solar or anything, but um a rooftop amenity area or patio is nice and I'd like to explore that. I just know that it probably would with the elevator room projection in the middle. I I don't think you'd really see it from the street, but it would require variance to max height. Uh which is why I avoided giving um elevator access to the roof. Um but if that's something that's supportable, I would actually really like that. Okay. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, councelor. I'm not seeing any other questions. Thank you very much for presenting and taking any questions this evening. We will come back to the item after a couple of other items.

Thank you. You're welcome. So, we're now turning to item 73, which is a presentation from radio uh from Bill Collins from Radio Sydney uh regarding a Radio Sydney application for FM broadcast license. Good evening, Mr. Collins. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, councilors. My name is Bill Collins. I live at 2028 Westbrook Drive and I'm also the president of the Sydney Arts and Media Society, operators of Radio Sydney. We've been gainfully working in this community providing stories for the last seven years. Right now, we're at a pivotal point in news, local news and information in Canada. And Rabro Sydney is stepping up to the plate by going for a broadcast license to the to Industry Science and Economic Development Canada for a 92.7 on your FM dial. Our application to ISID will include a call sign CFVI come from Vancouver Island.

So, as I said, we've been around since 2019. We're the trusted local news source for information, news, authoritative information, the voice of Sydney, the voice of North Sanich, and the voice of Central Sanage. As a trusted provider of news, we see what's happening in the world around us. It is very clear even as late as last week where Vancouver lost its only news radio, 24-hour news radio, big commercial media is winding up their tents and moving to the big city, leaving a massive gap in information and authoritative news on the ground in communities like Sydney. Community radio across Canada will fill that gap come hell or high water.

We recognize that in the world of of radio, in the world of news and the world of information, it's important to note that we are partners in with the local community. And we do that in partnership, for example, with the Sydney Celebration Society, who last year we live broadcast Sydney Sparkles parade and we live broadcast for those who dared watch it the polar bear swim. But in addition, we also try to be socially responsible. We recognize some service groups are continuing to struggle. So, for example, uh we supported at at length the Legion last year with the uh with the ceremony at the Senate. We live stream that for folks that could not get out and attend this very important civic ceremony. So, that's the kind of things that community grassroots radio does.

So, if I could have the next slide. Okay. Thank you. as a reverse direction. 180. Thank you. Radio, not television. So, we're the voice of Sydney and the surrounding municipalities when it matters the most. One of the benefits of being a FM broadcaster is the fact that we can be the voice of the community in emergency situations. And to that end, we hope to partner with the town of Sydney and the Sydney Fire Department because it is our goal to put the mast for the broadcast on top of the community safety building with a transmitter within that community safety building such that in the event of an emergency when cell towers may be down, when access to the island, both air traffic and ferry traffic may be not in existence, we will be able to live broadcast from the community safety building to those folks that have a crankup radio because chances are your power might not be restored for a few days. So this is something that we can

bring to the community. We've shown that we can do that under pressure. We showed that in COVID times when we were broadcasting daily live with interviews with the mayor, interviews with counselors, inter interview interviews with folks in the emergency command center, giving people authoritative information on what they should do. It's not just that. We're also the voice of the community and the interesting people and the thought leaders in this community. We they speak through our online airwaves and we're looking for the opportunity to take that to FM broadcast. We've had 30,000 plays across 1200 locally produced shows since 2019. This is an important point for for Radio Sydney because we can be the voice of the community.

Aha, look at that. Stories ultimately we can tell. I'll give you an example. Beware mysterious Mark. This was a project undertaken by seniors in the community to tell the true story of elder financial abuse going on in our community. We illustrated the point through a 10-p part docu series which has gone uh through now more than 7500 downloads within this community and across Canada illustrating the challenges that face vulnerable seniors in our community. We bring those stories to light. We have Kelsey Creek which I hope next time uh you'll be able to see flowing through time which is a video series with the support of Artsy to try and illustrate natural uh spaces in our community. This is what radio does today. Radio needs to be seen to be heard and this is very important. We've also produced videos on the impact of sea level rise in Sydney and of course the age-old topic of how you do redevelopment. What's the feasibility for redevelopment on Beacon Avenue?

These are information pieces that people need to be aware of and to create this public discourse. Uh evidenced tonight with Radio Sydney on an FM broadcast, we'll be able to air those voices, those challenging voices with challenging uh issues facing the council and the city of and the citizens of Sydney. And in addition, we have news.radioc.ca. And that's an important voice for written word, albeit online, not in print, but written word with in-depth articles and access to resources. We go deep into some of the stories. We're not byelines. We are actually trying to bring forth information on which people can make their best decisions. And of course, let's not forget elections coming up in the fall. Radio Sydney will be right there sticking our microphones into anybody's face that will listen.

So, what we're asking for very specifically is a letter of support from this council in support of our application to the CRTC for a low power FM broadcast license originating from the community safety building, which we expect the signal to get out between two and 5 kilometers based on our 50 watt broadcast limit under the under new regulations from the CRTC providing a voice to community radio across Canada. We hope to be 92.7 CFVI, your local voice for authorit authoritative news, information, and stories, giving voice to those that are underserved and underrepresented in community discourse in Sydney by the Sea. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll turn to colleagues if there are any questions. Councelor Duncan, please.

Yeah, thank you. I mean, I see you've included that it's already been endorsed by the fire chief, your proposal. Um, are you also getting letters of support from uh PIMO and and our community safety building operators? I guess it would be both of them if you're using them for emergency broadcast. Yes, we will we will uh include those in our package to the CRTC. So, that package will go within the next 6 weeks. It gives us time to get the requisite level of support from our community and from the the the u important agencies within this community to help with that. Okay. And hopefully when you put the microphones in people's faces, it's so that they'll talk and not listen. This is [laughter] Thank you anyway. And um uh looking forward to listening.

Thank you, Councelor No, please and councelor O'Keefe. Uh thank you, mayor. Thank you for your uh presentation. I'm I'm a big fan of of radio. Um 50 watts you said is sort of the the particular threshold that you're starting at with a 2 to 5 kilometer signal. Yet you mentioned at the very beginning of your presentation that you are hoping to be representative not only town of Sydney but north Sanich and Central Sanich. Well, the distance from Sydney safety building to central Sanage, Brentwood Bay, for example, is 10 12 km. Um, what what would it take to go to the next level of uh broadcast power in order to reach the far-flung corners of our empire?

I like the way you put that. Uh, so there's a couple of options. First of all, this uh low power FM license is under the new terms of the development licenses for community radio on new CRTC regulations and it puts a limit on the power of 50 watts. So, we're basically as the crow flies, you know, maximum 5 miles, but that's terrain dominated. So, we have uh two choices for the future. Number one is to put repeater stations in so that we can reach further with more masts going up. Uh for example, there's nothing to say we couldn't put a mast on the uh this North Sanage fire hall in McTavish, for example.

Secondly, the 50 watts is the limit for low power community development. There's nothing to stop us after four years going back to the CRTC and saying we'd like more power, please, because we have to get to the further reaches of the community. So, that would be plans B and C as we demonstrate that we can support a community station here in Sydney. Okay. Uh yeah, thank you. That's that's pretty much all for me. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Keefe, please. Thank you for the pres presentation. Big panel radio Sydney. Um I I [clears throat] what really resonates with me, one of the things is your comments about the uh the big communications empires and consolidating uh communications and big centers. And so I do have a concern about how local issues and information um it just seems that there's there's no venue for that. So I I really support this and um happy that you're bringing it forward. um just kind of a a technical or process thing and uh maybe

it's to to staff but um are are we looking to make a motion? Is a motion required tonight then in order to I I didn't see that in the agenda? Yeah, thank you counselor for your question. Um, typically a request like this is the type of thing I would recommend for council to consider and not make a decision when uh in the same evening that their presentation is being presented. That allows council time to consider the request. Additionally, it would allow staff the opportunity to respond to any questions or concerns that council might have. Um uh for example, this or this request is looking to put a transmitter on one of our facilities. And so um it might be uh a good idea for council to if councils were so uh inclined to ask staff to uh bring back a report on this at the next council meeting for for consideration. Okay. Thank you. And um back to Mr.

Collins. So is there a a time frame or or or a deadline as to whe when you have to put forward your your package to the CRTC? Yes, the the the CRTC package has to come within 30 days from a submission of the ISIT application for the for the spectrum. So that we expect to have that application ready later this week or mid next week and then it'll be 30 days from that to simp to complete the application. So mid August I would say is our deadline and I accommodated that in trying to get before council tonight so that there would be enough time for us to answer the necessary questions so that perhaps in the August council meeting there would be uh an ability to deliver that letter.

Okay, that's great. Uh thank you. So hearing uh hearing the discussion and the question and thank you Mr. Edwards uh for that uh for that information uh it would be appropriate. We do have another question but it would be appropriate to uh make a motion to request staff bring a report back uh to the August meeting uh regarding um Sydney radio's uh license COTC application. Okay, I will I will make that motion then that uh the uh this issue of the letter of support for the CRTC application by Sydney U radio Sydney be referred to staff for report to bring back to the next council meeting in August. I'll second.

Okay, just have uh have that captured. Thank you. alternative movers. No, I think we've covered it. Uh likewise, uh I think it's a great idea. I think it's if in this day and age, we seem to be moving away from this type of uh broadcast facility. Um, and I admire any group that that wants to move in the other direction and increase our access to this type of news and uh perhaps even emergency communications, which I think is a wonderful byproduct, if you will, of uh this type of application. So, I'm all in favor. Thank you. There comments, councelor De. Yeah, I just have a couple questions I had prior to the motion. Um, just a question. Mr.

Collins, thank you for your presentation and information and thank you to you and your volunteers for the last seven years. Um, I remember when Radio Sydney started in the back of a thrift shop in Mary Windspear Center and hopefully you've got new location for um future uh shows. My question to you is why would the CRTC object to this happening? Like what what kind of reinforcement do we have to give to make them say yes? Well, I think the proposal as it now stands is an excellent testament to community radio and exactly along the lines that the CRTC wants to see from for more radio uh in Canada. I at this point the CRTC is a highly regulated body and they are uh they do uh review all applications with an extreme level of detail and we accept that. We embrace that. And so while today I can't tell you why they might disapprove of the application, uh I can say that the in general the

CRTC is amanable and trying to facilitate these sorts of of proposals coming from grassroots Canada. Thank you. And and given the motion on the floor right now, our next meeting is not till August 10th. And I'm wondering given your timeline, you've just indicated that that's the middle of August as you have to have this in place that still give enough time or do we need to expedite this? Um I don't think there's a need to expedite if if I uh as the council in his wisdom has said obviously questions need to be asked and answered. That is that's perfectly acceptable uh for us. If I delay my ISET application by one week, it will not jeopardize uh the application process in general. I do want to give time to make sure that we answer all the questions. Uh the chief has brought forward some questions. We have some answers available to council for the kinds of questions that we might expect. So I welcome um the the any any questions you might have and I'll be prepared to answer them as necessary. So from what

you've just said, I understand that you've got some preliminary discussions with the chief about putting a transmitter on top of the community safety bill and certainly the CEO has indicated that um staff would give some further thought to that. So things are in progress is what you're saying. Well, we scoped it out. Uh I actually have a transmitter that was donated by Peachland Radio in the city of Pentictton. Uh but it's only 30 watts. So, I've got to go seek funding to get get it to our 50 watts because uh Praise FM out of Bellingham broadcast at 100,000 watts and it swamps our signal. So, you have to make sure that we uh if we're if we're uh isolating our 92.7 that we are heard where we want to be heard.

Thank you. And and if I can speak to the motion now here, um I'm in favor of this motion and and hopefully we can push it forward. I think that um the fire chief and uh emergency services P pay would appreciate having an additional communication services beyond the um um typical uh uh ham radio operators they have that get reaches a broader uh spectrum of people. So I think this would be a valuable asset to the community in emergencies. I further see that the the the radio city has demonstrated its commitment to the community in in de in various events uh as the proponent has indicated but also in different things they and shows they've brought to the community that um have an entertainment value. So I think there's value both in safety and in entertainment. Thank you. Thank you councelor Councelor Gap.

Thank you mayor and thank you Mr. Colin for your presentation. Um and thank you for all you've done. Uh, it's been a pleasure to be part of the journey back in 2019. And I can go even back further. It's so much better than producing in your upstairs bedroom. [laughter] Remember that very well. Um, and and you've touched on something that's really important and that is local news and how that is evaporating in both print form and in other ways across the country, allowing for more disinformation and misinformation to take hold. So, uh, it's a valuable service. Um I I do have a I support the motion fully, but I the question when is it you're hoping to be up and running?

Do you have a timeline you're looking at? Yeah. Uh 12 to 18 months. Uh these things take slow uh time methodical as I've mentioned CRTC is slow. Uh the track record isn't great. However, uh CRTC these are relatively new uh regulations in place for low power FM and uh I fully expect we'll be given as fair a treatment as we need to be to to conform to the regulatory process. Um best guess 18 months I wouldn't expect it would be available before then. Great. Thank you and once again thank you for your commitment to this community and what you bring to it. Thank you mayor. Thank you, councelor.

Uh for a second time, everybody has spoken in support. I I just have a question. Uh mayor, if that's okay, please go ahead. Um thank you. Uh [clears throat] just just very quickly, uh this letter of support uh well, I'm certainly in favor of it. My my question is, does CRTC require this for your application or is this something that will simply enhance your application? Uh the CRTC requires evidence of community support for such stations. Uh it's not a requirement that the the town of Sydney provide a letter of support, but it is a great feather in the cap of the application. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, those in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Thank you very much. So we're we're now turning to uh we did indicate that well the next item is ADA that that is going to come a couple of items later. So we're now turning to 9A which is a temporary use permit application number TEM 0000003 at 96914 street uh St. Andrew uh Anglican Church to allow the operation of an extreme weather response shelter. Um and we do have uh a recommendation. I just will note that uh at the meeting of June 22nd um this has been a topic of discussion for uh for over a year and in a process but at the meeting uh on June 22nd uh council's recommendation was that owners and tenants and occupation of property uh within 75 m 250 ft of 9686 Third Street be notified regarding tempor this temporary use permit.

uh and that staff be directed to advertise uh consideration of the permit in two consecutive issues of the peninsul uh and that any written correspondence be received and forwarded to uh to council at the time of consideration of approval of the permit. During uh the um uh discussion or sorry during approval of the agenda this evening, I made reference to uh correspondence that has been received. Uh so we did receive uh a petition uh with 132 uh individuals opposed. Uh we did uh receive an extra 51 pieces of correspondence and then of course we had uh many speakers uh also this evening. So uh we certainly had lots of input on this topic at tonight's meeting and in previous meetings as we've been working through this as I indicated for for about a year now. I will turn to councelor Duck.

Yes. I'd like to read the recommendation the bylaw be given first reading. Second. Sorry. This is this is 98. Sorry. I move that the temporary use permit application be approved subject to the conditions as per council resolution number 2026.17.302. Still second. Sorry. Seconded by councelor Novik. So I will turn to the movement and seconder. Thank you, mayor. And um as the mayor's indicated, we've had lots of discussion around this. And we did try a temporary use permit uh this past winter and it was successful thank you to Week in Community Services and uh in part St. Andrews. Um we have demonstrated this can work and we do need in our community. Um this is a a three-year temporary use permit to see if it can work on a longer term. And by longer term, we're talking about potentially 13 nights of a year. That's 13 out of 365 nights. Um, these people live in our community. These people are part of our community. They are residents of our community and we have five square

kilometers in which we live in. And so somewhere this is going to exist in our community. Um, it it it will always be in somebody's backyard and I think that's the challenge is that these people are living here. They need somewhere to to survive. This an emergency cold weather shelter is about survival. It's about living another day. And I think that's the important thing we have to do. And we have to get out and meet these people. And some of you have talked about meeting them. These are our neighbors. These are people who have lived on fallen on hard times. And it's important that we recognize what we need to do to help them live another day. And when it's freezing cold outside, living another day means a warm place inside and potentially a warm meal. That's all we're offering 13 times a year. That's pretty low bar to reach to help people along.

Um what are the alternatives? Uh we've looked at lots of alternatives and certainly we've been looking and studying this for a while and this is the best alternative. We've got the cooperation of St. Andrews generously supplying space. We've got the support of Beacon Community Services to provide an excellent service which they have demonstrated they do in other communities and can do very well and safely and in the protection of others like the the and St. Andrews does provide meals already. And so this is a demonstrated success project both at St. Andrews and at at the library. And I think part of the challenge we have is we fear what could happen. And that because in other communities that exists, whether you think of Pandora Avenue or other communities and I think we've got two proponents that are willing to take that chance to service our community. I think we need to support them. This is not something the municipality can do or or deliver because that's not within our our realm of control. It has been given to us. I use that generously by the province to

deliver and we have to take care of those people that are unhoused in our community that are our residents and that are need our help. The other part of this is is just we need to know that this is not day in day out. This is again 13 days of the year maximum. Last year was seven. So I I think this is a very small piece that our community come together and do and help those that live in our community. We're not these are not for people that are going to come from elsewhere. They're not going to get on a bus and and cold cold situation travel out to here because [clears throat] we've got some magical cold weather shelter that is better than everywhere else. This is the same as other places. This is what happens when it's too cold for them to move anywhere in the community. We are taking care of those that are in our community, that live in our community, that support our community, and we need to support them. Thank you.

Thank you, Councelor Duck. I I'm just going to turn to staff for a moment. I appreciate you indicating that uh you know, the the estimating the frequency that it operates a year. I might turn to uh our CEO, Mr. Edwards or Fire Chief Mickelson if they have comment in terms of anticipated or range of nights that this uh might operate in a in a season. Thank you for the question, Mayor. And um I would uh I I wouldn't want to try to play weatherman at any given time. Um it's forecasting the future, but based on um six weeks of operation, uh most recently uh we activated for seven nights. So, um, you know, the the number of 13 I would say is is probably a rough estimate. Could it exceed that by, you know, 15 or 20%, that's quite possible, but if it's a mild year, it it could be less than that. So, I think that's a a reasonable estimation, but again, it shouldn't be taken as gospel because uh the weather will do what the weather will do.

Thank you very much. I'll turn to the second, please. Thank you, mayor. This is this is and has been a very difficult question for most of us as counselors to consider. Uh as a counselor, I like to think I represent all citizens of Sydney, both those in favor of this temporary use permit as well as those who are opposed to it. I'm not going to get into a a boxing match to decide whether there are more pros than cons or more cons than pros. I think it's important enough that there are people on both sides of the fence and it would be a very difficult thing uh to decide if we're just listening to what people say. But as counselors, we also represent those less fortunate than we are. And we have to consider those people who are affected by homelessness and who suffer the mental illnesses, uh the drug addiction and uh other chronic ailments that put them on the street in the first place. And we've we've heard the arguments. Yes, it's not our fault.

It's uh it's not something that we c it's not a problem that we've caused. Uh we'd love for the federal government to throw money our way to solve this problem. It's not happening. We'd love for the provincial government to do more to assist us. And by the way, for those who are concerned, the provincial government does compensate us for out-of- pocket expenses when an emergency warming shelter is activated. Uh so the provincial government is contributing, although perhaps not as much as we would like to see. We have experience with emergency warming shelters from this past year. As you just heard our fire chief describe uh that we had seven activations over six weeks. Was it seven chief? Seven activations over the last year. Um those activations were remarkable in that there were absolutely no incidents. There was nothing that would suggest that having an emergency warming shelter operate either in the library, which is just as close to neighboring residences as the Anglican Church is to neighboring residences in

the area. And there is nothing to suggest that the emergency warming shelter would bring any additional what's a good word to use problems maybe to that area. Um I used to live in that area. I lived for 5 years on second in Oakville. I was a stones throw from the church and even then there were issues with homeless people in the area. That's not going to change whether there is an emergency warming shelter there or not, that is not going to impact the problem of homelessness in in Sydney. The fact that we will have an emergency warming shelter will not impact the homeless problem in Sydney.

What it will do is ensure that those few people who are suffering from a lack of suitable housing will at least have a place to get out of the freezing cold weather for those few days a year when it's necessary. I noted in the letter accompanying the petition with 130 odd names attached to it that one of the things that was said was and I can't quote it verbatim because I don't have it in front of me but it it stuck in my head and and that was we really do support an emergency warming shelter but we don't support it where you're planning to put it.

Well, Sydney's a relatively small and highly builtout community. I don't think that there is a location in the town of Sydney where you could put an emergency warming shelter and within 50 m of that space, you wouldn't encounter a large number of residential properties. And so to simply say from by one group of people that we don't want it in our backyard, please put it in somebody else's backyard is somewhat disingenuous and I I have difficulty with that. So I am happy to support this temporary use permit. And I'll I'll draw attention as well to the word temporary. It is a temporary use permit. Uh it will be in effect for 3 years if I'm not mistaken.

And that will give us a chance to evaluate just how this process will unfold and what the impacts will be on the community and on the church and on the people who are providing services. And at that point it will invariably come back to council to decide on whether or not that should be extended, whether it should be cancelled or whether something else should be done. But right now, if I follow my conscience and what I feel the majority of Sydney would support would be the ability to have a temporary use permit allowing an emergency weather response shelter at the Anglican Church. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Novik. I'll turn next to councelor then councelor O'Keefe. Uh thank you mayor and uh I'll start by acknowledging I suspect mine may be a voice in the wilderness but where you're going to see strong consensus I think uh from council and from the community at large is with respect to um sincere appreciation to St. Andrews to your uh your community uh

to your parishioners uh and to Beacon Community Services for your support and work uh in these important matters. And frankly um you know it's doubtful that we'd have we we would not have this discussion this evening without uh you know your uh support in in looking to bring this forward and it's an important dialogue for this community to have. So uh my appreciation and that respect. This proposal is not a field of dreams. It's not a build it and they will come. Um homelessness is here. It's already here. uh we we recognize that um but also you know our our residents and our businesses are here as well and uh well I think it's an important discussion that we've been having uh this shelter proposal has caused certainly some anxiety in the community and uh we've seen this happen previously and the town uh through the good work of staff in conjunction with Beacon Community Services came up with a solution last winter which was around uh

an emergency warming center and as has been noted that center operated uh at [clears throat] the local library with great success and it operated for a period of approximately 6 weeks. uh I I can't help but think that this is not the the better uh interim solution on an ongoing basis at least near term so that we can see the impact uh of of this uh throughout a full uh winter and perhaps beyond. Uh if the goal is to save lives, to provide a warm center to receive the homeless and provide them comfort, uh safety and security, uh that was accomplish accomplished this past um winter during that 6 week period through the good work of Beacon Community Services and and town staff. And again with thanks to St. Andrews for ensuring that conversation took place. So, we've had a mechanism that has worked, that has supplied that support, that safety net. And so, I I'm inclined to see the town continue to look to uh re-engage with Beacon Community Services on a continued basis

to operate a warming center of that nature versus a shelter at the proposed location. in part because of the concern that has been expressed by the local community. Um I I do think you know and my colleagues I'm sure will recognize this that if it weren't July [snorts] uh and this matter hadn't gone out in sort of late June to look for feedback um we would have had an even greater turnout this evening. The reality is there [clears throat] will be a number of people uh given the time of year that deservedly so have have checked out to a degree from uh dialogues of of this nature. There's often uh many I know who can't afford to to check out and that this is uh uh a matter of of crucial dialogue for them. But I don't think we're seeing a full reflected response from the community because of the time of year it is that we're addressing this. and and I would encourage uh my my

colleagues to give that some further consideration. I think we are being um compassionate. We are looking to provide support and and I believe there's strong consensus that we would continue to do so if this temporary uh used permit at this location is denied. So I'll leave my comments there. Mayor, thank you. Thank you, Councilman. I'll turn to councelor O'Keefe, followed by councelor Duncan, followed by counc. Uh thank you. Uh I'm in support sort of in support of the motion. Um first like to comment on why I think St. Andrews is a uh the best location rather than continuing at at [clears throat] the library. When we initially talked about this three years ago, uh St. Andrews was uh [clears throat] identified as a preferred location for a number of reasons. Um, one of the reasons was because of its location. So, it's central. Um, many of the people that use the shelter, excuse [clears throat] me, are already familiar with St. Andrews. They're accessing their services. And so, from a

safety and trust perspective, they they felt uh good [clears throat] going there. Um, some of those did uh go to go to the library and that turn that turned out all all right. But St. Andrews is easy easier for them to access. Um, when it's really cold outside and if you're a senior citizen who is pushing a cart around all day and you've got to hoof it down to the library, that's a long walk to go um to go there and and back again. So I think that's one of the reasons I think St. Andrews is uh a good place to go. The other thing is um in some of the letters they talked about, you know, we need to have a place where people have other supports available. Um well, that's what St. Andrews has been. So they're not only providing meals, uh lunch lunchtime once a week, meals on Friday, I think Saturday. Um, I've lost track of all the meals you're you're providing, but they're providing

supports there. There's volunteers there who provide counseling to members of the homeless community. They help them get access to health care and mental health care um and that sort of thing. So, that's an there's nobody at the library doing doing that. I mean, that's obviously not their role. Um the other point I would bring is that the um the library because as a warming it was just a warming station um we weren't able to provide sleeping material. So as someone mentioned earlier what it consisted of people had to sleep in chairs and maybe they got a blanket. Um so St. Andrews provides the opportunity. There's more space and uh mats can be provided uh so people can have a good night's sleep uh on a mat and with sleeping bag pillows like the the rest of us would like to have. Uh the other thing is that the library doesn't have a kitchen. So St. Andrews has a kitchen. So they'll be uh Beacon Community Services will be able to provide hot meals there which wasn't available at the library. So the library

was limited to just providing cold sandwiches and and snacks. Um so those are some of the reasons why I think St. Andrews is the preferred location. Um, I also want to speak to, you know, some of the concerns and I I listen to people who are opposed to this tonight and I don't want you to think that we're not listening. We're not not sympathetic to what you're having to say. What I want you to know is this is that we have not embarked upon this lately. So, we have looked at other shelters. So there's a shelter uh emergency cold weather shelter in Sanich that operates in a residential area and talked with them.

Um same sort of uh type of operation, no no issues uh in those neighborhoods. Uh Beacon Community Services who has operated numerous shelters it like this in the greater Victoria area. uh no issues as well in regards to concerns about um noise and disturbance that sort of thing. You heard earlier tonight that over the course of when we operated this there was a total of 15 different people who took advantage of the service and on any one night um there was maximum of seven so three to seven people per night. So the neighborhood is not going to be overrun with hundreds of people um in the neighborhood doing terrible things. The other thing I want to mention is about I think there's a an impression of what what uh a profile so to speak of homeless person that many people hold.

And we had a report from the community planning council of greater Victoria earlier this year with their point in time count. And what we learned from that is that the profile of a homeless person has changed dramatically in recent years. And that's due to a number thing. The biggest thing costs of housing and no affordable very little affordable housing available all over the place. And so what that means is that those people who are just kind of living on the cusp or barely making it, they get one uh kind of curveball thrown at them in terms of they lose their job. Uh they experience a marital breakup, whatever. They're out on the street with no place to live or they're living in their car. And so that new profile of homeless people includes a lot more seniors, uh, youth, first nations people, and um, uh, persons with disabilities, and also women fleeing violence. So those it it's not just I'm not going to deny that there's people that are homeless that have mental

health and addiction issues. they're out there as well, but it's a much broader spectrum than I I think people believe uh realize. I think it's notable. I had a discussion with the housing coordinator at Beacon Community Services not too long ago and she mentioned to me that there she had over 150 seniors on the Sanage Peninsula that were in precarious housing situations. So they were having they were extremely anxious about where they were going to they were going to live. We saw that happen um with when we had to when the uh buildings on Third Street were taken down. That was an example of a whole lot of people living in older buildings who had uh reasonable rent and suddenly their property was bought and they were they had to leave. And there was people that left there that there was an elderly woman, a senior, and she she was accumulating tents and tarps and sleeping bags because she didn't know where they were going to live. So I think that's important in understanding the bigger picture on who these people

are. Um and just my last comment I guess in response to those that think that you know we need to put this shelter in in another area. Um, as colleagues [clears throat] have said, don't know where that should be. But what I would say is these people are human beings and human beings live in residential areas and just because they're having some difficulty in their lives doesn't mean that they should be shunned or banished from our community. Many of them have been living here for a long time. And [clears throat] these are not people who have sort of parachuted in. They've been here for a long time and uh they deserve our compassion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councelor O'Keefe. I'll turn next to councelor Duncan and councelor Ganette. Yeah. Thank you. Um I'm also going to be voting in favor of this application. This was something I know the Anglican Church has been advocating for. was the first per first group to come forward saying that we needed to have specifically uh services for unhouse people in Sydney and have been carrying this ball all the way here to this point which is as much as we can do at this point in Sydney with these resources and so um it's it's odd to hear people make the argument that the church is the last place it should be since when we first were having these discussions um that was what people kept saying well why are you looking for a place over here. There's all these churches in town, then they should have it because that's what churches are supposed to do.

And we said, we'd have to be like, we're so sorry. That was our first evaluation because it's them that brought it up and, you know, we couldn't make it work with the provincial requirements. And then, of course, the goalposts always move. Um, and uh, yeah, the the province was not the problem. um our town staff and and and the province and um Beacon Services have been really great in working to to make this work. Um and so this is right where it should be with precisely the people who've been asking for it. Um the Yimies the entire time, not even my neighborhood, in our building. They said, "We want this in our building because we care about these people that we actually personally know." Um and that's why this is such a great location. I know um I work in I work across the street essentially from the Angin church and so I sometimes go there to the labyrinth to eat my lunch and I see that the people uh at the

church all are you know weeding the garden and they maintain that grounds themselves. And so it seems very likely to me that the volunteers who maintain the grounds on the church are already aware of the people who are there and the services they offer and the people who are frequently perhaps on their property sometimes. Um I have seen them there too. Uh my daughter attends SK uh girl guides and so sometimes we go over there before um going there and I know the Anglican church was there for our our anniversary at the scout hall. Um I also live across the street from where the emergency warming shelter was this time. So again this is like everywhere I am. This issue has been on my doorstep as well and I am one of the decision makers. It would be very poor form for me to to say you know no because I have never seen with my own eyes a problem. I have seen homeless people. I have had in

my time in Sydney some less good [laughter] conversations, but I would say 99.9% of uh the threats I have received that are, you know, sub sublegal issue, but definitely um make me feel unsafe in my town, have made me stop volunteering are all from homeowners. homeowners who come to remind me that uh they own me because they voted for me or maybe they didn't, but I'm an elected official. And um I think it's important uh to know that um in a in a community when decision makers are making decisions that we are in fact trying to make decisions for those who don't have voices and who maybe didn't come to council. Um, I was pleased to see one of my neighbors, uh, a couple of my, uh, other neighbors did know that there was a a warming shelter and came to speak for it cuz I thought I was maybe the only one, um, who'd even known it was there. Uh, but but clearly they did because we don't hear from the people who don't aren't afraid of things and who aren't

worried of things. And most of the time when I'd ask people, you know, oh, have you seen the discussion on Facebook? What kind of horrible names are they calling me and talking about? They know where my kids go to school this time. Um, and they'll be like, we don't go on Facebook anymore. It's too toxic the things that people say. Um, I was upset to see the letter that, you know, somebody who was exercising her right to, you know, voice her her own personal ethical considerations about this, whether I believe, you know, agree with them or not, now feels unsafe in her community. But I will say she's very much not the first and not alone. And it's not having much to do with unhoused people, but rather as one other resident said, the behavior that all people have, whether or not they're in a house. And believe you me, being in a house does not prevent people from having threatening, dangerous behavior or damaging other people's property, as perhaps some other neighbors where I work may know.

[laughter] Um, and I should hope that when it comes to ethical considerations, ideas about whether people are in a majority or not, we talk about that a lot in democracy about majority rules. And I'm going to use a word or a phrase because people used it a few times without I think under listen listening to it but uh where if there was a majority say 98% of the town of Sydney came to offer a final solution to the homeless problem. [snorts] People use that phrase a few times. I thought that's so ominous when they say it. I know they don't mean that, but um I would vote against such a thing, you know, right? When people exercise when we're exercising our decision-making powers, we're not just looking at whether you can get enough people to say a thing. We have to look at the full situation and the context in which decisions are being made. Is there a plausible um threat here? in this case, are we avoiding issues which was we are not actually bringing in more

people? Are we mitigating the problems which is we worked with our town staff, we've worked with our emergency services personnel. We've um the the people who actually run the site um people who run services for seniors and unhost people already. Beacon Community Services are on board and have experience with this. We have experience with these very specific individuals here. All of these things mean this is fully mitigated and regardless of what a majority may believe. um we actually have to look at it at wholesomely about what has actually happened um and who is actually there and who the actually impacted individuals will be which is of course primarily the Anglican church and um the unhoused individuals themselves and those of us who live in the surrounding neighborhood do have something to say uh who work in the surrounding neighborhoods but we have to actually listen to experience of I think as people have said behaviors themselves and not simply um blanket espersions about what may happen. Um, I

guess my closing comment would say, "My time on Sydney Council, I have heard the phrase about the future demographics and the concerns they have enough times that again, I find when people start using these phrases, how triggering that means. Um, and I know that they don't just mean unhoused individuals and I know they don't just mean um actual threats to their safety. I know I know it means anything that is new and different and I'm kind of hoping that we'll listen to as some people said um facts that are on the ground and not just people's fears. Thank you. Thank you councelor Dunan. I'll turn to councelor Dette please.

Thank you mayor. um apologize in advance if I repeat any comments that have been made already. Uh making notes during public participation and other sort of added on to thoughts that I already had. I just want to start by thanking my colleagues for their um their thoughts and um for their thoughtful consideration on everything they've had to say to this point. Like to thank everybody who's written in spoken tonight and that includes both sides of the equation. This is an issue where there's strong feelings on both sides. um appreciate the advocacy of St. Andrews and BCS for vulnerable people in our community. Um thank you very much. It's it's um really important.

Um I'm going to go back a little bit on my comments. I'm going to speak to some of what's been written and said. um the Royfield Manor decision. I voted against that happening there and my decision was based on the fact I didn't think it should happen in a residential building and that there was probably not as good a communication as could have happened with the residents of the building which caused a lot of angst and concern for them. And so we we moved to a few months later where I worked with councelor Duck and councelor O'Keefe and pursuing something which led to the center. Um and and thank you for the BCS for meeting with us and and reconsidering and bringing it to your board. Um it proved to be very uh successful. Um I just had questions today for staff and there were no incidents of drug paraphernalia, drug use, public intoxication, um nuisance complaints. Um, those things did not happen according to the RCMP and our staff and I certainly heard nothing

and I don't think any of my other council members heard anything. It seemed to have worked as expected and I did go by a couple times in the mornings afterwards and there were no people there. It's just like it never happened. So, I was I was happy to see that. Um, I think the and the thing that stood out to me in the statistics that came back from from BCS, if you don't mind me using a shortened version, um, was that, you know, because of the letter writers in the in the petition as well spoke to elderly and frail individuals, 11 of the 15 people who used this service uh, in the winter this year were over 50. Um, and I think the the demographic that's growing the most in this, which is council spoke to, which is incredibly disappointing, uh, are seniors. They're becoming more unhoused. Um, which is tragic in a country like this. It really, really is tragic. Um, and as far as it being in the church, one of the core tenants of the church is

to serve the vulnerable and the needy in your community. And they're doing that. They're going above and beyond by even recognizing that need, bringing it to us 3 years ago. And I think originally it was a tent outdoors at Aqua with security and CS and things like that. It was something completely different from where we are now. But you stuck with it. Um you saw the need and you filled it. Um there there is a bit of a misconception and um unfortunately we have two or three people in our community who are struggling with mental health and addictions issues who are the face of the unhoused and they do cause problems. You have to acknowledge that.

But that's not what we're talking about here. Um we're talking about people that are the working poor. We're talking about seniors on fixed pensions and people on disability pensions. We're talking about people who have lost their homes because of uh renovations or because their the increases in their rents and food have become so much they can't afford to live where they live anymore. Again, just an absolute travesty in a country like that list that that would happen. Um and the fact is there's probably many more people that are on the verge of one or two paychecks not showing up, a sudden illness or an accident from being in the same predicament.

And can you imagine I can't I can't even imagine what that would be like for them and I think back to my past and I don't want to go into personal but I experienced something similar some 50 years ago and it still sticks with me. So I I I I feel somewhat what they're going through here and it's a challenging situation. Um, and I did speak to a family member who was in law enforcement and many of the colleagues that he worked with and I asked this question back when we were considering the the first shelter. I said, you know, if we if we build a shelter here, what is the likelihood? Because there are problems in Victoria. Everybody acknowledges it. You see it on the news regularly. And they're Vic PD officers.

And I asked them what what is likely that these people that anybody from there would come to our cold weather shelter, make that track out here. And their response without even hesitation, all of them was slim to none. They need their supports and their services and everything that they function within their daily living where they are. They're not going to come out here. That's just not the way it works. They they said they would be shocked if anybody bothered to try and get on a bus or in a police car to come out here. It's not something that they they said would likely happen. Um I think that there were some other discussions about um the current housing issues and I agree with what some of my colleagues have said. I agree with what some of the speakers have have mentioned and this is going to be a future problem. the one speaker and you know it's not going to go away and and these are reasonable questions to ask of

the housing issues that are leading to these problems. They've been caused through decades of failure in senior levels of government. That is a fact. That's just you can't you can't sugar coat it and that's a fair thing to say. You could also ask the question is this is this a municipal responsibility? And some could argue yes, some could argue no and that would also be fair. I think however though we have the responsibility as elected officials to represent all residents of Sydney homeowners, renters and yes even the unhoused. These are members of our community. They live here. This is their home. Um they don't go to Victoria for for reasons of safety for the very reasons you worry about here. They don't go there because they're afraid of the safety for safety issues. They're concerned. They they want to stay in their own community. And it's not just that. their social connections are here, their doctors, where they work, dentists, all those things. So, they're not going to go into into Victoria.

They um we have through this temporal use permit and the generous support of Beacon Community Service and St. Andrew's Church, the opportunity to keep vulnerable people safe during extreme and dangerous weather conditions. And that's what we're talking about. cancer doctor eloquently stated it far better than I can, but we're talking about conditions that when I have to go outside to let my dog back in, I run back in the house and just how cold it is and I can't imagine having to be out in it and to be to realize you have no respit. This is a respit and I wouldn't say this is a good night's sleep. I would just say this is a sleep. This is a way to for a few hours put the strains of your life behind you and feel safe. And I think you know a lot of the people who would use this service, they've had the losing their housing through probably no fault of their own.

And I think a lot of them, you don't even know who they are because they don't want to be known. Why would you why would you want to have the indignity of people passing judgment on you and looking at you in a certain way because they have a an idea of who you are? This is a way to uplift people. This is a way to give them a chance to feel normal, if not for at least a few hours. And we're just talking about a few days a year. That's all it is. This isn't like a shelter every day of the year from October to April. It's whenever the weather dictates it. and it's it's not taken lightly, but I think I will support the motion because I do believe these people need to have dignity and they need to have at least some bit of safety. So, I'll leave my comments here. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councelor Danette. Um I'll be the last to uh to speak on this and I I'm speaking in full support of um of this initiative. Um, I want to thank um thank everyone who um has provided input on both sides. Um, those in support and those expressing concern. Um, and thank my colleagues uh tonight for um uh for expressing their views uh uh very fully. Um, in particular, I thank uh councelor Keefe and councelor Garnett uh for expanding on the human the humanity of uh providing uh this service to the vulnerable uh in our community. Um the um I I don't want to repeat everything that was said. I just want to touch on a few points. And um the first is is that St. Andrews uh Anglican Church is the facility provider. We're grateful to to St. Andrews. Uh Beacon Community Services is the qualified operator and we're grateful for you operating and we're grateful for the experience that Beacon Community Services has in operating shelters elsewhere in the region and can bring that experience to Sydney and has

brought it to Sydney in the operation of the warming center uh during February and March of this year. Uh and the town of Sydney is um is facilitating uh and assisting in this initiative and this is a working group the three um that will manage uh the emergency weather response shelter and ensure that the program uh delivery is responsive to community needs. There are many reasons and and again those who have spoken support of talking about the good reasons the um the ethical reasons the humane reasons for doing this. What I want to do is just spend a little bit of time not that my other colleagues haven't and addressing some of the concerns.

We know that the uh warming center in the room adjacent to the library operated for a period uh operated open seven times over two week over over two months. uh and that there were 15 unique guests. It operated without inc without incident and without complaint. Uh we did not see homeless from elsewhere in the region come to the warming center at the library. The library is a place that is used very actively by families with children by seniors. It is across the street from the Schaw Senior Center operated by Beacon Community Services. I can understand that uh the neighborhood the residents in this neighborhood have have concerns, but think for a moment what has been successful. This oper this warming center operated successfully in the in the in the library adjacent to the library where there are families, children, seniors, and across from a senior center and across from neighbors.

We heard from a speaker this evening who lives across the street who couldn't tell that there were people coming and going from the the u from the warming center. Just to highlight that there is activation there was an estimate of the number of times this would be open in a year. Why is there that limit on it is because the activate there is activation criteria um based on specific environment Canada um weather conditions. So it's not that we're not giving a council is not giving approval for this to open randomly many more times than this. There is specific criteria for when uh when this will open.

Um the um we have unfortunate incidents uh occurring with uh with some home some homeless individuals in our community. many if not all of us have experienced while we're living our daily lives whether it's at work uh whether it's uh with our children playing recreation activities whether it's we're out shopping um doing anything in our community these incidences will these incidents will continue whether or not we open this with with this weather shelter it's unfortunately all levels of government local government the provincial government the federal government are trying to collectively address the problem. Are we doing it successfully or do we are we doing it to the level that we need to do? No, we're not. But just because we're still having challenges and facing those those remarkable challenges is not a reason to not uh do the right thing and and operate this uh emergency weather response shelter.

the concerns over public safety, over needles being left, over loitering, over breakins, over p over interventions by police, disturbances, garbage. We've explained that this did not occur when the warming center was open at the library. We do not expect it to occur. Will there be isolated um uh occurrences uh um instances from time to time that occur? Yes. But as I said, incidences are occur incidents are occurring in our community already with homeless people and we're trying to support them the best we can. And I also want to express gratitude to St. Ankan's church and and the friends and the pastor to the services that they're providing now in terms of meals, in terms of clothing, in terms of drying out uh wet sleeping bags, in terms of providing uh in terms of providing socks, something as basic as socks. Here we are in a warm summer's evening, but we can all think very quickly to what um uh extreme weather is um in our in our community in the wintertime.

So I just wanted to express that uh I believe uh the agencies who are the church speaking community services our staff thank you to the to the chief and his emergency staff and to other staff uh across the organization and thank you to council for all the all the consideration all the deliberation we've had in excess of a year now to arrive at this uh particular option. And we do have options going forward if for some reason unexpected things uh occur. So I um I just want to quickly look at my notes here. I think I've covered all the points that I wish to cover this evening. Thank you for listening. Uh I'll turn to if there are any second time speakers. I'm not seeing any. I'll look to call a question. Those in favor?

Opposed? Councilor Renul is opposed. The motion carries. Thank you very much everybody. I'm now going to recess until 8:45. Thank you for those attended this evening.

Okay, we're going to look to reconvene in just a moment here. Thank you everyone. So, we're reconvening our meeting at 8:45. Uh the next item we're turning to is item 9B, which is development permit application number T DP 10000852 and development variance permit application number DV10372 at 9989 and 9991 Fifth Street um to relax both zoning bylaw requirements and off- streetet parking and loading bylaw requirements. We did uh touch on what those were uh during the presentation uh this evening. Uh but I'll now turn to uh Miss Verhagen, our director of development services to introduce them introduce this please. Thank you. Good evening. Um as was mentioned this is an application for the form and character of the building the this fourstory multi-unit residential building. the development permit component and then there is the variance application component where there the applicant is looking for four variances to zoning by requirements that being to reduce the front yard setback which is the north side of the building as was said in the presentation they want to

also reduce the rear yard setback which is the south side they want to reduce the minimum required number of three-bedroom units with a minimum floor area of 100 square meters uh so the bylaw requires 10% of all units to be threebedroom and to meet a series of requirements, one of which is a minimum floor area of 100 square meters. Um, so in the building, they have one three-bedroom unit that meets this requirement. There is a second three-bedroom unit, but it's less than the 100 square meter threshold. And they're also looking to vary the zoning by requirement to provide an unobstructed tree planting area on site.

Uh, the application also has two variances requested to the parking the off- streetet parking and loading bylaw. one, as was indicated in the presentation, to reduce the number of spaces from 30 parking spaces to 26 and also to increase the number of small car parking spaces on the site. Um, as is mentioned in the report and in the presentation, there was a previous design proposed to council that included an OCP, an official community plan and zoning by allow amendment. In this one, that was for a five-story design. As as they said, they redesigned the building. Now, it complies with the height and stories of the OCP or and the zoning bylaw. So, those applications are no longer required and have been cancelled.

Now, we're looking at the development permit application and the variance application. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vhagen. I'll turn to councelor Duck to begin questions. Yeah, thank you, mayor, and through to staff by me. Um, to be clear, this the the application is for Fifth Street, but the actual uh address is going to be facing on to Henry. Is that correct? because that was meant by the the setback. It's a relaxation of the front setback, but that's not on fifth. That's on Henry through the mayor. That's correct. In the zoning bylaw, it says if there if you have a corner lot, so with street frontage on two sides for multif family residential like this, the longest lot line on the street is considered the front lot line for the purpose of determining setbacks. Addressing is determined later at the building permit stage when we would coordinate with emergency services to make sure that an address is chosen that works best for emergency response deliveries. Something that will make sense for the site.

Thank you. Yeah, I was just you know in terms of the permit application is on fifth and just to be clear on that setback on the north side, how close to the sidewalk will the building then be once if this was uh approved? It's hard to say exactly how close the building would be to like the hard surface of the sidewalk because the civil engineering plans are not yet set for this project. That happens later at the time of building permit. Okay. And then again, the variant there's no variance requested on the east and west sides of the building. They would exist as the as indicated in in the current lots. That's correct. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Renul next, please. Thank you, mayor. Uh during the presentation, my esteemed colleague, councelor O'Keefe, made reference to the aesthetics of the building and commented, I believe, on balconies. Yes. Uh would staff please speak to the response from the applicant with regard to the implications uh for setbacks um in that airspace if balconies were to be uh added to the project. Sure. Thank you. Through the to the through the mayor. Um, yeah, the zoning ballot does not allow balconies to project into required setbacks because the face of the building is proposed to be at the minimum setback. If they had balconies projecting out into those setback areas, that would need a variance from council or a redesign development.

Thank you. And so seemingly if this were to move to the advisory planning commission, they concurred that there may well be a a benefit from a livability standpoint, from an aesthetic standpoint to include balconies. It may well then go back to the applicant with the suggestion that that be considered including further variances. Correct. Correct. That that may happen at the advisory planning commission. That would be up to the commission's review. Thank you. Uh thank you councelor attorney councelor. Thank you, mayor. Um, somewhere in the report or in some of the documentation I read earlier, now I can't find it, of course, because I didn't make a note of it, but I did remember that there was some discussion about payment in le for the reduction in the number of parking spaces. Is is is that going to be the case here? Will the proponent be required to make payment in lie of the four parking spaces that will be reduced or that would be reduced if we approve uh that variance?

Yeah. Through the mayor on page six of the report. So page six of 38 of that report package about partway down um it says it is possible that the applicant could alternatively request a variance to the payment and lube boundary because they're not this property is not within the area where an applicant can pay in L for providing parking spaces. It's just slightly north of that boundary. So they would need a variance to change the boundary to allow them to pay in L to for parking on this site. um if they were within the area where payment in LW could happen. Um the bylaw allows payment in lie of $20,000 for each parking space that's not provided up to a maximum of 20% of the total number of required parking spaces. So in this case, they're short four parking spaces.

Um there is a typo in the report there. It says five spaces they're short, but it's actually four. So they could that is less than 20% of the required spaces. So they could pay in lie, but that would also require a variance from council to allow that because they're outside of the area. So let me get this straight. There's they're asking for a variance to reduce the number of parking spaces and if we provide that then there's no payment in le. However, they could ask for a variance to be within the boundary where parking in LEU is possible. And if we granted that variance, then they could ask for a payment in LEU instead of asking for a variance for parking. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. That the proposal is to not provide the parking. uh they have submitted a parking study conducted by walk consulting group that is outlined in the report that supports the parking plan and the the combination of parking bicycle parking and mobility scooter parking that's proposed in the development. So when parking when payment in L is permitted for parking it doesn't come to council as a variance it's just permitted in the bylaw. So this in this case this application they're not proposing to pay in LO for parking and ask for a variance for that. They're proposing to provide fewer parking spaces and offset it with other methods like the increased bicycle parking and the mobility scooter parking.

Okay. Does staff feel that that's a fair exchange? Yes. As it says in the report, I mean, we look at this site, we look at how close it is to the downtown core and the location of services and amenities close by. It's also very close to several local and regional bus routes. is along an identified bicycle route in the town's active transportation plan. So long-term goals. Yes, this is close to lots of other transportation options. So staff are supporting the parking variance request, but it is up to council ultimately. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, I have uh two, please. Uh my first question for my um delay here.

My first question was was is with regards to the uh to not provide an unobstructed uh tree planting area. uh which is required I think is uh 24 uh 24 meters squared which is about 258 square ft. If uh if if staff could try to answer this if the um application met the required setbacks uh on the front and back uh have have staff uh calculated whether or not a that sort of that that size of tree planting area could be uh provided. Thank you. Uh the issue here is the underground parking area and the extent of that excavation and and structure of the underground parking to virtually all the lot lines. So that is what's preventing them from meeting this requirement.

To meet it, they would have to pull the the underground parking area would have to be pulled in from the property line which would reduce the amount of vehicle spaces underground which would increase the parking variance request. Okay. So to to so the variance is to not provide an unobstructed plea trant tree planting area on the site. So that's in essence to accommodate the roots of that large tree in the u in the south south east corner. The tree planting area could go anywhere on the site. It's not necess it doesn't necessarily have to go near that protected tree on the adjacent property to the south. That that could be a place to put it. But the proposed design shows the underground parking area extending to all the property lines.

So while the building is set back, there is obstruction underground and that doesn't meet the zoning ballot requirement for that unobstructed area above and below where a tree could grow, the roots go down and grow up without any overhead obstructions either. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. And um uh the staff report does uh make reference to I think it was the 2018 uh development approval and then the um renewal if you will or the the second uh approval for the same development in about 2020 with 19 units that did not have underground parking that went to all the to all the boundary uh property boundaries. It would have provided the uh the tree planting area.

There was no zoning by requirement at that time for a tree planting area. That was added to the zoning bylaw in 2024 following policy direction from the new OCP in 2022 that was looking for increased green space in multif family developments like this one and all residential development. So it wasn't a requirement in 2018 or 2020 when those previous development permits were approved. And I would have to check the plans, but I think they also included underground parking. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Uh my second question is uh and I'm just reading from the report. The report indicates that moderate to heavy impacts are expected on the critical root zone of the protected Douglas fur tree on the property to the south and anticipates its removal and replacement. The property owner would be required to obtain adjacent property owner's consent and apply for a tree permit to remove the protected tree uh on the adjacent property. What if the um neighboring property owner does not give So that's not a v one of the six variances. That's

a a separate process. What if the adjacent property owner does not give consent? Then this property owner could not dig in the root zone of that protected tree. Okay. I'm going to invite the uh the applicant to uh to come to the podium to address this just that particular point. If I have a mover in seconded. So moved. Second. All in favor. Thank you. If if you could just speak to that particular point, please. Yeah. Uh I had been in touch in discussions with that strata. Uh and we had an arborist study that tree. Uh and it it is possessing presents a hazard currently due to its root instability.

Uh and we were willing to pay to take that tree down as part of all this process. Okay. Thank you for that. Uh my followup that's helpful. My my follow-up question is so that if the neighboring uh property owner does consent to the tree removal, if it's a protected tree, um what what permission is given for the removal of the tree by virtue of of it being in being affected by this development? A tree removal permit application would have to be submitted to the town's engineering department and that would be reviewed by staff and the approval of those permits goes to the director of engineering and if and if it was denied by staff then it would come to uh to it could come to council for u consideration.

Okay, that's the typical process. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to understand that process with that particular tree which is separate from the from the variances. That concludes my questions. I'll turn to councelor Duck. I'm prepared to make the recommendation. Move the recommendation. Uh if there are no other questions, go ahead. that development permit application number DP1000852 and development variance permit application number DV1000372 to relax zoning bylaw requirements for front and rear setbacks, three-bedroom units, and unobstructed tree planting area and to relax off streetet parking and the loading bylaw requirements for a number of parking spaces and percentage of small car parking spaces in order to permit the form and character of a four-story multi-unit residential development for the properties at 9989 and 9991 Fifth Street be forward to the Advisory Planning Commission for further review and comment. Second.

Moved and seconded. I'll turn to the movers first. I have nothing to add at this point. I think uh that um there's some good points raised by Stan uh by my colleagues here relative to form and character I think which uh is the basis of the advisory planning commission which they can give some feedback to. I'm a little concerned with the distance from the side the north facing which will be the front entrance to the building as to how close that will be uh to the property. It is the widest boulevard and I recognize that walked by there on a regular basis. Um but I I don't want it sort of up against the sidewalk and and be happy to hear how that looks. But otherwise, I think um uh the proponents brought forward uh a design that met our requirements and uh on the basis of our previous discussions on this. So I look forward to seeing what APC has to say about it.

Uh thank you. I'll turn to the second and then councelor Getting Councelor O'Keefe. Thank you, Mayor. Um I I have some concerns about this project. Uh there's a lot of variances. Uh, I have a strong belief that our zoning bylaws are there for a reason. Um, I'm concerned about the density of the project, which is necessitating these bylaw variances. I'm concerned about the size of some of the units, which again is necessitating these uh variance applications. I'm concerned about the lack of balconies. Uh, I'm concerned about the lack of uh green space. Um, I'm concerned about the proximity of the building uh perimeter to uh the sidewalks uh at least in those areas where the zoning uh where the uh setbacks uh are being asked to be relaxed.

Um, but notwithstanding all those concerned, uh, I would like to hear or at least see what advisory planning commission says about this. Um yeah, I I I'm concerned about the type of projects that we're seeing coming uh to council where developers and I do understand the need for financial viability for these projects, but where we really seem to be squeezing more and more building into smaller and smaller spaces. Uh where the actual spaces are are being made smaller. Um there's there's not a lot of storage there. We're we're reducing parking, etc., etc. Uh this concerns me uh because it's uh to me or to my mind anyway, it's density for the sake of density rather than uh what fits appropriately within the neighborhoods.

Uh we have other projects that give me similar concerns, but before we make any definitive recommendations on this, I would like to see what advisory planning commission says. Thank you. Thank you. I'll turn to councelor Ganette and then councelor O'Keefe. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I appreciate that there were some changes made to the fifth floor um, right off the bat and that we don't have four setback variances that there's only two. I I just want to point out though in the letter that was sent [clears throat] in April and then subsequently in June in the letter of rationale on page two, Sydney spelled with a Y. This we're not Nova Scotia or Australia and 2247 which is referenced is actually 2447.

So from my perspective, when I see a lack of attention to detail on a on a letter rationale, I get concerned about attention to detail on an actual project. Um that's just one statement. Uh looking at the requests, uh the south uh south request variance request is supportable based on the fact beside a very large driveway at 9975th Street and then most of your building on that side is also dry. So that's supportable. uh the front yard setback. You made reference in your in your package as well as during the u presentation about the distance the boulevard and the distance to the building across the street. The front yard setback and setbacks in general are sometimes usually in relation to buildings, but in terms of a front of a building, uh it's not in relation to a building across the street. It's more about the pedestrian interface and how it interacts with this with whatever sidewalk, road or whatever is there. And I think uh former counselor Falllet's here and she was a

real proponent for um the having increased green space and having that um sort of visibility that it takes your eye away from the massing of a building. So when you have a building that's closer by 5 ft, it eliminates the green space. It also it also makes the building on top of the sidewalk. So that interface with the pedestrian is kind of lost in that instance. So you want something to divert the attention or the eye of the pedestrian or whoever in the area so the building doesn't seem as big. And that's why when you see a lot of the older buildings that are so far back from the road and they can be four or five stories but they don't seem it because of all that green space. So um that one does have me a little concerned even though I appreciate um what you're trying to do there. Um the the I understand with the parking the ironic thing about the not having the large

canopy tree in a 24 square meter area is it provides for parking and then we're not having enough parking to align with climate goals. And I'm like that those sentences seem inongruous to me. So we're going to eliminate something that helps mitigate climate change but we we're going to not have enough parking to allow for climate change goals. It's it's it kind of it kind of threw me when I read it. I have to be honest. um the three-bedroom units, they don't you don't have enough to meet the qualifications in terms of size. There was a reason that's put in um and it was to try and address uh affordability issues for families. Uh three-bedroom units were sort of targeted towards that demographic who can't afford the much larger houses. So, when you're eliminating three-bedroom units, that's an opportunity gone uh in terms of u the cost abilities. um not having enough small car spaces. Um it's kind of a way of not having enough spaces. It's just another way of putting it, I guess. Um I

I do worry about um the parking variance, though. And I appreciate the ICBC study and the Watt study, but what doesn't get captured, I think, when we look at these parking studies, uh is the fact that we have a waiting list in our town for long-term parking passes from people living in buildings where there was a parking variance. granted her parking in L. Um, and I I'm familiar with somebody who had a had a bachelor unit that they they when they went to sell it took much longer because it didn't have a parking space. So, these are unintended consequences I think of that. Uh, it is a goal and you want to try and get to that goal, but you know, we hear over and over again about parking, parking, parking, and we can have a goal of that, but what is the reality? And you know, I I saw this week actually, I think on one of the local Facebook pages, somebody asking for a parking spot who just moved here because they don't have parking in their building. So, it was kind of

ironic that this variance came before us tonight. Um, and I guess my uh I do have a few concerns about, you know, there's comments in in the report about raised planters with smaller ornamental trees and they don't really offset. They're not going to make it's not going to make the same difference as a large canopy tree. Um, but I understand that you can't fit it based on what you want to do with parking. Uh, this is another one of those for me that comes to you're looking at a parking variance and that's a discussion worth having if I see a a tangible benefit for the community with this development and 30 condos.

I could argue that's not a tangible benefit for the community. Um, so you know, it's it's like giving up those parking spaces and do we inflict some kind of parking unattended unintended consequence in that area? Like, and there seems to be a fair bit of on street parking from what I've seen, but as staff mentioned in the report from the first time he came around, we shouldn't be looking to spill over onto parking on streets as a means to provide parking for development. Um, I do I'm not sure where I stand on sending it to APC because I'm not sure if some of these issues I have can be addressed there or if they will be addressed. So, I'm just going to sit back for a minute and listen to others on council talk and I'll think it over.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh, thank you, Councelor Gett, uh, Councelor O'Keefe, Councelor Duncan, and myself. Uh, thank you. So I I have concerns about this and I think I'm inclined currently to not send it to APC and I know that you know that's our process. We look at these things we send to APC but for me there's way too many variances for my level of comfort. And I think that's basically because, you know, as the developer mentioned earlier, is that they're trying to cram way too much into this space. They're trying to put in 30 units because that's, you know, what the performer says they need to move forward. And what I'm concerned about is that I don't feel it's my job on council to uh necessarily do things to make the proforma work on behalf of the developer. Um I feel like we're being lured away from what we think is important in our community in terms of tree protection, in terms of parking and a lot of other things. So

some of the issues um with this um I mentioned the li the livability the look of the building I still find it um boxy and institutional uh looking so I think the aesthetics of it lack of balconies as I mentioned um in terms of the setbacks we have setbacks for a reason and uh councelor Garnett covered some of those in terms of the front and that pedestrian interface so I'm not interested did in allowing that variance. Um, even if we get a wider sidewalk, that's just more concrete. Um, so I would like to have that green space. In regards to the rear setback, I understand the rationale for that somewhat because it's facing onto a parking lot, but we don't know how that property adjacent might get developed in the future. So, I'm not keen to kind of give up that space assuming that there's always going to be a parking lot. So, I'm not comfortable with those. In terms of the un unobstructed tree planting planting area, I understand, you know, how that might uh

impact the underground parking, but again, if there was fewer units there, then we you wouldn't need so much parking. And I don't think that the planters are a good replacement um yeah, for trees. In terms of the parking, uh I'm not in favor of parking variances. I'm not in favor of even considering payment and loo and as councelor Garnett said there's already people living in the downtown area that are scrambling for parking spaces. Um we we have uh over the last several years uh we I mean the the general we in terms of our council and previous councils provided parking variances to the point that a lot of street parking is now being used and we've recently had to put in place uh uh a parking program for residents because they can't find parking to find on the streets. And so I I can't support a parking variance um for this reason.

Um and I guess what it comes down to is when I look at variances, I'm looking at okay, what what is the community going to get out of this? Um is it an irregularly shaped lot or something that requires us to provide some flexibility? um are we getting something of significant benefit benefit from this by providing these variances such as affordable housing or that sort of thing? And I just don't see that. I mean, it's nice to get some additional uh [clears throat] living units. Um but it's more of the same of what we already have. It's not the type of housing that we really need. And so, as I said, I feel like it's a project that, you know, I sympathize with developers. I have family members who are involved in the industry at this time, and I know how challenging it is. However, I I am more inclined to support what our community has said they wanted through our OCP and our zoning bylaw about the vision that

we have for our community. and I'm not willing to give that up to make a proform work. So I will not support this going to ACP APC. Thanks. Thank you, councelor O'Keefe. I'm turning next to councelor Duncan. Yeah, thank you. I have concerns about this application as well, though I'm happy at this stage to have it go forward to APC just because I I like them as a check because of the um I guess the po the pool of experience that we put into that board because I I um like that the developer when they listen to us uh put in the scooter spaces um because I know just from my own observation that that that usually if you're looking at the senior demographic is usually the next step in terms of mobility. Um, and what I see most often parked against the back of my building where there are fewer people who actually have it would be one of the older buildings where when they did a parking study, they looked and said,

"Oh, these senior residents actually do have fewer cars and it's because they went to scooters." Um, however, the flaw in that is that the building I can think of where I work is is much older. And so the residents who live there have been there for a long time um from back when things were affordable. And and we have that same problem with like our older rental rental buildings where people were in these rental rental buildings or in smaller units because they had lower incomes. And part of having lower income means having fewer cars. Um the seniors who are now be moving into Sydney have much higher incomes and therefore always have more cars. Two seniors, two cars, they don't give them up. Um and so when we have a newer building, I have now just seen that that does not follow that m that uh that pattern of multifamily residences being therefore um you know having fewer vehicles. They they and they have very large vehicles.

That's the other thing. Um they certainly don't go for smaller ones. Um so hearing from people who are who are in the industry as well who are on APC about whether my perception of of how that is how Sydney being a sync population [gasps] for people bringing in uh a certain retirement lifestyle eskeews what we can do here. Um, and when we compare to other cities with more balanced demographics, when we look at commuters who lived in such a small, compact, walkable area in another city, absolutely the people who are living downtown next directly adjacent to the workplace would be walking there. Not here in [snorts] Sydney because they're not working. Um, and our population that works, uh, they're still not going to be able to afford that condo. [gasps] Uh so you know again it's it's who are we building for? Um I'm concerned about the lack of balconies as well. uh and the the lack of tree planting because of the heating I think uh we've seen as buildings get larger and mass

and I think of having another heat wave and not having those street trees on this building and not having the articulation and the shading of balconies or the access to you know large sliding doors uh could really really be a problem. Um, I recognize that dimmin, you know, having fewer cars would certainly be better for our climate goals, but I don't think we're we've gone so far past the idea of avoidance that now it's going to be mitigating actually the heat in there. And so, uh, for that reason, I I have a genuine concern that isn't just about the uh, aesthetics of the building, but rather the livability of of what it what it might even be. Um, I' I'd like to have it kind of be kicked around. Uh, I was concerned to hear that Moto now requires their cars have charging infrastructure. I I guess they're trying to make their fleet electric or hybrid, but that's definitely going to be a bigger problem if if this is something we want. Um, and so I'd like to uh

give the proponent time to talk to our staff and and hear from and APC about about that. Uh, I'd like to have memberships. Um but I am concerned about that this is brought up for for us going forward about how we can continue to support uh car share as part of our transportation demand that um that we have proponents do. So hopefully uh that would give us more opportunity to do that. Um, but yeah, if if I'm off base about about the demand that Sydney might have for for fewer parking or smaller smaller car spaces, then uh maybe ABC will know or or they'd know how to to facilitate, you know, the concerns I have about about heating and and shading um without balconies. That would be good. But but at this point, I do feel I do feel bad for the developer. I I know they didn't drive these land prices up by themselves.

I Everybody who's ever bought or sold a house in the past 20 years had a big finger in that pie. So, uh I dislike making this, you know, the developers kind of wear that consequence over and over again. But, um it is what it is. So, happy to see APC weigh in. Thank you, councelor Duncan. I'll turn to councelor. Thank you, mayor. I'll support this going to APC. Um, you know, it's been a vacant lot for a long time. Um, you know, since 2018, we've seen proposals here that that haven't worked. Um, we sent this back to the applicant uh in August of last year and frankly they brought back something that has evolved and has um improved in my opinion although um you know room for some continued um adjustment and and I I think the applicant was receptive to the uh the concept of uh looking further at what could be improved in the project. And so I see no uh reason not to send this to APC as councelor Duncan said to look to

their expertise to see if there's some further recommendations that can uh be made to improve the project further. So I'll support this. Thank you. Thank you councelor and thank you colleagues for all speaking on this. Um uh I'm not going to support this uh going to APC. Um uh and my rationale is is with regards to not just the number of variances but um but the nature of the variances and the rationale that the proponent has provided um in their information to council and on on slide three of uh tonight's presentation which is in our package and it says requesting front and rear setback variances required to achieve the permitted density of 2.0 zero far over four stories. The base farm 7 and please correct me if I'm wrong stuff is 1.3.

Um so bonus density kicks in uh once you go above far of 1.3 and uh the maximum we allow is is 2.0. And so I can appreciate that uh the applicant wishes to uh take advantage of bonus density but in trying to maximize the bonus density it is creating a series of setbacks um that I think are unreasonable and in particular to begin with is the front and rear setback. uh there's made some reference made to perhaps the rear setback, the south setback is is more reasonable because there's a there's a a larger parking lot there at the moment. Well, that property could be redeveloped at see at at some point and and it it's you know, then it's not uh in that situation. Um but really what it does is um sorry the applicant made reference in the um in their letter of rationale to our previous zoning bylaw requiring a minimum of um 4.5 front and 5.5 rear setback in the RM7 zone but the set as was indicated in the staff report and colleague has already made reference to

it uh we went through a a lengthy engagement process with the community during the OC uh 22 to 2022 OCP review um and increase the setbacks to counter the perceived lack of open space and green space uh in new developments in our community. Um and that was very for me that was very significant based on what I heard in the community and I think it was it was uh it was a concern. So we're we're the the first two variances the the the front and the rear setback are flying in the face of that in itself. And if we provide variances to maximize the bonus density um we're creating a we're setting a dangerous precedent. Um and let's let's remember that the provincial uh you know we we we operate as as a creature of the provincial government.

variances. The variance process is allowed um for two reasons. If strictly following uh the zoning bylaw or related bylaw such as the off- streetet parking bylaw creates or causes an undue hardship because of unique property constraints like lot shape or topography, a challenge for example like a like a a steep slope or something like that. Um that's what that's what the variance process was was was created for was for unique circumstance. This property is not a unique circumstance. Um and um uh the other reason is is what is the benefit to the community? And yes, we uh want housing units. We're going to come to the housing target report uh later this evening, I hope.

And uh uh and that housing report um in the numbers provided by staff, we have approximately apart from from actually having net new 119 sorry either 109 or 119 net new uh uh housing units in the last two years. We have approximately 650 in the process that have either uh received um their development approval, have got their building permits or are under construction awaiting their occupancy permits. So yes, we have a housing need, but uh over the last two terms um the councils have been moving forward on this and our OCP has set us up for success and here we are um looking to give variances as a as a as a precedent. And quite frankly, it's it's it's trying to get to 30 units. uh that creates the request uh helps create the request for uh reducing the number of three-bedroom units and and creates the parking variances, the both the number of spaces and and going to the number of small car spaces. So while I always appreciate APC's comment uh uh um

recommendations and considerations back to council, the starting point for me is not acceptable based on the rationale that the that the proponent has provided for uh for their variances and you know it mentions in more than one place uh you know regarding and and it was an answer to a question tonight in terms of the number of 30 units. Yes, this this uh this is important for financial viability. Financial viability is not the purview of council. We don't receive proformers. We're not asking to receive proformas. We're we're working with our official community plan, our zoning bylaws, and our related bylaws to uh to create um a range of housing types uh to to uh for for the needs of our uh for the needs of our community and that are in keeping in character uh with the specific uh neighborhoods. It it's a side comment to say that I'm not happy uh or I'm not uh uh I I don't think the um the forming character uh I I think

could be improved. And uh one is is while examples three examples were given of buildings with balconies and not just balconies but articulation. Uh there aren't balconies and there there aren't there isn'tic articulation. And we've heard based on a question from a colleague that we can't add balconies to this. we're just going further into the setback area. Um, so I I'm challenged with uh with this um and um uh won't support it going to APC, but we'll be respectful of council if the balance do that because it will come back to us for further uh further uh due consideration. I'll leave my remarks there. We've all spoken once. Does anyone wish to speak for a second time with something new? Councelor Novik, please.

Thank you, Mayor. Um in my initial comments I suggested that I was not happy with the variances requested and uh my comments were echoed by most of my colleagues or I shouldn't say most but certainly a substantial number of my colleagues. Uh however, I did say that I wanted to see it go to APC to see what they would say, but having heard uh my colleagues speak with perhaps uh even more clarity than than I did, um I'm not convinced that sending this now to APC will uh will change things substantially and may simply delay the inevitable and perhaps uh we're we're not doing the developer a favor by dragging this out and sending it to APC only to reject it at some some future point. So um I will be changing um my vote and uh not supporting this as it goes forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers for a second time? Not seeing any. I'll call the question those in favor. Thank you. opposed. Councelor Novik, Councelor O'Keefe, myself, and councelor Garnetta proposed the motion is defeated. Uh council, uh I I think and I'll I'm going to turn to staff for some uh for some direction here. Uh while we've defeated the motion, we haven't given direction to the applicant. Um if we leave it as it stands, then the application would be closed and the applicant would have to reapply. But we could give as we did at the previous meeting, we gave direction to the proponent to to remove the five uh consider removing the fifth story and addressing uh the setbacks. U and we have it come forward. Um council could consider giving direction uh for the for the applicant to uh to consider specifics which would keep the application open and allow them to return at a at a later date. I'm I'm seeing nods from staff. Thank you.

Uh so council colleagues, does anyone wish to uh to entertain a motion? Um councelor O'Keefe, I'll try. I I guess what I would move is that the developer re revise the uh development in accordance with the requirements in our zoning bylaw. Okay. Could I could I propose a friendly amendment? Sorry. Um seek to further address um the variances and then finish with what you said. Okay. Could you sorry did you capture something of what councelor O'Keefe said and then what I was attempting to insert I did um that the developer revised the development to seek to further address in accordance with the requirements in the zoning bylaw. It's not quite right, but is there a better way that you would like to word that or sorry, the first part word your wording is that the developer revise the development.

Yes, thank you. to uh further address variances and then finishing with the the last part in in accordance with our zoning bylaw. Well, zoning and parking, right? Yes. Sorry. and parking. If you could just read it back. Um, M. Martin, one more time, please. That the developer revise the development to further address variances in accordance with the zoning bylaw and parking requirements. Moved by councelor O'Keefe. I'll second. Second. Is there any discussion? I'll look to call a question. Those in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um uh we are now turning to item 8A which was moved after 9B. Uh and this is by line number 2317, the zoning amendment uh number five for 99723rd Street to reszone the eastern portion of the property from RM6R to RM7 to allow the development of a four-story multi-unit residential building containing a total of 75 apartment dwelling units. Uh the recommendation we have there isn't there is not an introduction from staff on this. This has come to council a number of times already. Uh we can proceed uh with three separate motions giving readings if we

so wish unless there are any questions for staff. Councel. No, I'll move first reading. Second. Uh those in favor? Opposed? Councelor Novik is opposed. The motion carries. I'll move second reading. Second. Moved in second. I'll turn to the movers. Yeah. Thank you. this this application. I know um we always have people from the community come forward about this one every time some aspect of it comes forward and it comes in a lot of pieces. Um this one I feel is probably the least controversial of the pieces um that have to do with this application simply because of the timing um and that this was part of an application that came forward during changes to our OCP. That means that part of the site was changed in zoning um after this proponent had purchased it and now they have a lot that has two different zonings on it.

And as they said, they do intend to do what the RM6R zone is, which is have purpose-built rental. Um however, again, the financial viability comes up and it it does keep coming onto our plate. Uh RM7 was what what they had for for their their height and their density. And so to make this actually a proposal that delivers the two things that we wanted for this combined site um on one big site, we need to have it have it fit this this one zoning. And so uh I'm I'm I'm okay with having it move forward. I know that there are potential objections and that the reason we changed this to RM6R zoning was that if this site were to be sold, we did just have an application come forward that has been sold because it could not be viable a couple of times. Um, and so that would be the risk is that we would reszone this to RM7 and then in the future they would sell it or they would restratify it and it would no longer be the

purpose-built rental we needed or had wanted, you know, at the time. Um, and while recognizing that is a risk, I I'm willing to have this go just because this particular developer, um, they do build purpose bill rental and they do continue to be managers of that. And so I feel of developers that might come forward, these are the least likely to feel incentivized to to sell it because they couldn't make the project work. Um, and that if I can't make them work financially viable, I know I'm not supposed to think about it. um that I will end up with a vacant lot in much the same way we've had on Fifth Street all this time and that the next developer will be under no obligation to say they wanted RM6 and they're going to apply for RM7 and maybe say well you couldn't get somebody to build that here. The only people who could have built a purpose-built rental and made it work couldn't make it work because you wouldn't change the zoning. Um, and so this this is what I'm I'm thinking about

and when I when I make this decision, um, it's so hard to see the future. [laughter] Um, the risk I would see from from down zoning the site because that would be the alternative is to down zone RM7 to make it match RM6R on the other side. um is that that is part of part of my job as a counselor and on the town is um to have an economic vibrancy. I mean that's part of what we have in the OCP and we knew it was a risk when we were doing the RCMP to have sites that were going to RM6 which is essentially a down zoning. we were limiting what could be built on the site to a very specific form and that was that was risky and we took that risk because we felt in a housing crisis it was necessary. Um and now we've just told another developer that we don't need the housing that bad so we're willing to risk them not being viable. It it makes me worried about the message and the consistency that we do

send our developers when we're trying to say build in Sydney. This is going to be a good place to build. Um, one of the things we have in a a future uh report further on our agenda is about when we're talking to the province about um showing what we are doing to make it faster to build housing and therefore more affordable from the sense of permitting is showing that we're making it uh we're you know removing the red tape. And this would be to move in another direction where we're we're not allowing this consistency where we're changing the rules on a developer midstream um during our process is going in the opposite direction from that which we promised the province again in the pursuit of trying to to to build um purpose-built rental. And so while I understand many in the community are simply averse to anything this developer has asked for um and we will talk about you know in future applications what again parts of this building and and and parts that people are not happy with. I think this is something that we can do right now to make sure that though a

project will go forward on this site, it will be one that meets our criteria and is not going to um be further discouraging to what we have are our applicants who have been willing to work with us up to this point. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. I'll turn to council to a seconder and then councelor Gette. Nothing further. Uh councelor Gette. Thank you, mayor. I I didn't expect that [laughter] my thoughts. Thank you. Um so, um first of all, I just want to acknowledge what the speaker said during public participation. I went by the property on Saturday and the sign was phased down and that's concerning because that had been brought up in the past and um it is a part of the process and right before making a decision that information should always be there for the public.

That's why we have it in place. Um that aside, I I I made up a nice table for comparison. I just because I wanted to speak to some of the concerns that residents at 2447 and 99423 2447 Henry had had mentioned during this lengthy process and I think it's important to note that RM6-R as it currently is zoned would put that building u 5 ft closer if it was it was built it permits permits a 3 m setback as opposed to the 4 and a half under RM7 and what is being proposed. So the building would be closer to uh the Henry or the one on third. um one story of less uh and I think 9 ft less in height.

Um so whether or not the shading would be an issue, I'm not sure. Uh the privacy could be worse potentially. Um I I do agree with the um letter writer about the um the shadow study uh having gone out there myself and it didn't align with what I saw. So that was a little concerning to me. I didn't go for all of them, but I was there at a time of the day and and the month when it should have lined up and it didn't. Um, and so certainly they're not they're not required to provide a shadow study, which is great that they did it, but I would I would prefer it to align with what I actually saw with my own eyes.

Um, and as far as a lot of the concerns around density, height, and cars, and things that have been brought up by particularly the residents at 2447 Henry, I am I did hearken back to I wasn't on council at the time, but I was coming to meetings when that building came forward. And as a as a delivery agent with Canada Post over the years, I deliver to the previous uh iteration of that building. And so I think it's important for context for the people who live there that a lot of the concerns you're expressing around what would be what is being proposed were also expressed about your building by neighboring residents. So it just I'm not saying other than that there is that context to to put into place. Um and so what I what I did was I looked at um what is the benefit the zoning bylaw amendment is giving the developer or the proponent. They're gaining 9 ft in height based on what they're proposing.

Uh one extra story and a resulting increase in density and staff has mentioned before in the September report and the one we had recently that um under policy DV013 amenity contributions it was just over just under $510,000 if it went by that particular method. They're asking for a base zoning of um 1.3 from the RM7 which is just under 285. So that that uh for presents a saving of just under $226,000 for the proponent based on staff numbers. Um so there's that benefit as well. Um and then I tried to compare that about what the benefit was for the community in terms of reszoning it. 75 market rental units indicated in perpetuity. If in fact that happens like we we improve it, they could be sold. Who knows what happens in the future? Things could change. Um, it does help with the provincial housing target. It meets housing needs assessments for rentals, but it doesn't impact the greatest need we have, which is below market or near market rentals. And of course, on this

particular site, we lost um 20 below market rentals or thereabouts. Um, and then the house on the other side. But, um, so the questions I asked myself is, is this enough? Is this enough of a benefit for the community to to grant the zoning bylaw amendment? Um, are we compromising more? Um, you know, could we have had worked could they have worked with staff to something like the Oranza with, you know, a permissive tax exemption exchange for affordability? Um, could there have been consideration of a parking variance? We did talked about that with the other one to allow for site layout changes to allow for the tree protections to happen. Um, this initially was proposed as a condominium building and I I think it was more the economic conditions that switched it to rental. uh the condom market wasn't doing as well and the pro and federal government was starting to add u you know benefits in terms of GST removal for purpose bill rentals. So um those are thoughts that I I have in this particular vein um and questions I was

asking myself in terms of the overall um cuz I'm trying to look at what is the benefit of the community because zoning by amendments are way we can do things for the community and get benefits that are tangible. Um I'll leave my comments there. I do have more to make in a second time speaking but I want to seed the forward to have others have an opportunity. Thank you mayor. Thank you councelor um Garnett. I have councelor Duncan next. Oh sorry councelor doctor. Thank you mayor. If I may a question through to staff. Um there were a number of questions raised in um public participation and through the letters.

Um does the zoning change dispense with some of those questions or or do they are they still valid? So, you know, things like uh third street access, um underground parking lot, which I think comes in the building permit aspect of it. So, the change in the zoning doesn't really impact those questions that people have asked uh recently through the mayor to councelor Duck. Um, so council passed a resolution back in April. I can't recall the exact date, directing staff to prepare a bylaw to reszone the property, which is what's here tonight. The part on the same night, council's resolution also directed us to prepare the variance mail out, which would go out after tonight if this bylaw gets three readings. They part of that resolution also said that if the zoning and variance are approved then the development permit is to come forward for consideration of approval.

Then there was also part of council's resolution that put all the conditions on the development permit if it were to be approved. So the that includes the removal of the Montterrey Cypress tree includes the the general form and character of the development is that development permit. So council could have those discussions at a later date when that comes back for final approval. I mean, it's it's been discussed at council several times. I'm not sure if Mr. Edwards like to speak to that, too. Mr. Edwards, I I don't have anything to add. Thanks. Thank you, staff. And yeah, that was my understanding, too, is that these questions are still outstanding um regardless of how it's zoned, but uh equally as my colleagues have expressed, I um still have some concern about that change. Thank you. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you. And if it's helpful, I think um one of the things Miss Bhaggins indicated is that in considering the zoning uh amendment application and giving readings and proceeding with that, we're not approving the development. We're approving we we're considering approving the zoning. If we do approve the zoning, then at an at a future meeting, it will come back for development approval. And so we could approve theoretically we could approve the the zoning and not approve the development. Just for clarification on my speaking list I have councelor um Novc next please. Thank you mayor. Um, I can't recall uh seeing uh development come to the uh come to council with over 220 pages of public submissions, the great majority of which are in opposition to the development for one reason or another. The uh the cypress trees are one. Uh the traffic studies are another uh some of the variances are also being discussed.

Um concerns about uh traffic in the area. Sorry, councelor Novik, I will allow you to continue, but but we are considering the zoning. Yes, I get that. Um, but th this is one of the reasons that I'm I'm opposed to uh allowing this zoning to go forward. Um, I I would rather see the development be a little more in keeping with what would be acceptable to the community at large. I in fact I've been approached by more people on this development than anything else as a counselor here. People just randomly come to me and talk about this development as though it's uh as though it's something terrible. Now I I I do have concerns. I I sympathize with the the developer. I I I know they're doing the best they can under the circumstances, but perhaps there is work that could be done that would make this more acceptable to the community. And I don't see the point in waiting till it comes to reviewing the actual development permit, the development variances.

Um, if we can send this back to the drawing board at this point in time. Thank you. Sorry, I just just based on your last statement, I'm just processing that and and perhaps turn to staff. If we do not approve the resoning, then all of the applications would cease. Sorry. If the zoning amendment is like not approving the bylaw and then speaking candidly, then that would show that the zoning amendment has failed. Council may want to make a clear resolution that the zoning application is denied. But it typically if the bylaw the zoning the sorry zoning bylaw amendment if it doesn't get the readings that it would need to get if those fail then the zoning application is done. The development permit hinges on the zoning application being approved. So then yes that would also be cancelled or be denied extinguished. Okay thank you. Uh I have next councelor Keefe please.

Uh thank you. um had um reservations about this development from the beginning for a number of reasons and I recognize that there's various stages to this. There's the resoning, the development permit, and the variances. But it seems to me it's, you know, at this point at with the the uh reasonzoning that we have some some leverage, it seems to um look look for something different. Um, you know, when this first came to us, staff's recommendation at the time and council ended up agreeing that this go back to the developer for redesign and to come up with something where we could accommodate um sort out something with the the the cypress trees and the uh the cherry trees. And after several weeks, they came back and they said, "We're going to stick with what we originally planned."

And part of that was because there were other options, but they weren't financially viable. So there was, it seemed to me, again, this is a situation where I feel like we're being lured away from things that we think are important because of developers are having a difficult time. um getting their perform performance to match up. I realize there's I know maybe the trees are part of the DP thing. Um and there's been some information uh potentially about how the trees might be handled, but I'm not I'm not feeling confident that the measures that are have been proposed are sufficient to to address that. So my inclination at at this point is to uh not support the resoning. Thank you.

Um thank you councelor Keefe. So everyone has spoken. Sir thank you mayor. Um, I declined to Oh, right. to comment. Uh, please go ahead earlier. Um, because I I I don't think I have anything further to add to what councelor Duncan said, frankly. Uh, but now that you know, staff have quite clarified that if this uh zoning amendment doesn't proceed and we don't align the lots in RM7 that essentially this this comes to a halt, then I don't think that's the healthiest uh place to leave the the process. Um we we recognize that there have been concerns expressed you know throughout the process not just by the community but uh council. Uh I think there are opportunities uh in the process yet to come to look to make this project uh more aligned and more in keeping with what we had hoped to see as opposed to see it you know come to a halt this evening. I don't think it sends the right message to the community to the developer and perhaps I misspoken

because I see Miss Hagen raising her hand. Mr. Hagen. Yep. Sure. Thank you. Um, no, Councelor Printel, I don't think you've misspoken, but I wanted to correct something that I said before. I think if the bylaw amendment that's being considered right now does not pass and fails, then that would effectively cancel the zoning amendment component. But it would help for council to be clear on the development permit and variance and make a follow-up resolution either to deny those applications or to direct the applicant in some way to redesign. So, that would be for council to decide what to do. Just to be clear about those other two applications.

No, that's helpful. Thank you, Miss Brahagen. I will turn back. But but um uh that could occur at a at a subsequent meeting. I mean, it could occur tonight, but I to the mayor, I think it if it happens, it probably should occur tonight, and I'll defer to Mr. Edwards. Yeah. Uh thank you, mayor. And I agree um with the director that it should occur tonight. There is there are multiple motions on the books as council unanimously unanimously agreeing to on from April 13th that specified um all sorts of conditions around the development permit itself. And so from the developer perspective, it would look and feel as if the development was advancing a as it was currently uh being contemplated. And so if council is uh changing their mind, which is within your purview to do, then it would be most beneficial to be clear about the direction you'd like to see the developer go. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. That's helpful.

Council until you had the floor. Um, no, thank you. Staff have confirmed my understanding essentially in terms of where we're at in the process and there's more to come. I appreciate the comments that it might be an opportunity, you know, to send a message tonight. Uh, I'm not suggesting that ship has has sailed, but I'm I think it does make sense to align these two lots to RM7 for this development opportunity or frankly for future opportunities in this location. Uh, I'll yield my comments there. Uh, thank you. And I'd like to to to pick up on the latter part of of what council touched on, and that is um uh approve whether whether or not to approve this RM7 uh zoning request uh which aligns with the um with the west side of the west side of the property.

Um and my question through to staff is that if we do go ahead and provide and and were to approve the zoning or take the next step tonight, it would have to come back for final approval. But um if we were to uh to conclude um uh the resoning application uh but then subsequently um we decided not to move forward with the development permit for whatever reason. uh that would leave the property reszoneed to RM7. And my question through to staff is does that limit in in terms of if this property owner sells the property, does does that limit our ability um uh through a future development application in terms of um uh not having another not having to go through a resoning and and all the processes that occur uh when a resoning occurs which which is which is which can be considered a downside for uh for the town or for council.

Yes. Um if the property if council goes through with the zoning bylaw amendment and reszones the east half from RM6R to RM7 to make it all RM7 then that zoning would be in place. The development permit and variance permit may or may not get approved. If they do not get approved then the zoning would be in place. It wouldn't go away. It wouldn't revert back. So any conditions of zoning that are put in the bylaw, like bylaw number 2317 has a few conditions that would go into the text of the zoning bylaw and those would be in place um before development could be approved. So, anybody coming along to build on that site would look at those conditions and think, can I build something that fits these conditions or would they then be applying to council to change those conditions because they were for a development permit that didn't get approved? So, I they may well come and ask for different conditions of zoning to be met before issuance of building permit. There's a few a few things there.

Okay. I haven't councelor duck. I I just have some further from your point of order. Yes. We're now 5 to 10 and we have a number of items left on the agenda. We have to put a motion forward to extend. I'll take that as a mover. Second and seconded. Uh those in favor? Thank you. Opposed. Uh the motion carries. Um sorry, I have to gain my my train of thought again. Um is this an option an option for council? that is I'm hear I I'm hearing from some colleagues concern over the development permit application uh and potentially not uh wishing to move forward with the resoning application uh which would force us in a position would would um afford the opportunity to provide the proponent with uh new direction in terms of what to uh to address in the in the DP if we where to table the motion. So if if there are if there are members of council who have concerns over approving

uh the resoning when they may not be supportive of the DP when it comes back. We could table the uh zoning application and we could pass a resolution uh requesting the prop proponent address what our concerns are with regards to the development permit. If they were so addressed uh to council satisfaction, then we could proceed. We could lift uh uh the zoning um zoning application and and um make a determination on that. I'm just I've just come up with this at the moment. So I will give staff a moment to uh consider it to to the mayor. Um are you just to confirm the option that you presented are you thinking that the bylaw readings could be tabled and come back to later?

Well the tables within the same meeting refers to a future meeting. So it would be a referral to a future meeting uh to allow consideration of the development permit. Council made a resolution in April with a number of conditions on the development permit and the form and character that went to APC. So I'm not sure if that ties you to that development permit or if more revisions could be directed from council. I'm not sure Mr. Edwards if you want to comment on that. Okay. This is this is procedurally new ground uh certainly for me. Um, so I appreciate staff u staff's considerations and input. Yeah, I don't have any additional comments on that.

Okay, thank you. Councelor Duck, did you wish to comment on this particular aspect? Yes, please. Thank you, Mayor. Um my concern here is if we don't move on this resoning, we've essentially told the developer that um we don't accept what he wants to do on this unit. And I think we have to give the latitude of the reszoning to allow the development to proceed. We can still, as you've indicated, um make changes to that development and ultimately to the building permit. um if if the zone is there to adapt to what the developer wants to do. If we say no to this as as staff indicated, we better give direction as to what they do with the current tube zoned property um in the future. So they're that they're left with an RM6 and an RM7 um lots that they have to now determine what they do with in development. So their request for reszoning allows them to proceed and us to comment further on any further developments. Without that reszoning, they're left with two separate zones and

have to figure out what they do with those properties. No, thank you for that. I will come back to you, but I'm I'm going to turn to staff. Um, and so perhaps if I could ask see clar further clarification in terms of if we proceed with the if if the res resoning readings were given approval this evening and apart from it coming back to be approved at a future meeting, what would be the next step with regards to the DP and the variances? I know reference has been made to council's previous motion on the DP, but what what is the next step with regards to the DP and the variances?

So the next step would be that so if again if the bylaw got three readings tonight then we would send the bylaw to Ministry of Transportation and Transit for approval because the properties within the specified radius from the intersection of Beacon Avenue and Highway 17. It needs approval by the province by MOTT. It would come back if they approve it and then the bylaw would come back to council for adoption. If council adopts the bylaw then that zoning is in place. Then council could then consider approving the development variance permit and the variances that were requested and also approving the development permit. At that time, council could request or require other changes to the development permit. Um that the bylaw would be adopted and set at that point. So if if council wanted to change any text in the bylaw, tonight would be the time to do that.

Okay. I think one of the challenges I'm I might be having and and perhaps colleagues are as well is if we if we were to uh refer the zoning bylaw to a future meeting to give direction on concerns we have with regards to the variances or DP. We don't have that before us this evening. Um, so it's difficult it's difficult to speak to that. Um, chief please. Uh, thank you. [clears throat] Uh, a question through you to staff. So um um once I'm thinking about amenity contributions and so my understanding is that they are payable at the building permit stage. Is that that's correct? Okay. So what I'm wondering is is this.

So, if we were to go ahead tonight and approve the zoning and and all the other steps that are required and then it gets reszoned to RM7 and then it comes back and we decide on the DP that yeah, we we don't like it or for whatever reason we we uh we don't approve it. So then things end there, but then the developer is left with a parcel of land that they've just received kind of like a free lift is what I'm understanding that property is now more valuable because we've reszoneed it RM7. And so am I correct in understanding that they could just say, "Okay, we'll end things here.

We've got now a property that's reszoned to RM7. we'll go sell it to somebody else and then so would we lose out on our amenity contributions. So through the mayor uh in the text of the bylaw 2317 the amenity contribution is set in the bylaw um this council made a resolution at the previous council meeting when we brought forward the financial feasibility analysis to council about this development. So item F4 in the bylaw, pay an amenity contribution based on the increase in floor area ratio from the density permitted by the multi-unit residential tier 2 RM7 zone. So that would already be happening. So that yeah, if somebody came forward to develop in the RM7 zone and they were going into the proposing a building that was in the the bonus density territory, they would be paying amenity contributions and as long as the policy is in place, we'd be getting that the town would be getting that amenity contribution whether it's from the current property owner or a different

property owner in the future. One thing to consider though is it hasn't come up so far, but the council previously had questions about securing rental tenure on the property and if that was a priority or not to be considered. Um, putting that in the text of the bylaw somehow that would commit any future property owner to also doing rental tenure whether it's this developer property owner or a different. But in terms of amenity contributions, the text is in the bylaw. the parks contribution would be required regardless of who the property owner is and the amenity contribution would also be required at the time of building permit.

So I I understand that. I guess this seems to be something that we I don't [clears throat] know if we've ever done this before, but I I know in Vancouver, for example, it's a common thing for developers to go through the the tough work of getting a property reszoneed and then when they they've done that, they've got the increase in value in the property, then they turn around and flip it to another developer. So, there's value in that. So, and when I looked at our density bonus uh policy, I see that it has to be paid on, you know, when uh well, when they want to have additional density, they paid at the building permit stage. But I guess if I was the developer, the way I look at it is okay, so they a developer buys the property from the current developer and it's already zoned RM7 and I don't see that there's a mechanism in place for us to charge them bonus density because it seems to me we I don't see

that there's an uh a a case for us to make because the property is already zoned RM7 and so do you know what I mean? Sorry, but just one little point, but if it's zoned one RM7, the base FAR is 1.3 and they can request bonus density uh up to 2.0. I'll turn to Mr. Behagen or Mr. Edwards. Yeah, just through the mayor that it is built into the text of the RM7 zone. When somebody's proposing a development that goes above the base density of 1.3 F and they want to go up to the maximum of 2.0, they make an amenity contribution commensurate with how much bonus density they're going to. So, it's built into the zone. They don't need to request a reasonzoning and they don't need to get a council resolution to do that. It's already built into the zone.

So often you'll see that on staff reports to committee of the whole or council about new development proposals saying this development is proposing this much bonus density. This would result into an amenity contribution of X that we would get at the time of building permit. Yeah. I s sorry to persist on this, but I the the the thing that's um I'm not quite understanding is that the the property is currently RM6 and so zoning R. Sorry, RM6-R. Oh, yes. Um and so uh changing the zoning from RM6R to RM7, there's a lift there so that the that property is getting upzzoned and so there's additional value to that property. And I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that if we go ahead and lift it up to RM7, um, and if we then denied the development, they could go and sell that property at a higher cost. And it seems like we've lost out on the being able to recover some of that value in that upzoning. It's very good.

Sure. Thank you. And that that's a good thing to to notice. And if you recall at one of the previous council meetings um the la the last council meeting I believe it was June 22nd with a financial feasibility report there was discussion in that report about the developers request to have the bonus density calculated from the base in the RM7 zone as opposed to what was in the R what is in the RM6R zone. So that was discussed in that staff report and council made a resolution on June 22nd to calculate the density based on the RM7 parameters instead of the RM6R. So council's already made that decision in terms of how to calculate the density and amenities. So reszoning the site to RM7 and then if this current property owner chooses to sell and a new developer, a new property owner comes along and makes a development proposal, it wouldn't make any difference for the amount of amenities because council's already decided to calculate the amenities based on the RM7 zoning, not the RM6R.

Sure. I think Mr. Nukem has something to add to. Good evening, Mr. Nukem. Thank you. Just just to note that this property was purchased as a completely zoned RM7 property under better market conditions to boot. So reszoning it back to RM7. There's no market upside because the property originally was RM7 essentially. Okay. Um I just adding on to what um director Nukem was sharing there too is that then uh when the property was purchased it was downzoned to RM6R and in half the property was remained RM7 and so effectively you know you might consider it a bit of a wash but your point is valid about it being a lift.

Um, yeah. Okay. So, I Oh, I want Sorry. Sorry, mayor. Um, and counselor. I did want to come back to the notion. I I think what I'm hearing is a bit of concern from council about reszoning the property with the fear of that perhaps the property would just then be sold and it would be up have been upzzoned. Um and uh it is entirely possible for council to add a language to the bylaw the zoning bylaw amendment that would uh require rental for this particular property in this zone. So effectively which you've brought up before councelor O'Keefe right around the RM7R right and so that [clears throat] that that is something that could be pursued to perhaps build some comfort with council. Okay. Okay.

Could I interject inter interject? Go ahead. But I I'd like to interject with a question. Okay. I I'll just try and finish the thought. Um, [clears throat] so just based on some uh discomfort with what we just kind of talked about and some of the other things that the mayor mentioned, I I'm currently feeling more inclined to to look at look at the DP first and and table um the consideration for the zoning. And that that would also give us more time perhaps to consider um alternate wording in terms of the RM5R uh that we might want to. So that's where my that's where my current thinking is.

Okay, that's RM7R. Sorry, we knew that. We we knew that. Um so my question to the staff is um uh is it our understanding from the proponent um and if we're not sure I will invite the proponent to to speak. Um is our understanding from the proponent that the intention is for this to be um rental in perpetuity? Uh yes, the applicant has indicated rental. I'm not sure they have ever indicated in perpetuity. So you may wish to ask them that yourself. If I could have a motion to invite the the proponent. So moved. Second. All in favor. Thank you. Thank you for staying with us.

Yes. Thank you, worship, members of council. Um rental in perpetuity is is fine. Um so long as it's RM7. Thank you. So, council, where I'm landing on this is um for us to proceed with uh the this reading uh the the readings and the and the process. Uh appreciating that um there isn't other advantages to being RM7 given the property was previously RM7, but what I would like to do is ask staff for uh appropriate wording uh for the rental tenure alternative. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Councelor O'Keefe, if you want to go ahead. Okay. Sure. So, I I would propose Sorry. We have a motion on the floor.

So, we're amending the motion on the floor. Um, okay. We give Yeah. That that um No, no, I'm not doing that. that uh we direct staff to rewrite the bylaw to create a new rental tenure zone with the same regulation as the RM7 zone but re restricting the tenure of housing to rentals only. Uh Miss Ragen, is there simpler wording? Um, believe count staff following your your email question about this previously, staff responded and said there's a couple different ways this could be done. The other option to what you read out, councelor O'Keefe, was that we amend the draft bylaw 2317 by adding a new item 1 FV, which would be another condition of zoning to be met before a building permit is issued that reg the property owner register restrictive covenant on title to restrict the tenure of residential units in the building to rental tenure only in perpetuity.

Now, that would have the same effect that the covenant would have to be on title and registered at land titles and would would restrict the building to rental tenure. It wouldn't be changing the zoning to something other than RM7. It would be the RM7 zone with that condition on there and lifting the covenant. So, in the future down the road, if this development got approved and built and a future property owner wanted council to lift the covenant, it would have to come back to council, I believe. Council. Yeah. So, just I'm I'm I guess I'm just wondering the the RM7R seems cleaner, I thought. Um is there is there a downside? Like what's the downside to doing the RM7R? Mr. Edwards. Um additional time process.

Okay. So, if Gotcha. If you're satisfied, councelor O'Keefe, if we could go with the wording. So, I withdraw that. And I'll move that draft bylaw number 2317 be amended by adding the following as a new item. 1F point V register a restrictive covenant on title to restrict the tenure of residential units in the building to rental tenure only in perpetuity. Second point of order. Yes. Um, just to be clear, we're on the second reading of a a bylaw we've now been just amended. So, we're returning to first reading or No, you can you do amend you amend at second reading. Thank you for the question. I'll turn to the motors.

Yeah. No, I think that that kind of fulfills the concern I had about rental uh per in perpetuity. And I understand staff's rationale about this just being a quicker process with the um Yeah. So I'm happy with that. Nothing further. Councelor Gette, I just want to be clear what we're voting on if you would and so so but we'll be coming back to the main motion after that. Sorry. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Novak. So I I have a question through you to staff or to anybody who can answer if we're adding RM6R now to the the correct we're adding an R to RM7. So we're adding an R to RM7.

No, sorry. Or or we're adding a condition. Yes. a a condition which is um going to be uh registered against title that it remain um it remain rental in perpetuity but that's now only on the east my or the west east is it it's not on the entire property the entire property the entire property is is law a plan 135 oh 135507 the legal description is in bylaw. So, it's all one piece of land. So, it doesn't it would be on the title of the land. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying, Councelor Novik. Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Any further discussion? I'll call a question on the amendment.

All in favor? That carries unanimous. Any uh any discussion on the motion as amended? We're at second reading. This is where further discussion would occur. Uh number uh third reading will just be procedural. Please councelor Grant. Uh thank you mayor. Second time speaking sort of I guess I'm lost in them all of the there's a lot going on there. Councelor O'Keefe. Um so I have to gather my thoughts here. Sorry. Um I guess my concern is that and I just want to go back to what I've written down here. At every stage September 2nd, February 23rd, APC April 7th, staff staff have recommended the proponent revise the site layout to relocate driveways to minimize impacts on protected trees and protected root zones. And twice they use the word strongly recommend. This hasn't changed throughout. So my concern and I appreciate you wanting to move RM7 and you know the zoning bylaw amendment.

My concern is around what happens later because of what happened through the meetings. So in particular the February meeting when after we in September asked for revised ideas and concepts and designs based on staff's recommendation and a proponent came back with what I would consider a very poor uh presentation on options and where I'm standing on this is that I if we approve this zoning bylaw amendment this is what we're getting I don't see I don't know just wait let me explain it's it became clear to me through the process and we will talk about development permit if it passes however this is one step that leads to that and it became clear to me throughout the entire process there's no intention of being open to any changes that's where I'm struggling um it it it I didn't see any ability or conversation about wanting to address the design guidelines and the site layout.

This is the this is the project they want to build and we can have a discussion of the development permit. And by the way, I voted for this motion because we don't allow public hearings anymore. So, I wanted the public to have a lot of time to talk about it and give us feedback. This was a my way of saying here, please, please give us some feedback. It wasn't because I supported it. So, I'm I'm stuck on the fence here because I I I feel like I we're going to move forward and and and to me, it's to what end? There there's not going to be any desire from the proponent based on everything that they've said that they're going to be willing to move these driveways to account for the Montterrey Cypus and the cherry trees. There was some conversation about moving the cherry tree or the driveway on the off of Third Street like I think it was 500 millimeters at the APC meeting or one and a half feet or something like that.

Whether or not that's going to be sufficient, I don't know. You're not going to know until the ground is dug up how how much the roots are growing to one side or the other. Um there's just been there's been a a lack of consideration given to the community comments and concerns and some of the members of council's concerns. most of them have for me have not been addressed and I've seen an unwillingness to change. So I mean if you if the rest of council wants to move this forward that's fine. I mean the rental in perpetuity is great but it doesn't replace the lost affordable units we're losing and there's been no indication that that's any even under consideration in terms of how we're going to adjust this this scenario. Um, I mean I I can't see supporting it because I have not seen that willingness. Um, and we'll have the discussion further on if this moves forward or as the council sees fit. But from my perspective, I don't see this changing. I think this is what

they that they landed on this design and layout from day one and they've not changed off it and that what was presented in February confirmed with me that that's where they stand. So, by improving approving the zoning bylaw, we're going to move forward with something that that I'm sorry, I just don't I just don't see how we're we're they sure they can they can say they're going to change things or tweak things on the margins, but I have some real concerns about what they're presenting here, and this is one step to get to that stuff. So, I'll leave my comments there. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, councelor. Mr. Edwards, please.

Uh, thank you, Mayor. I I would just like to um come back to the April 13th uh council meeting where council unanimously did outline some very clear conditions. One of them was around the Monterey Cypress and and that was that council approved the removal of one Monterey Cypress on the west side of Third Street subject to the condition that the tree not be removed until after a building permit has been issued uh for the proposed development. And so the and and there are several other conditions uh similar to that around the drive aisles for the driveways and and such. So, um, council was pretty clear with these, uh, motions in moving the project forward. And so, just I just wanted to make sure that council uh, recognized that those motions were all approved unanimously and and is part and that this is still part of the process that we're going through today. And so we're bringing the zoning bylaw back first and then the the DP itself with these conditions would be brought forward afterwards.

Thank you, Mr. Edwards. I'll turn back to councelor Gennady who had the floor. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, mayor. Just just to clarify, I and I did speak to that night that I was was not saying that this was going to I said this was not necessarily agreeing that this would move forward, but would give the opportunity. I I specified that I wanted the opportunity for the public to provide feedback. I never said I agreed to any of this specifically at that meeting. I moved it forward simply to allow the public to have provide input, but I didn't get into the details of whether or not I'd agree to at that point because I wanted the process to play out so that the public could provide feedback. And if that feedback indicated that the public was okay with it, then that's a different story, but I wanted that opportunity, not because I necessarily agree with it. I just wanted that clarification there. Thank you.

Thank you. Um I'll attorney councelor Duck and councelor O'Keefe. Yeah. Speaking on the amended motion. Yes. Reading. Um I see our decision tonight is to determine whether we want one or two zones here and that one zone will allow development to continue. The two zones I don't think does. I think that's that's some of the decisions tonight is whether we want the decision want the development in its current state to continue forward which it would do in one zone. If it returns or stays in the two zones I don't know if the developer has any interest in developing those two zones. So that's I I think that's what we're determining at what the development looks like what the building permit looks like is beyond this the we have an idea of what that looks like right now. Right now, we're just determining whether we're giving permission to move forward on that continued design and development.

Regardless of what we think or feel about it or what um people think about it, it has to be one zone for that to happen. So, I think right now it's just a matter of whether we want one zone or to leave it as two zones. Thank you. Thank you. Um Councelor Keith and Councelor Novik. Uh thank you. So, where I'm struggling here is um I I I share Councelor Garnett's concern and I you know, I hear Mr. um uh Edwards talk, you know, reviewing what we we talked about in April and and I have to confess that I have found this process pretty confusing in terms of the um of of what we've we've gone through here in the last few months. And my understanding when we discussed in April, there was things that I wasn't necessarily supportive of, but I got the impression that we just have to we're just going to move this to the next step and then we'll have another opportunity to discuss um the the DP and uh the

variances and such. And so I guess what I would what I'm concerned about now is that you know it it appears that we've already discussed the DP and we've put conditions and we've said that things are going to happen in regards to the driveway and the the Montterrey Cyprus. So I don't know that we have it doesn't seem like we have any leverage left to to say anything different at the DP stage is what I'm understanding. You know as as we were discussing the whether the the resoning I was kind of getting on board with okay well let's go ahead redo the resoning. We've got the rental tenure locked up. um that seemed to make sense. But now I have and I was doing that thinking that okay well we still have an opportunity to discuss other things at the DP stage but what I'm hearing from staff and as I I look back on the motions that we made is that that stuff has been covered already. Um

and unless we whether we have the option to revisit those things I I I don't know. um the Mterrey Cyprus, what we're doing with the cherry trees um and other elements. So, it seems like the DP has kind of been decided for us. Anyways, am I understanding that? Sorry, I asked a question earlier if the DP was would and variances would be coming back to council for final approval. That's correct. They would be. So tonight we are just looking at the zoning and the DP would be coming back and that that was part of the April decision. So um the April decision did say that uh the development permit be brought before council for consideration of approval if council adopts the zoning amendment bylaw. And so, um, but then council did go a couple of steps further and specify some criteria that would be, uh, part of the development approval process like the Monterey Cypress and such. And that was essentially giving the developer some clarity about some of

the key elements around the driveways and the trees. It is council's prerogative to reconsider those when the DP does come back and but that might that I would need to clarify this with staff, but because we have a an approved resolution from council, it may require rescending something if if council were to want to change its position on on a prior resolution. Uh but council does retain the ability to to make some of those changes. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. So, okay. So, that's helpful for me. So, knowing that we still have the option to revisit things that we said about the DP back in April, um because my concern about moving forward with the amendment is that once we do this, we don't really have much opportunity to do much else.

But what I'm understanding is we could go ahead with the zoning amendment and then when this comes back, we still have the option to perhaps revisit some of the the conditions that we had previously um talked about or made motions on on the DP. Is that it's just correct. That's correct. It takes a while for it to sink in. Sorry. Okay. I don't have a speaking list. Uh, councelor Novik. Thank you, Mayor. Uh so b so based on what I've heard we we can either drag this out by passing this bylaw and then going to talk about the the development var variances or or conditions or whatever we talked about on April 13th or we don't pass this bylaw off and process stops right here, goes back to the developer and he's got to come back to us with something new. So I'm I'm not sure that that's what I understood from M. Verhagen that if we don't pass this bylaw, the whole process stops.

So my understanding and I sought clarification earlier is that if we did not uh approve the zoning bylaw this evening, it would be advised we were advised that we should give direction with regards to the uh building permit. Sorry to the development permit or the development variance permit. Not the building the development permit. So, so from my perspective, that would shorten the process rather than passing the bylaw and then seeing the development permit or reviewing the development permit again at a future meeting and then possibly sending it back to the developer at that time with with more uh conditions or revision or you know retraction of our previous motion. So, if I could just seek to understand some something you said, if I'm interpreting it correctly, is that if we defeat if we did not pass the zoning, if we stop that application this evening, then we could pass a motion with regards to the DP that could request the developer to come back with something else, but then we'd have to go through a whole a whole new resoning process.

But it it it shortens the process because if we pass the zoning bylaw and then go back to the development permit, we're we're going to have to just drag the process out even for an even longer period of time. And that may not suit the developer if if at some point he's going to have to revise the plans anyway. Okay. I'll I'm just I'm I'm thinking about expediency here as much as anything else. We may eventually pass this uh amended bylaw at some point in time. Might make sense, but hopefully with a different uh development uh permit application with with a new or revised plan, which I think would would would benefit everybody in this process.

I mean, might mean that we stay here a little longer tonight, but then it takes it off the agenda until it gets revised. That that's how I see it. Okay. All right. Any any further speakers? Seeing none, I'll look to call the question on the amended uh zoning amendment. All in favor? Opposed? Councelor Gett is opposed and councelor Novak is opposed. The motion carries. That concludes that item. Uh third reading. I move third reading. Second. Uh second. Uh those in favor opposed. Councelor Garnett and councelor Novik are opposed. The motion carries. If we could recess for two minutes, if everybody could just stay where they are, I would just like to consult with the CEO with regards to the remainder of the agenda.

Okay, we'll reconvene now and um [clears throat] listen to this. So, I'm what I'm going to do is uh we all have the remainder of the agenda uh on pages three, four, and five. What I'm going to do is there's uh in consulting with the CEO is there's two items that we should address this evening. I want to turn next to those two items and then I will ask that all remaining business be referred to uh a future council meeting uh which would include your rising report or your um you're raising your item. So, the item that we the next item that we do need to address this evening is item 13B, the 2026 paving, concrete, curb, uh, and sidewalk uh, program contract number two, 2026 uh,-014. I'll turn to Mr. Deare uh, for an introduction, please. Good evening. I see you in both places.

A little magical today. Yes. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, this report seeks council's award for the town's 2026 paving, concrete, curb, and sidewalk program contract. Following a competitive tender process, two bids were received with Island Ashefalt Company submitting the lowest bid. Island Asheville has a proven record of satisfactory performance on previous Town of Sydney projects. The contract supports four capital projects including paving and concrete works on McDonald Park Road north of Mills Road. Uh Ocean Avenue West at Philip Brether Park, road resurfacing at Rossy Avenue, as well as some road repair work at Beacon and Rest Haven Intersection. Overall, the low bid received falls within the total budget for the flow projects. The report includes a recommendation on the award of the paving and concrete uh contract 2026014 to Island Ashvalt Company.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are there any questions? Seeing none, councelor Duck. Yeah, I'm prepared to move the recommendation that the contract for the 2026 paving, concrete, curb, and sidewalk program contract number 2026-014 be awarded to the low bidder Island Ashvault Company. Second. Have it moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you. The second item we need to do this evening is item 13D, the temporary use of Shaw kitchen centric kitchen. We have a report from Mr. Hick, our director of finance, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Beacon has been approached by a local catering company to operate out of the commercial kitchen until the end of this year. This arrangement would have the benefit of temporarily solving Beacon's food service challenges at Shaw Center.

However, the current operating agreement between Beacon and the town does not specifically permit this type of catering use and temporary relaxation of that agreement is being sought through council resolution. Staff are recommending that this be approved. Thank you, Mr. Hik. Are there any questions? Seeing none, councelor Depp, please. Yeah. I so move the recommendation that Beacon Community Services be permitted to enter into a six-month arrangement with Truffles Catering for the pres provision of food services at Shaw Center as well as the operation of a catering service. Second. We've been seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you. If I could have a motion to refer remaining business to a future of order clarification.

Yes. Could I request that 13 C as in Charlie be addressed this evening only because it's I'm assuming small I know it's a small business operator with perhaps a limited uh season. I don't know that it's fair to have that wait until uh mid August. Uh okay. If um so that is item 13 C, the request for street vending approval at 9429 Canor Road uh Wheelen Crust uh Pizza. If I could turn to uh Mr. Nukem, our director of community planning for an introduction, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh so this property has traditionally been used uh as a automobile service property primarily. Um the the uses in recent years have have been expanding toward a more retail type of uh zoning. Um longer term, I think staff see the zoning evolving more in that direction, but right now the uses are fairly limited. Uh the property owner is requesting more of a a retail um use here that the zoning doesn't currently allowed for, but staff don't really see

any issue with it. We think it's a good idea and we'll bring some uh additional services to the neighborhood. So, we support it. Uh there's some conditions that would be placed uh as per the usual street vending type of operation. uh and it would be for this year uh only. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, I'll turn to councelor. Oh, sorry, councelor. Good night. Thank you, Mayor 3 to staff. Um having communication with you earlier uh lived in the area for close to 30 years and uh don't believe this has ever been uh even approached before in terms of a mobile vendor. And typically they're these are downtown area downtown core. we have them and we give consideration to brick and mortar fin uh food service industries and establishments. Um does staff see any value in because this is new uh uh reaching out to public for for comment or even particularly Mary's just at the street the hours and day you're you're predicting here are their peak hours. So Mr. N.

Yeah, thank you. I I think the the way in which we're viewing this is that essentially it is part of this property even though it would be on the public boulevard. Um it is sort of addressed through this property and so I think u you know there is a kind of a brick and mortar component to it uh given that it's linked to this property. So we don't have any concerns and uh the amount of time that they're proposing to vend is fairly limited and would be largely for the summer. So, I think it's a good trial run uh as is. Thank you. Thank you. And if I may, one more. Um the space they've that's been indicated on here, I I totally agree. I walk by it. It's like a little cutout area. It's away from all the businesses, but there is to the very south of where they want to place an accessible parking space.

So, I don't want necessarily need to be a recommendation, but can we um seek assurance from the vendor and the uh property owner that that is not obstructed in any way during operations? We'll do. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Were any other questions? Councelor Councelor, I'm happy to move the recommendation if we're ready. Please do second. I'll read it in that the property owner of 9429 Canora Road be granted approval to operate a mobile vending trailer on Friday evenings in 2026 from 400 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the public boulevard on the west frontage of their property subject to the following conditions. One, that the property owner and vending operator meet all requirements of street vending policy DV-010.

And two, that the vending operator be oriented to vend eastward toward private property. I predict that councelor Duck will second it. What a prediction. Wow. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor? Cares unanimous. Uh, thank you. Well, we seem to have found a second wind. Uh, order. Yeah. I'm just wondering similar that we should address 9C because staff have given some direction that I don't know if it should wait a month and given the nature of the uh the proponent is um has left the meeting. Yes, he left some time ago. Yeah, he left some time ago. But I'm still saying can we not move forward on this? Uh, so I'm going to uh uh I'm going to look for a motion to uh further extend and to a specific time.

I move that we extend the meeting to 11 p.m. Second. Um, we could have discussion, but I think we'll just vote uh go with our votes. Uh, those in favor opposed. Uh, the motion carries. So, let me go back. Uh, we have until 11. So, I'm going to turn to number 10, the mayor's report, and indicate that they're the CRD board highlights uh from June the 10th. Uh, but I have nothing to highlight further. It's a verbal report, so we'll consider that matter addressed unless there are any questions. Um, uh, I'm going to turn next to the item that, uh, the councelor Duck uh, identified.

Uh remind me uh item 9 C if I could have an which is development variance permit application number DV1000394 at 2306 Beacon Avenue. Uh turn to Mr. Rhagen for an introduction please. Hello. Uh this is a variance application to vary a section of the sign bylaw which limits the size of window signs signs which are in the window area to a maximum of 50% of the window area. Uh the business in this business premises has installed signs that take up up to 100% of the window areas. There's photos attached to the staff report because the window the signage is already in place. Um the rationale is proposed by the applicant in their letter of rationale attached to the report. Um, however, due to the policies we have in the official community plan and design guidelines for the area and the reasons for those, staff do not support the variance and recommend denial. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I'll turn to questions first. Councelor Grant.

Thank um there was no no consultation from the applicant with um staff around signage before it was installed. um through the mayor. I don't recall if there was. I'd have to go back and check the file, please. And if I may, the in terms of the timeline, um staff were notified of the non-compliance on both the banner sign and the uh window signs. Um and then made a request for that to be addressed and then I'm assuming that there was a follow-up and there was still no compliance, so there was a fine issued at that point. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, councelor with a question.

Yeah, thank you. Um, and forgive me, I don't think you were referring to this specifically, but the uh the applicant in his presentation earlier during public participation made reference to Health Canada. Uh, are those guidelines in in particular that he was referring to with respect to uh the 100% window covering maybe preference from Health Canada and that's not applicable u given the town bylaw that may supersede that. Uh thank you. I can uh respond to that. So the the regulation or requirement from uh the province is that vaping product not be visible to miners. Uh some stores address that by completely covering their windows, but it's it's not the only way it can be addressed.

Product can be put in cabinets inside the store or behind the counter or something like that. Um it's just a very quick and easy way to address that requirement. Um not desirable on main streets. Obviously we're looking for window shopping environments. So thank you. Thank you. I'm happy with the recommendation. Mayor, if you're ready, please go ahead. With the recommendation that development variance permit application number DV1000394 to ret retroactively allow the window sign to cover up 100% of the window area at 2306 Beacon Avenue be denied and that the applicant be required to revise the window signage to comply with sign bylaw. Second. Have a second by councelor Duck. Alternatively movers.

U thank you. I support the staff position. Uh certainly optically uh I don't think it's ideal. Uh um and I'll spare you my comments on the product itself. Thank you, Councelor D. Um I concur and and the point being is we have other establishments on this on the same street that we uh have made the same requirement that they have to provide 50% and I think we need to stick with that and certainly I think the current signage is a bit um outlandish relative to our community. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Uh uh any further speakers? Councelor Novin. Uh thank you, mayor. I I think this is a blight on on on Beacon. Uh [clears throat] there are plenty of other methodologies uh for preventing people from viewing inside the window. There's many different types of window films that are a lot less obtrusive and uh uh would would achieve the same goals without the impact on uh on the uh streetscape.

Thank you. Thank you, councelor Garnet. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, just I just found it interesting the letter of rationale that they consulted with Island Health, but as staff indicated, they didn't consult with Sydney staff in the community. you're actually going to work with and open up a business and the onus is on the proponent to work with our staff for compliance. So, and as others have mentioned, this is this is not the look we want for our downtown. We have these rules in place for a reason. Thank you, Mayor. I thank you, councelor uh councelor Duncan. Yeah, thank you. I'll just add some comments in the off chance that the proponent goes back and watches the video at this late time. Um that uh you know there is one other business in the downtown that has not quite 100% of their business their windows covered but but most of it and the refire kitchen is right down in the main area with window films that obscure almost all of it. Um, and we do have some of some of the restaurants are also highly obscured.

And so it's they probably match the bylaw, though, so I could see why a proponent might be confused um just by looking at the existing businesses and businesses that have had other very prominent properties. I think what they may have misjudged was the color scheme. perhaps um the the product they sell is already controversial uh and the color scheme doesn't very well go with Sydney's existing kind of vibe. Um and that maybe a little more research into the way people feel about Sydney's downtown and and and the the type of public acceptance they would have to have gained would have been helpful. Um I liked their little their little octopus on the beacon thing. That was a nice touch. So, I'm hoping that they can keep some of what they did do right uh while maybe um fitting in better with what I think Sydney would find acceptable. Um perhaps looking talking to uh some of the other business owners um [clears throat] Birkens and uh uh Truth

and Alibi have done a really good job at making a very nice active storefront while still obscuring what's inside um and in a in a way that that adds to the the downtown. So hopefully they can they can kind of chat and make some friends with the other businesses and and get what they need to. Thanks. Thank you to the five who have spoken in support. I'll look to call a question. Those in favor it carries unanimous. Thank you. I think with the time remaining I would turn to item 13A. If Mr. Deare is able to speak to that item this evening that is the license of occupation CRD lands and subleass with Sydney Lawn Bowling Club.

Mr. Deare, Mr. His please. [laughter] Sorry, Mr. Mayor. I wasn't expecting to speak to this, but I certainly can introduce it. Uh, if you give me a moment, go ahead, Mr. Edwards. Uh thank you, mayor. Uh and apologies. Um our director of engineering isn't here tonight who is supposed to speak to this item. So essentially the town has a license of occupation with the capital regional district for the land behind their wastewater uh pump station. Um and then the town turns around and subleasases that land to the Sydney Lawn Bowling Association. And essentially we're looking to approve an extension of the license of occupation and the sub lease itself uh with no material changes to to either of the uh legal documents. Thank you. Are there any questions?

Seeing none, turn to councelor D. Yes. I'd like to move the recommendation that one that the license of occupation with the Capital Regional District 5-year term August 1, 2026 to July 31, 2031 or 95765th Street areas 124 and 5 be approved. and two of the sub lease for the Sydney Lawn Bowling Club 5-year term August 1, 2026 to July 31, 2031 for the 95805th Street area areas 1 2 and 5 to operate a law bowling facility be approved subject to a notice being published in the newspaper. Second. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you. Uh council. So um what I would like to do now is we have um not yet discussed item 13E, 13F, 13G, 14.1.

Um I will consider that the correspondence for information which is being received um in our meeting by virtue of being on the agenda has uh has been done. So that doesn't have to be carry forwarded. and that the notice of motion to go on camera be referred to a future meeting. So moved. Second. Uh all in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you. And a motion to adjurnn. So moved. All in favor? We are adjourned. Thank you colleagues. Uh thank you staff very much. And uh thank you to the members of public who waited us