Transcript: Regular Council - 27 Jul 2026

Okay, good evening everybody. I'd like to welcome you to the regular council meeting of July 27th, 2026. Uh calling this meeting to order. I'd like to first of all recogn recognize that we're on the traditional lands of the South Nation who have stewards of this property for millennia. Uh first order of business is approval of the agenda that the agenda for the July 27th, 2026 regular meeting of council be adopted as presented. So moved by St. Pierre, seconded by Baitman. Any discussion to the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor? All right. Which likes unanimous. Okay. Uh now we're getting into uh public and statutory hearings. Now this is going to take me a minute, so hang on. Statement you read. the chair of the public hearing. The public hearing is being convened pursuant to section 464 of the local government act in order to consider proposed short-term rental accommodations modernization zoning amendment bylaw number 947600-12026.

As this is a public hearing, any person present who believes that his or her interest in the property is affected by the proposed bylaw shall be given an opportunity to be heard on matters contained in the proposal bylaws. However, it is important that we all that all who speak at this public hearing restrict their remarks to the matters contained in the bylaw. It's it is not my responsibility as chair of this hearing to ensure that all remarks are so restricted. Those who wish to speak concerning the proposal bylaw should at the appropriate time commence your address to the council and public hearing by clearly stating your name and where you live for the record. Then you may give us a brief uh benefit of your views concerning the proposed bylaws. It should be noted that this public hearing is being recorded and wreamed live and the recording will be posted on the website. I will ask anyone who wishes to speak to keep the remarks approximately

3 minutes before yielding to another speaker. Once everybody has spoken, if you have further points you would like to make, you are welcome to continue representation. We want to hear all points from people who are believed their interest in this land and their land is respected. Members of council may if they so wish ask questions of you following your presentation. However, the main function of council members this evening is to listen to your to the views of the public. It is not a function of council and the public hearing to debate the merits of the proposed bylaw with individual citizens and this hearing is not an appropriate back and forth.

Everybody who deems his or her interest in property to be affected shall be given the opportunity to heard at this meeting. No one will be or should feel discouraged or prevent from making his or her views known. If you wish to provide a written submission to be included in the record of the public hearing, you must hand that submission to the corporate officer prior to the close of the public hearing. Once the public hearing is adjourned, council will not be able to receive any further information from the public on this matter. After the public hearing has concluded, council may without further notice give whatever effect council believes proper to the representations made at the public hearing. During the course of the public hearing, people sometimes become enthusiastic or emotional. Regardless of whether you're in favor or opposed any particular application or argument, please refrain from applause or other expressions of emotion. Restraint enables others who views may not coincide with your own to exercise their right to express their views. Enable all views to be expressed to be heard in impartial form as possible.

It's a long one, but that's the way it is. Okay. Uh so now the we'll call the public uh hearings open. So if uh and this is to do with short-term rental accommodations, modernization zoning bylaw number 94760012026. If anybody wishes to speak, they can come up now. They're in the presentation first. Sorry, my apologies. We'll do a presentation first. Okay, thank you and good evening. Um, this agenda item is related to zoning amendment via number 947, which is intended to modernize the district's zoning regulations for short-term rental accommodation. Okay. Okay. The purpose of this presentation is to provide context for the proposed amendment bylaw and briefly explain its provisions uh before council hears from the public. Uh no staff recommendation or motion is being presented as part of the public hearing.

However, council is scheduled to consider a third reading separately under item 10.1 of tonight's agenda following the close of the public hearing. On February 9th, council directed staff to prepare amendments to clarify and modernize the district's regulation of short-term rental accommodation, including alignment with the provincial short-term rental legislation. Staff then coordinated a business with business licensing and other relevant departments and presented the proposed amendments to the LUDC. On June 9th, LUDC recommended that the bylaw receive first and second reading and that council direct staff to schedule a public hearing. Then on June 22nd, council subsequently gave the bylaw first and second readings and directed staff to schedule a public hearing, which brings us to today.

Uh reasons for the bylaw update include the need to modernize terminology. Uh for example, the existing zoning bylaw uses the term vacation accommodation unit and does not contain a consolidated set of regulations for that use. This has created some uncertainty, particularly where a property contains multiple dwelling units or more than one type of visitor accommodation. The province has also recently introduced a principal residence framework for short-term rentals, which is proposed to be captured more clearly in the zoning bylaw through these amendments. Uh the proposed amendments also respond uh by creating clear definitions in a dedicated regulatory section of the zoning bylaw, which currently does not exist.

In terms of proposed terminology changes, uh vacation accommodation would be replaced with the more commonly used term short-term rental. Uh the bylaw would also replace small suite uh with detached suite uh which more clearly describes the type of dwelling being regulated. Also, new definitions for short-term rental, principal residence, and host uh would establish the foundation for administering these uses consistently. Uh the proposed short-term rental framework is intended to mirror the provincial framework uh which is based on the host principal residence. So under these amendments, a short-term rental could occur in the principal dwelling, a secondary suite or a detached suite provided the use is permitted in the applicable zone. A host could use a maximum of two dwelling units for short-term rental. However, the two units, if two units are used, one must be the host's principal residence. also clarified in the bylaw amendments uh in the case where a host principal residence is an accessory dwelling unit such as a detached suite or a secondary suite uh they may rent

out the main house on the same parcel under these provisions. So the proposed definition also changes the maximum stay uh from 30 to 90 uh consecutive days to align with the provincial legislation. And yes, one one of the more significant clarifications is that the host would not need to remain physically present on the property whenever a short-term rental is occurring. For example, a host could rent out their principal residence while tempor temporarily traveling provided the dwelling continues to be their principal residence as defined. Uh this differs from the district's previous administrative approach which uh required vacation accommodation uh to be linked to a homebased business regulations and generally interpreted as requiring the operator to reside on the premises while the business was operating.

The amendments also intend to clarify that short-term rentals and bed and breakfast are distinct accommodation uses and are not homebased businesses. Each use would be regulated through its own definitions and requirements. The amendment would also prohibit a bed and breakfast and short-term rental from operating concurrently on the same parcel. Uh the intent is to prevent the stacking of multiple commercial accommodation uses on a residential or rural residential property. Uh this separation is a zoning classification change. [snorts] The proposed amendments are intentionally limited in scope. uh they do not expand short-term rental permissions into zones where the use is not already permitted as vacation accommodation and it would not increase the number of dwelling units otherwise permitted on a parcel. The amendments would establish the land use framework uh whereas operational matters may be considered separately through business license bylaw or uh related enforcement practices such as licensing fees, inspections, complaint response and enforcement procedures.

uh properties also within the ALR uh would also remain subject to the the ALC act and the ALR use regulation uh which is more restrictive. Staff have confirmed that there are currently 107 active short-term rental business licenses and 14 active licenses for bed and breakfast. Um, following receipt of correspondence concerning an existing combined operation, uh, based on the available data, uh, staff confirmed that only one property currently is holding a license for both bed and breakfast and short-term rental. Uh, no other licensed property was identified as operating both uses concurrently. Notice of the public hearing is published twice in the local newspaper in accordance to the local government act. Um, as for the preparation of this presentation, um, as of the preparation of this presentation, two written submissions had been received, that one in support and one requesting the bylaw not proceed as drafted or that an existing combined, uh, bed and breakfast and short-term rental operation be allowed to continue.

Staff have reviewed the business license information and operating history of the identified property. And based on that review, staff confirmed the existing combined bed and breakfast and short-term rental use would be lawful non-conforming if bylaw 947 uh was adopted as drafted. However, the use could not be expanded or if discontinued for a period of 6 months. Um future use would need to comply with the zoning bylaw in effect at the time. Uh the rationale for the amendment remains to prevent new stacking of multiple commercial accommodation uses on residential and rural residential parcels. Uh and is consistent practice uh in most municipalities. That concludes my presentation. Um again, once the public hearing is closed, council will have an opportunity to consider third reading uh under item 10.1 of the agenda. Thank you.

Thank you, staff. Uh now I will call on any individual that has a concern in regards to uh this bylaw to come forward. State your name and uh community you live in.

You have to press the on button there. Uh good evening. My name is Mike Hicks and representing my wife Kathy Hicks as well. 3018 Manor Road, Souk. [clears throat] So, thank you, uh, mayor and council, counselors. Um, we have run our small homebased business for 25 years. And thank you, uh, Jade, too. We've been writing back and forth. We have, uh, run our small homebased business, uh, for 25 years on our property, 4.5 acre property in Souk. We operate a vacation rental and a threeunit B&B on our property. We have soup business licenses for both. We also are registered with the BC government for the vacation rental. So basically all our ducks are in order for 25 years.

this bylaw amendment not allowing a vacation rental and BNB on the same property and reclassifying away from homebased business will destroy our means of income. That's that's what it'll do. The district of Souk staff are bringing forth this amendment to modernize Souk's regulation on shortterm rental accommodations. As far as we can determine, Kathy and I, we are the only parcel affected in suit in all of soup and we were never consulted and the question is why are you doing this? But anyways, the bottom line is we are directly affected affected negatively and trust that you will not adopt this bylaw as written or you will grant us lawful non-conforming status. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Hicks.

Is there anybody else wish to speak on this matter? Once again, your name and uh the community you live in. Yeah. Press thing. Here we go. Yeah. Sorry. Uh Dave Saunders uh family owns property on W and Spit. I live in Machosen but I represent my family own that property and within spit for over 60 years. Um I've supplied uh our CIO uh with a email. I believe there's overlap between the two um issues respective of vacation and tourism and the redefining of uh the land use. I don't believe in any of the reports that I've seen uh that deals with fair and equitable taxation with respect to either residential, commercial or ALR. I believe some of what is proposed benefits ALR over and above what was just uh professed here by Mr. Hicks and Kathy uh their long-term existence. I've been asked to speak uh because of the fairness. Um it doesn't really affect us so much because our property is ALR, so we would benefit if we did uh have short-term rental on here, but it certainly wouldn't be fair

to those other entities. I don't believe that we've done enough homework. I also believe that there's been two members of the land use committee that have prejudiced the process and my email speaks to that. I can provide evidence to that when I've circulated that to mayor and council and that's through disclosure and whatnot. So I would just uh say maybe put the brakes on this until such time that you've fully researched the fair and equitable taxation related to the overlap with respect to what I've presented both at this council meeting and the previous. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any questions for the person speaking? Hearing none. Will anybody else wish to speak?

Hearing none, then I'm going to close the public hearing and and go on to uh regular business.

I'll move that. Thank you.

Uh, yes. The only thing I want to add to the report was just a special shout out to the artists um that um have their [clears throat] artwork displayed on the new banners hanging around town um Megan and and Kathy um have some beautiful pieces there that are now decorating our town and u just want a special thank you to them and uh the soup fine art show for um supporting their work. Thank you. Any any questions for our CEO in regards to that report? Yeah, I'll I'll throw a question out. Okay, there you go. Councelor Baitton through through you to our CEO. I note you uh have the item intersection is part. Can you give us the quick update for those who have not read the report?

Uh for sure. Uh through the deputy mayor, councelor Baitman. Uh the more update, the last uh update I am aware of is I believe they're planning on um setting up in the parks as they're leasing some of the space for us during the duration of the project. Uh they said uh late August, early September, I believe uh the tender closed and um I I know that some people may see on-point signs and some trucks around there. So the prog the project is uh progressing just a little bit of delay closing the tender but um the last we've heard is um starting in September uh there should be more noticed activity in the area.

Thank you. Any more questions for and just in terms of road closures and hours of of work you have a I think we've heard before that we're going to be sensitive. Uh yes through the uh deputy mayor council Baitman. Uh I know a bit there'll be a bit more um calm communications going out when um we know a bit more from the province on the timeline but I know I was attended a meeting with the school district as well on this subject. Of course they're concerned with cenos there and the province is assured um that there'll be communication well in advance if they ever do need to close the road they um or or divert traffic. It'll be um obviously at later on in the evening's time as well as during the school year they will have um fencing up on the site uh to ensure safe crossing for the children and parents. Uh drop off areas will be repositioned in the short term.

So um yeah, more details to come on that but but they are aware of the issues and um don't know the timelines if they do need to temporarily close the road for a certain phase of the project. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for our CEO? Hearing none, we'll proceed on to the public question and comment period. This is a time for any member of the public to come and comment about any other item that's on our agenda other than 10.1. You'll be given two minutes if you wish to come up and uh state your name and the community you live. on. Oh, Ellen Lur's uh Cenos.

Um I I want to talk to 10.3 the permiss permissive tax exemption application from from uh catalyst. Um I know that it's up for passing today. Now, I just wanted to say that uh I did talk to staff and and it wasn't uh uh necessary to to pass the pass the permissive tax exemption in order for the medical center to happen. That wasn't a caveat that was being held over our heads just for council's information because they were starting in 20 by the end of 2026. And also they're they're a development company and uh when you look at the amount [clears throat] of money this could you please not talk while our public or the amount of monies that are just a sec one I'm going to give you some more time please do not we have the person speaking here and I'm having trouble hearing it with the background talking so okay we'll continue on. Thank you Miss Lewis. So uh the amount of monies doesn't seem like a

lot lot,000 but without the permissive tax it'd be 447,000 and and uh these people are already getting tax on the commercial part in the bottom or not tax income from the commercial part in the bottom which is for the doctor's offices and uh for the other 70% of the affordable able or at at um market value. So I I I don't think we should be giving permiss giving uh tax exemption to people who are developing. We already gave them as uh councelor Haldane said that at the last meeting that we gave them a pretty expensive piece of property and we gave them a lot of um um you know parking and all kinds of exemptions that they already and I don't think we should be seeing tax exemptions especially in light of the fact that we are already paying way too many taxes and the pro people are suffering. So I think that that should be looked at more. It's not necessary to give them tax exemption. They ask for it. They'll ask for the work. Everybody asks for as

much as they can get. Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, squeeze. But we have there's a point you have to say no. And uh I also another um question I have. Miss Lures, your your uh time is up. I know, but is it very short? Yes, very short. I just want I'll give you I just want to know give you some latitude. I just want to know why the um do we know if the medical center when it's built is going to be built with medical equipment in it and is it going to be staffed? Do we have staff work? I just a question. I've never heard anybody say that it's going to be equipped with medical equipment.

Okay. Well, we'll we'll check that question in a minute. Uh I'll go to um staff if they have that answer. My understanding is uh VIHA uh will be looking after that portion of it. I don't know much more. Uh the deputy mayor uh yes that's my understanding is the staffing model hasn't been um decided yet but it will be run uh by Island Health and as far as the equipment in place again that's hasn't been determined but as far as I know like it's not set up for X-ray I know a few samples have been thrown examples have been thrown around um [clears throat] over the years and so it's not X-ray is not scheduled to move in there that's a separate entity with a separate I know they'll be reaching out to confirm if they wanted it but uh yes it would be Alan health. Sorry.

Okay. Thank you, Miss Lewis. Okay. Anybody else like this opportunity to speak? Yes. State your name and your community, please. My name's Veronica Pbertton Billing. I live in Sun River Souk. It's good to be with you. Appreciate your work. Uh I'm going to speak on two things in my two minutes. One is I just want to underscore what Mrs. Lure said about tax exemptions. I can't remember the exact uh number and I don't have it in my at my fingertips, but I seem to recall Mayor Tate speaking about every 1% like every 120,000 or maybe it's a bit more is equal to a 1% increase on the tax load of our homeowners. And so this is a serious thing. And I I don't think we to give the tax exemption there is to force pressure on the homeowners that are struggling so much. So I I don't think we should be doing that. I also think the below market uh category is very confusing a below market rent because rents have been falling in Vancouver. So it is in fact

possible for someone to offer or to have offered a below market rent last year that would be above market this year because the rents have been falling. So, it's a it's a bit of a questionable category. So, I would just say that and I'll leave that up to council. I wanted to speak principally on the ECOM. This is section 84 on the agenda, the ECOM 911 update and the projections for the increase over the next several years. And this is really concerning and I know council's concerned about it and I know everyone's concerned about it and I think we need to be looking at alternatives and I don't know what they are. I don't know if every single municipality uses this service, but it see that have exempted themselves from it. I don't know. But I I really think we need some creative I would say in the consulting out of the box thinking on this about how to you create an alternative because I just don't think

we can sustain that uh level of increase and I think we need to be pushing back and pushing back hard and being willing to not do it. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? Come on up. Same thing. Your name and the community you live in, please. Hello, my name is Patty Holm. I live in Souk. Uh we received a letter about um the application for variance and I'd like to speak to that please. Um my family uh my husband who's written a letter already that you have in your email package and myself and our other family member that share our home. We're all in agreement that we want to see this application denied and I'll outline some reasons.

So the first reason is geotechnical hazard and I know that you do have a geotechnical somewhat of a report. Um I'd just like to speak a bit more about it. So the subject property for the variance application is located at the base of a steep slope. The existing slope is about 1.5 to 1 and 8 m high. It's likely near the maximum safe angle of repose. Any undercutting of the slope toe may destabilize the UPS slope. Some adjacent properties are reported to have had related slope instability issues already. So a geotechnical hazard report addressing the uphill slope risk and required remediation to current practice standards should be provided before the uh application for variances is considered. Secondly, it's a flooding risk. The subject property is located in the identified flood plane. Ocean level rise and increased wind and wave height associated with climate change may exacerbate this issue. This development will likely require alterations to the wetted perimeter shoreline and flood protection that should be studied before considering the variance permit.

Thirdly, the foreshore and the repairarian protection and environmental impact developing within the 15 m shoreline. And just to be clear, the 15 meter corp is what is the usual standard and this is being requested to be reduced to 3.09. That is a huge difference in variance. Um so developing within the 15 meter shoreline protected area may holds. Uh you're out of time. If you got much more to go, I give I have some latitude here to give you another 30 seconds. Okay, I can take 30 seconds. Thank you. So it it will adversely affect the first nations intertital zone. Um, typically residential developments for this kind of variance are not accepted unless it's it's um like a hardship case like a fire or something like that when it's allowed to be uh rebuilt. Finally, archaeological concerns. People have lived in that area for a thousand years at least thousands of years and there should be a full archaeological study instead of just finding things when the construction is being done.

Thank you for listening. Anybody else take this opportunity? Once again, state your name, your community, and what uh item you're speaking to. Yeah, my name is Chris Rein. Uh Souk. Um I'm currently the president of the Fredmill Park Society. I'm here to discuss our recent rental changes for our user groups. Fredmill Park is a private facility owned by the community association and operated by the Fredmill Park Society. This facility currently received zero tax dollars and zero support from the municipality of souk. The new rates were decided by the Fredmill park board and not the community association. In the past two years, the community association has provided more than 100k towards various park upgrades. Any negative attention towards a community association is simply unacceptable. I do not attend community association meetings or nor have I received any direction from the community association members. The Fredmill park has historically been run by volunteers from both the Souk soccer club and the souk slow pitch societies.

Fredmill park has always charged a minimum rent on the understanding each organization was putting money away for future park upgrades. Unfortunately, the current soccer executive has no desire to collaborate and assist with park upgrades. Ju just cause constantly. Do we have that on the agenda? Uh I'm looking for it as he's speaking. He did speak a number. I was waiting to double check. Yeah. If there was course I need some clarification then I'll let him continue it. But yeah. Are you speaking to a certain item on the agenda? Is it public? No. It has to be an item on the agenda. So that's why I was trying to double check if it was either in the correspondence package or in the minutes um from the last meeting. So yeah.

Sorry. No, I was just uh so I I have to go to our CEO to see if that's okay to continue. Yeah, you got halfway through anyway. So, [laughter] uh yes, sorry. It is an item on the correspondence agenda, so it's fine. So, the item you're speaking to, sorry, the correspondence agenda item. Okay, you continue. Thank you. Thank you. Speaking for soccer, Pete McCay claimed the Fred Park Society voted on these increases without a representative from soccer being present. This is simply untrue. Souk soccer had two representatives at the vote when the rent was changed. We're at a point where our turf is on its final legs. We're hoping to get five more years. The expected cost to replace is $1 million.

The decision to increase our rental rates was not made lightly. Without support from the district of Sue, we simply have no choice. If we suddenly have no turf field in 5 years, how would the community respond? This is more than a few soccer fields. This is more than slow pitch ball fields. This is the largest public, remember, it's private property, green space in the District of Souk. When the facility isn't booked, it'll often be full. It might be people playing soccer on the turf with a different group playing football. At the same time, there are groups of people playing frisbee, baseball, or simply hanging out on the grass. Private or not, what you think of it or not, this is a public space the public uses, and we love it. The public using the facility puts wear and tear onto it. That wear and tear requires maintenance.

It's time the district pursuit steps up. It's time the district put some funds towards these facilities. Lastly, all the funds sent to Fredmill Park stay with Fred Park. No funds received from by Fred Park go to the community association. The community association provides Fredmill Park with funds. They do not take away to the community. Get off your keyboard. Step up. Volunteer. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any questions? No, I just I there any questions for the individual? Okay, thank you for your anybody else wish to speak with any other items other than 10.1. Once again, your name and your location and 6507 Water Street. Okay.

And your name again? Wilfrid Kanga. K L I N G S A T. Go ahead. I've been endeavoring to build a building on this property for two and a half years now and I've had all the variances passed and at the last committee varants were passed. Uh they brought up the point that the district said I would have to pay $107,000 for the road front. I was u I was confused by it and I sort of agreed to it, but I'm really against it and I'm hoping council will give consideration for the hardship this places on me for $107,000 added to the cost that I've incurred already. I'm about $100,000 into this thing without even a building permit.

So, I'm just asking you guys if you could just consider this to lower it down or anything would help it. Okay. Thank you. I'm sure we'll take that into consideration when we discuss that later on. Thank you. Anybody else at this time? Okay. Once again, your name, your community, and what item you're speaking. Oh, uh, Dave Mccclimman, Souk. I'm speaking on 8.3. I think it's the CEO report on Philips Road connector. That correct? So, I've I've been on that property for a long time. I've done some work on that for the District of Suit, the trail. I'm not in favor of the uh I'm only in favor of the 20 mill 20 meter rightway. I don't think we need to spend our money on an elaborate roadway. I believe we should get the uh rightway from the uh CRD now.

So, eventually we could build the road out bigger when we have the the funds to do it. So, at this time, I think it's a safe alternative to the extravagant plan that I've seen with many different engineers over 20 years. I've talked about it with them. I've walked it with them. I just think we need a two-lane road with a bike lane on one side. I think it'd be safe enough and that would meet our needs of today. And so, it' be an interimm road until we're ready to spend the money. I don't think the taxpayers are going to want to spend that much money and it's going to fail and we won't have a road.

We need a road. We've been talking about this for 30 years and it's time that we get it done. Thank you for your time. Any other speakers? Okay. Again, your name and the item you're speaking to. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. uh citizens uh staff uh Dave Saunders uh the item I'm speaking to is 10.6 six and the minutes uh also the minutes just want to speak to the minutes I've uh given an email to uh the CEO the minutes are incorrect with respect to my statements at the last meeting but more importantly um there was new information about troop road connector and I had asked what I thought was a simple question to some members of council about a 25 meter rightway and the impact to a legacy art Morris Park ballpark uh I'm speaking to you now was a former president, past president of Lanford Minor Fastball. Had three daughters in fastball, coached them for 15 years, coached many uh young ladies from Souk in fastball. So when I heard our mayor talk about generations or future

generations for the impact on a 25 meter road, I can tell you the impact on the generation right now that are using that ballpark equated to a 25 m impact is not conducive to having that park last in perpetuity. I'm concerned about future generations that use that legacy park. The impact of 25 m. You learned the impact. Staff knew about the impact and a simple question was asked. Will it impact the park? Yes, it will impact the park with respect to parking and loss of field space. That park is one of the best parks in all our entire region. Coached here for 15 years. Sports kept me from the bad side of drugs and alcohol and being on the streets. If I had not had sports in my youth, I may be different today. I've coached many women and young ladies and males in the sport of hockey and fastball. I can say very clearly that the impact of this park on the future generations will impact our youth. It's not acceptable. Please reconsider the road design. It doesn't impact that

park. Thank you. You right on time. Okay, next person. Same drill. Your name, uh, what community you live in and what item you're speaking to. Absolutely. My name is Katie Grieve. I'm also a resident of Souk and I am speaking regarding the group road bypass. Um, and specifically regarding the loss of a park at Art Morris. I grew up playing on that park. My brother did. My dad did. Um, I have spent a lot of time giving back to Souk as well. I can speak from experience that we do not have enough youth fields anywhere on this island. And there's already concerns from other leagues, be it baseball, soccer, football, as to where they can find fields based flight. Boozing a field at Art Morris is detrimental to that. It's really unnecessary. I agree with Dave that we do not need a 25 meter bypass. It's absolutely unnecessary.

Adding in a bike lane, absolutely. I can see that being very beneficial, especially with the school very close by, but anything more than that is frankly ridiculous and a misuse of funds. And that's essentially all that I have to say about that. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Please come forward again. State your name, what you're speaking to in your community. Hello, my name is Brian Banner, live in Souk. I'm speaking on item 8.3. Uh, good evening, mayor and council. I'm the vice president of Souk Minor Fastball Association. I'm here tonight because I support the throughpro connector. In fact, it's unbelievable this road still hasn't been built in more than 20 years of discussion. Souk needs another connection, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

What I don't understand is how we've gone from building a muchneeded connector road to a proposal of 25 m rightway with an estimated cost of around $50 million at the expense of one of the most important recreation facilities in our community. Art Morris Park has served the community for more than 70 years. It wasn't built by the district. It was built by volunteers, fundraising grants, local sponsors, and thousands of hours of hard work by people who wanted to give their kids a place to play. and it's owned by the Souk Community Association. What concerns me the most is we're talking about taking recreation away from the community that already already doesn't have enough. Over the past 20 years, Souk has grown dramatically. But our recreation infrastructure has not kept up. We need more ball diamonds. We need a second sheet of ice. We need more soccer fields. We need more indoor recreation, not less. Every week, Souk families leave town because we don't have enough facilities for our kids. They travel to Langford, Cwood, Victoria, and beyond just to play sports they love. That

shouldn't be a reality in a community of our size. And if we're going to lose ball diamonds, parking, and pickle ball courts, where where's the replacement plant? Where are the new facilities? How will they be funded? Those are the questions our community deserves answers to before a decision is made. I'm not asking to stop a Through Pro Connector. I'm asking to find a way to build it while protecting Art Morris Park. We shouldn't have to choose between transportation and recreation. A grow a growing community deserves both. Please don't solve one problem by creating another. Thank you. Anybody else? Once again, your name, your community, and what item, please.

Okay. Um, my name is uh Dell Gibbs and it's concerning the th road. Um, mainly the Art Morris um baseball park um Art Morris is my grandfather and at the time art worked for a man named Eric Bernard after and after his death Mr. Bernard donated that land to the ball field and is now on is now on in memory and perpetuity to Art Morris and Souk. I'm thankful for all the volunteers that have done all the hard work. Um Souk has turned out a lot of known great ball teams because of those fields. Uh the conductor road is proposed and is definitely needed to ease congestion through suit during peak times. Um the area is very sportsminded with the golf course, Souks gate park, pickle ball courts, the baseball field, plus the nearby schools of Poyet and Journey Middle. The school is classified as a connector or the road is classified as a connector road and schools the speed limit will be 30 kilometers an hour in that area. It would be beneficial to narrow the road width as a

deterrent to speeders and hopefully prevent any encroachment to the baseball park property lines. And as it is, I have two young grandsons in the area and they will becoming baseball players in the future. Um they will have a sense of pride in deeply rooted family history to see their great greatgrandfather's name um and legacy on a sign. Thank you. Please narrow the road. you. Anybody else? Again, state your name, your community, and uh what item you're speaking to. Okay. My name is Matt Banner. Speaking item 8.3. I was born and raised in Souk. My family's lived here for over 100 years. Like many of the kids raised here, I played fastball.

Some of the best memories I have are playing sports in general. As I get older, as the kids got older, we had to leave sports to play elsewhere. And Souk didn't have the leagues nor facilities to support higher levels of play with the exception of fastball. I have two active sporty sons. I don't want them or the next generation of Sug athletes to have to leave Souk to play competitive sports we love because we have no facilities left. I've been following council's discussion about the fruit road connector and I struggle with it from an industry perspective. I agree this road needs to be built. What growing community with any sort of plan doesn't have a bypass road? I'm blown away at the costs. I'm shocked at the notion we would sacrifice the softball fields my family and friends have spent thousands of hours building and maintaining and they're still in good condition. Professionally, I'm a general contractor with over 20 years of experience in road construction, underground servicing, and land development. Listen to council discussions. It seems to me there's only

a few counselors that under that that recognize this is a complex engineering project with more than one path to a safe and effective outcome performance and financially. As a contractor, I know I knew and I wanted to prove that there was a better way. In discussions with my engineering firm, Onpoint Engineers, I've had them prepare an alternative through road connector concept and construction estimate from Souk Road up Phillips to Church. The engineers confirmed there is a much better way. There also can be an interim road with two travel lanes, a center turn lane, a sidewalk, a bike lane that meets specs and transportation needs. And we can do this while protecting the sports field, neighboring properties, all within a 20 m rightway, which I will add works in every other community in Western Canada that I've worked in. The estimate that we came up with so far has come up at $15 million and will include a 25% contingency. That's a fraction of the cost being recorded recommended by the majority of mayor and council. This shows the road can be

built sooner. It meets and needs any safety requirements. It can protect recreation. It can preserve the option to build the ultimate road if and when it's ever needed, which I don't really feel that it would need to be in the community. Mr. Banner, you're just out of time. How much longer have you do you need? Two lines. Okay, go ahead. Most importantly, we'll build a road when we can afford it. Okay. Thank you. Rob Pierce, uh, 2407 Popular Sun River. I've been to a few meetings here when you guys have been talking about the Through Road Connector, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the majority of council, the mayor, and staff seems hellbent on this $50 million project. We can't afford it. Simple. Now you're talking about taking land from a recreation facility that we don't have enough of in Souk. It's ridiculous. It's It's ridiculous. It's It needs to be relooked at. We can have the road. We can have the sports facility that's already there.

It's a win-win. Stop throwing $50 million around. It's ridiculous. And no, I'm going to leave it at that. Thank you, CEO. I just wanted to make you aware I think we're very close to 20 minutes of one more speaker, please. I too want to speak to the Super Road connector. As I've spoken before, I think it's ridiculous that we're looking at building something bigger than our souk road, our highway, looking at a bypass. It's ridiculous. It's 25 m is way out of whack. And I do like what Mr. Banner proposed. And I hope that council would go back to this and look at this and and um uh say no to this $50 million question going on a on a uh referendum.

I I think it's totally insane. And uh talk to the people that live here. There's a lot of people that know. And I also had five grandsons that went through that ball field off. Sorry. So So looking at everybody else's forgot mine. That ends our public question and comment period. Thank you everybody that took the time to comment on some very tough issues that are we're facing in our community. Um I'm pretty sure council is listening and uh we'll see where it goes from there. Okay. Now we'll go to the consent agenda that the following items in the consent agenda be adopted as uh by consent 8.2 8.3 and 8.4. Is there anybody want to pull any of those? Councelor Pearson 10J through connector uh from Dave Saunders 19F zoning amendment uh bylaw 54 947 Mike and Kathy Hicks. And I'll have to ask the corporate officer through through me through the chair.

Um I'm asking for that after a public hearing has been. So this isn't this this is already here. It's in the agenda. So is it it's acceptable? It's not we're not receiving more information. It's my question. Uh through the deputy mayor to councelor Pearson. Uh that is my understanding is it's not new information. Uh it's already been included on the agenda. Just now that the public hearing is closed, council is not allowed to receive any new information. Okay. So, this is not considered I didn't want to jeopardize the public hearing. Thank you. And 22.1 uh engineering safety matter and petition uh from Miss Parks T. Parks.

Those three items, please. Thank you. Uh all right. So then all those other items. Uh council. Yeah. So I'd like to pull 8H Ella Beach behaviors Fred Brown. Okay, that's recorded. And yeah, Mr. Haldane. Sorry, Council Hold. Yes, please. Um, I would like to take out 7G and 18E. So, my understanding, it's correct me if I'm wrong, CAO, that will come up at the next meeting. Correct. Thank you. All right, with that, uh, we have a vote on all the other items. Uh, we remove those from correspondence, the 8.3 and 8.4. So, we have a motion. So, moved by councelor St. Pierre. We have a second here.

Councelor Pearson. Any discussion to the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. Uh, report of the chief and I already had that, right? 9.1. It's good. Thank you. Uh, roof replacement, Pursuit Municipal Hall. That's a staff report. Thank you very much. Um, staff went out to tender for the roof replacement for this building and some work on the siding. Uh, we received four bids. only one was a qualified bid or compliant bid I should say. The other three were not non-compli were not compliant. Um therefore with a compliant bid within budget we are proposing to award to uh Regal Roofing for 234,754.

So that's our staff report. Any questions from councel? Council Pearson. Yes. Thank you, chair. Through to the uh district engineer. Um are we changing the type of roof that we're getting? Like 234K. That sounds like a huge amount of money. What's the price per square meter or square they used to call? What I used to put or deal with through the deputy mayor to the council. Uh I can't tell you the cost because that would be proprietary information for through the bid. It is an ashalt roof which is pretty standard for a building. And this is a fairly large building to replace its roof plus and its elevation and slope and such. So that's not in my mind too unreasonable the the dollar amount.

And that is what we were looking at when we budgeted for this project in the in the 26 budget. Okay. And just one follow-up question. And how old is this? How old is our roof now? I would have to go back and double check because that predates me by quite some time, but it's probably beyond 20 years or more at least. Yeah, it's the original roof. I did it. That's my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Any other counselors wish to speak? Okay. Councelor Haldane. Yes. Thank you. Um, so when you say you we we budgeted for this, all I've seen in the report was a budget for 70 and something,000 for windows, roofing, and a bunch of other repairs. So what was budgeted for the roof in the breakdown?

I would have to go back and double check, but I believe it was close to 250K for doing the roofing. And And who came up with that? Where where do we get that number? That would be from our consultant. We hired a consultant to come up with an amount of roof or we we've sent it out to tender to get. They prepared the tender and administered it for us and part of that was preparing the uh cost estimate for doing the work. Okay. And and lastly, during u the budget deliberations this year, we talked about a lot of these uh costs and expectations and it was brought up by me and and it brought up on more than one occasion about using local contractors and local people. And in this case, we go out to BC bid. We throw it out there from June 29th to July 13th, so a two-e period. And we don't inform local people. And it's been said time and time again. We have a soup builders association that we didn't ask about any

of it. So, they had no idea that we're going out to these bids. So, it's I guess it's it's up to each person to go on BC bid anytime uh the district suit decides they're going to put something out, but not everybody has BC bid as part of their computer system. So, can't we do it in the future where we go to some local contractors and we have many roofing contractors and suggest put on here right now was done by a local roofing contractor originally. I'm not sure what process he had to go through, but the roofs lasted for the 30 years it was built in 96. So, um I would think at this point we could go to another local suit guy where people who pay local taxes here could get to work.

So, I'll be voting against this. Thank you. Mr. Mr. Miller, would you like to comment? Uh, your worship. Um, basically we have a purchasing policy within the district. We also have the provincial trade requirements through trade agreements that anything over a 100,000 in construction has to be open bid. And we also have a Supreme Court decision that basically struck down local preference um clauses that made it impossible for municipalities to do that without running the risk of lawsuits. So um we can't make anyone bid. That is a decision the biders make, but we do follow the process as set out by the province and by tender law.

Thank you Miller. and our CEO would like to comment. Uh and just one further uh comment in regards to uh local uh businesses knowing about BC bid procurement. Uh we did speak with our MLA uh Leanness and my understanding was he was planning to organize and host a session for businesses on how to uh submit bids to BC bid because it's not just souk that has this requirement to post um requests for proposals etc on BC bid. other municipalities, other levels of government as well use this system. So I believe um potentially uh MLA Lajanesh could be a resource because he was going to coordinate and offer a community session information session on how to uh procure uh or submit bids for contracts on BCB as well.

Thank you. Anybody else? Councelor Baitman. Yeah, thank you for for all this. Um a few points. I I believe a consultant was hired to look at the entirety of the municipal hall and all the work that needed to be done within this aging building. So, councelor Haldane, I think we've discussed this before as well. We've also discussed local um bids to lo to local uh suppliers and I do see that we had one uh local um local company did bid on this project and they clearly did not meet the the uh the policy uh approach to uh submission. Uh what's the word I'm looking for? you know where I'm going with that. So, and yeah, for I our house, a 1600 square foot uh residence, uh $20,000 to put a new roof on that. So, I I guess 20 What was that? 230 is not a bad 2347. Okay. 224. Okay.

Anybody else council? Okay. And hearing none, then I'll call for the motion the council award the roof replacement municipal hall project contract to regal roofing in the amount of 234,754 excluding GST. Do I have someone making that motion? Councelor St. Pierre, do I have a second? Councelor Baitman. Okay. Any discussion to the motion? So, councelor Pearson. Oh. Oh, sorry. Yeah, sorry. I should go to the movers first. So, we'll go to councelor St. Pierre. Uh so I appreciate councelor Haldane's uh points about trying to hire local people and I think that's actually what we should be doing. Uh having said that uh we are constrained by the Supreme Court and various other nonsensical rules to not do what makes more sense for our community. Um I think the work that the staff has done on essentially keeping us more or less under the proposed budget of the contractor and um getting the job done makes sense. I feel it's unfortunate we're still using ashalt when we probably should be using

metal even though it's more expensive but it lasts a hell of a lot longer doesn't burn and given that we you know have risks in that direction that would make sense to me but given that we're looking already at 234 for something that does burn I guess we're going to we're going to skip the fire smarting and go to ashvalt but having said that I think the work is good and we do need a new roof and this is what is budgeted and this is the tender process we Council Baitman. Yeah. Well, that's fine. Thank you. Hey, Council Pearson. Yeah. Well, it's it just every time we award one of these contracts and it goes out of town, it feels counterintuitive to what we're doing, what we should be doing. You know, we're trying to get traffic off the road, we've got congestion, we've got, you know, greenhouse gases, all of the things that get improved. So, there's something missing in our system of either a getting qualified contractors. You know, the economy is tough right now. Builders are out of

work or you know, it it's slowing down certainly and this is another example of where we could employ local people and do all the right things. So, something's wrong with our system in my opinion. However, anybody else? Okay, hearing from nobody else, I'll make my comments. Um, I think staff has followed the procedures as been outlined following provincial law. The other thing that wasn't mentioned is that uh if we do in in future adopt the process where we give favor favoritism to uh people that are registered in souk uh then that allows Langford to do to do the same and then uh that could cut out a lot of our souk uh contractors and our best souk contractors don't just work in souk they work in the capital region district so you also put that in jeopardy when you keep everything in house langford who keep everything in house call to keep everything in house.

The chosen keep everything in house and that limits our our contractors. We live in a capital region district and we have to uh allow our contractors to uh move just because they live here and have their office here. They do need that work in those other areas. So uh I will be supporting this motion and uh at that I will call the question. All those in favor of the motion. All those against. Okay, that's three to two. That is passed. Thank you. All right. Next is development permit in with variance PLN01930 flood plane exemption staff report. Yeah. In summary, this application is requesting a a development permit. Sorry.

Oh, sorry. Yeah. Thank you, Councelor Haldane. Yes. So, in summary, um this application is requesting a development permit, flood plane exemption, and two variances to accommodate a proposed duplex development at 6507 Water Street. Um the zoning variance proposes to reduce the 15 m setback to the sea uh to 3.09 m for the dwelling and 1.2 m from the deck. There's also an SDS uh bylaw variance proposed to exempt the applicant from required frontage improvements at building permit. Uh the flood plan exemption is proposed due to the dwelling being proposed within 15 meters of the sea and a development permit is required due to the activity taking place near the shoreline and with steep slopes on the property.

The LUDC considered this application on July 7th uh in support of the staff recommendation um which was to approve the develop permit zoning setback variance and flood plane exemption while denying the requested frontage uh improvement exemption variance. Um just one thing to note is that this item was inadvertently uh approved through the July 13th consent agenda before the required notice for the variance request had been completed. So the uh the first motion therefore rescends that approval. Um notification uh I can confirm notification has been completed and the remain motions return uh the application for council's consideration uh in accordance with the LUDC uh and mirroring the staff recommendation here today. Um so with that staff are available for questions uh and the applicant is uh also in attendance I believe still uh if there are questions directed directly for him.

Okay. Um, we can either do it with having the motion on the floor, but I think I'll u have uh uh council ask questions now. They have some for staff. Anything? Councelor St. Pier. Um, so I recall that the the cost of $17,000 for the front improvements was based on a cross-section which um think council tended to think was probably more than was necessarily needed for that particular area for water street. Uh my understanding is that uh there would be the possibility of sending Zaka staff to look at an alternative cross-section that might have a reduced cost because that would make sense and would actually reduce the cost of the applicant. I believe that although there was some appetite on the part of council to actually do so um and this will be something to refer to the applicant again when the applicant was asked if they would want a delay to consider a potentially less expensive cross-section. they would reduce the frontage costs.

Uh the response was I'd like to have this built before I die. Um or something along those lines. So I was curious at this point in time and I guess that might not be a question for staff so much for the applicant. What does the applicant actually prefer? Something more immediate get her done or more time spent to reduce the cost of frontage potentially? I hope so. Yes, you may answer. Yes, you come up to the mic. Okay, I can I can repeat and and try and explain because I think it's important that you be very clear in what's being suggested here. Right now, the only way potentially we have to reduce your frontage costs is to look at a front at a a treatment for the road, you know, with sidewalks and so on that is less than what is in presently being asked. And it doesn't make sense to quite put as much as being asked in that particular road because that's a small area. it doesn't make sense necessarily to build out that much. So, if we went back to staff and said, "We need maybe a different

alternative cross-section," chances are we could come back with something that's cheaper than $107,000, but it would take more time. And when you were previously asked if you willing to take more time, you indicated not. Can you turn his microphone on? Turn on turn the mic, please. Uh, right. No, no, on the the long stem. Bottom of the long stem. Other one. Other box. He's got off. So, so just to clarify, I sorry, I thought I was confused and I thought I was going to get the the billing permit the next day and was explained to me after, no, you're not blah blah blah. So, I would have asked then it be reduced. I went along with this thing for about two and a half years and nobody ever mentioned this until that meeting that they would bring this up for $107,000. that so it was a big shock.

Okay. So, but at this point in time, would you prefer an additional delay with the potential to reduce the cost of the If I could just ask you what would the additional be? You don't know. I don't know. We we probably we go to staff and uh if it goes back to relook at that portion of the uh what we're looking for road improvements, can you give me an idea what the delay would be? your to you council. Uh basically the delay would be we're not just redesigning this one portion of the road. We're going to create a whole new cross-section within the subdivision bylaw. So it would take me probably a month or two just to kind of find one that works through the whole situation. And again, I can't guarantee at this time that the new cross-section would be lesser what its cost would be because I would have to look at the road in its entirety, not just the frontage across this lot and see what type of cross-section. Then

it would have to come back to council for adoption because it would form part of the subdivision bylaw. So, there is at least two council meetings in which to do that. Um, and we're running out of council meetings. Yeah. So, if I pushed it really, really hard and pushed a few things down to the bottom of the pile, I might be able to come back in September with a new cross-section and the amendment to the bylaw. Um, but beyond that, then I would be constrained by the municipal election. Right. So, there is no immediate recourse for those. Well, they're going to get me both ways, I think. So, I might as well just agree to it. Okay.

Go with it. Well, I guess so because they might come back and just say they want 107 or 106 or something. I just want to make sure we were Okay. Yeah. No, I understand. I appreciate that. And I appreciate your comments back. Thank you. Thank you. You want to ask me? So, go ahead. Yeah. Council Pearson. Okay. Yeah. Um through the chair through the chair to staff. I I not have a question for you in a minute. So when we discussed this in pri previous meetings it was it [snorts] was our request to consolidate these lots where there wouldn't have been any road frontage required right like we kind of debated that whole point is that because they consolidated and I my opinion is is that we actually just took three lots waterfront lots and then had most of their land in the water and somebody and I think wisely said well if we put them sideways, we can make a building site. It's a pretty uh you know, we heard from one member of the club, pretty treacherous site to to even kind of work with, but

they've done they they've done all the work. Can we pass all the ports? My question to staff, can we pass all of the amendments with the exception of the road frontage improvement um and exercise cash in Lou? through the chair. That's for staff to answer please. Sorry through the deputy mayor. So what's being uh requested right now is cash and no my question two parts um Mr. manager of community planning um through the chair is can we pass the we've got how many variances we have here? One, two, three, four, right? Can we pass all four of them with the exception of the road improvements and then discuss that last one?

And and I have a I have an idea and I I'm not going to surprise it. My idea is to pass those and then ask staff and the applicant to to negotiate a cash and loo settlement because I really believe this is one of these weird things. We asked, we consolidated those three lots. If he hadn't consolidated those lots, even though there are treacherous lots on the hill, they could be built without roads, right? On if if they had been consolidated, they could have been built without ro the deputy mayor staff possibly. Yes, for your last question there. Um but I'll confirm here that procedurally yes, council can of course um pass the all all the motions with the exception of that the last one for frontage exemption. Um but when talking about um negotiating for cash and loot right now the the discussion is about cash and loot not construction.

That's a statement that could thank you for that answer. So I have to go back to our corporate officer or CEO the procedurally. I'm not familiar with this one. Uh to the deputy mayor I believe if I'm understanding um Mr. Riley correctly. Um council can pass all those motions and defer commentary on the last motion in regards to the frontage. However, we'll still be in the same situation of delay. So, I guess if councelor Pearson was going to come up with alternative motion, maybe potentially is that what he's looking for? Um, we would just need to understand what that look like. I just need a little bit of recap for my own mind if we if we even if we separate this, we're still looking at uh delays in getting into the election. And uh the the member applying for this, the the citizen said that he's we just he wasn't really in favor of going on and on by this. That's what I heard.

So, uh correct. I I don't see if we separate it. We're just doing much the same thing as before, throwing it back to staff to negotiate with the the applicant and then and then we're right back at the same position we were before. So, it's just a different avenue to get there. Uh, it's still delays and the applicant said that uh he wasn't in favor of any more delays. So, yes, sir, Mr. Riley. Yes, just uh one point of clarification. So, with the all the uh uh permits, flood plane exemption variances being proposed, um all of them are contingent upon each other in order for this project to move forward with the exception of the frontage exemption variance. So if uh the uh variance to the sea, the variance to the flood plan exemption and also the um uh the development permits, if those are all approved together, the project may move forward to building permit. The only thing uh that is a barrier potentially for the owner would be the the cost of

uh the cash and payment of $17,000 in accordance with the STS bylaw. So that that could be separated out. It would it would the clarity that I needed. So it will not affect the issuing of the building uh permit or the he can go ahead with with the construction now then then the negotiation starts about the $107,000 of revenues. So what uh I need from the CEO uh what procedure is we just separate uh just a sec just a sec. I'm just asking the CEO question first. Now come to council m uh the through the deputy mayor. I believe uh you can put forward for council consideration uh the one two three all of the that motions and uh for now call the question on those if council is supportive of that and then defer the conversation on the last motion which is and that council deny the subdivision.

Uh, if councelor Pearson or others want to have additional conversations on that, if you would like to close the loop on all of the first items, I hear what you're saying. You can read out all of those items. I think I can do that by chair to separate. Correct. Correct. Yes. Yes. And yes, I I will do that as chair to separate and we'll vote on the the first ones. And just a sec. I'm going to go to uh councelor Baitman first. But that's my plan until I hear differently. Councelor Baitman. Yeah. So, thank you. Um, so before we we jump to a conclusion here, we need to very carefully consider the uh submission tonight from uh Jeff Holm and his wife Patty. Uh Jeff Holm being a professional engineer who and a near neighbor of this property. So I' I'd just like to go through these the four points that have been raised in in the letter tonight through you to uh Mr.

Riley. Um so let's start with Gio. the geotechnical hazard. So I do understand that a geotechnical assessment was done on the property but a geotechnical hazard report is a separate matter. Is that correct? That's correct. There was a high level report sorry through the deputy mayor there there was a high level geotechnical report that focused primarily on the flood plan exemption components um and recommendations for building sighting and elevation of flood construction level of the habitable space of the dwelling. Um so that has occurred. Uh staff were comfortable with um moving forward as uh with with the recommendations although it wasn't a substantial uh geotechnical report for hillside hazards due to just the size of the property and also the fact that at building permit uh we would also be asking for a geotechnical report to ensure stability of the foundation as a standard procedure.

Um, and sorry, ju just to add to that, there's also um some specific sediment and erosion control uh measures that are in place from the qualified environmental uh professional report that's included and makes up a condition of the permit. Um so the second point raises risk. Hello, please. Thank you. you've got the team doing this work now. Thank you, Rachel. Um, yeah, so flooding risk that I believe was dealt with to a degree in the um, let's see, we had an erosion and stability assessment was done on this property environmental overview. The flooding is a speak to that, please. Yes. So the district of Souk has a flood flood plane regulation bylaw uh which development must abide by um and it requires uh there to be a 15 meter setback um from the high watermark of the ocean [clears throat] and also a geodetic elevation of a of a certain number is 1.5 meters or if there is flood uh mapping data available which there is

now just recently actually with through the CRD um it must uh meet that uh minimum and that accounts for uh things like wave action and sea level rise. Uh so we have confirmed that the proposed geodetic elevation of the habitable space of the proposed dwelling is up is 3.62 meters which is adequate um and uh would be considered safe um for the for the intended use as per the professional report that's attached to the permit and report here. Thank you. you you've spoken to all this at the land use and development committee meeting of course back on July 7th but just to to final finish this foreshore and riparian protection and environmental impact now I know there was a um a referral from hoo from the ministry of water land and resource stewardship that very much spoke to recommended compliance with environmental and geotechnical reports is that about the the sum of uh through the deputy mayor, you could say that. Um basically, we would ensure uh through a qualified environment professional that all uh correct authorizations provinially and locally

are adhered to. This is not a riparian area by the way because riparians are are streams uh rivers uh that exist that are fishing upland. This is proximity to the ocean uh which is different. Um but we still do have development permit areas which do look at development and ideally try to maintain a 15 meter buffer from that 15 meters. But of course we're dealing with some challenges on the site. Um just given the the historical context of of the property um and uh we did our best to work within our guidelines as per the recommendations of the QEP um to support this uh proposed development with all those mitigation measures that are actually uh components of of the the permit and its conditions.

So very much sightsp specific um application of the development permit guidelines. Yes. Okay. And finally probable archaeological impact. Now there was a referral as well from the uh archaeology branch which does note that there is a very high likelihood of archaeological evidence at this site. and they noted [clears throat] uh archae archaeologists recommended prior to excavation is uh h how does that play out in this project? Yes. So um these referral comments um uh and advisory comments would make it in their way to the development permit itself. Um and we would uh follow the provincial guidelines through the the heritage conservation act for chance fine procedures. So that's in all of our permit language. Uh uh we do note that um there's high potential uh to discover artifacts potentially around shoreline areas. So if they are found um and uh there are correct professionals on site that would would stop work and and follow the correct procedures.

Okay. And of course the S also recommended that uh that as well. Okay. So thank you. Okay. Thank you Baitman. Anybody else at this point? Otherwise, I have to back up the bus a bit. But we'll start with councelor St. Pierre and then go ahead. Uh I just want to clarify something that did come up that had not come up during use committee uh through your go ahead. Okay. So my understanding now from the questions that council Pearson made in the answers received is that um there may actually be opportunity to completely separate the matter of the frontage from the other for the permit to go forward. and for example for Mr.

Miller potentially to have time with a bit more leisure to look at what would be a suitable cross-section for that area. Is that correct? And that's up to anyone who Mr. Miller who wish to comment. Yes, your worship to the counselor. Yes, it does give a little more time. Um you have to remember we are amending the subdivision bylaw. So there is a procedure we will have to go through to create this cross-section and through that bylaw um it's either build it or cost in l. So there will be a cost um associated with it. I mean, council could in its uh decision-making process wave all fees, but then you could be setting up a precedent for the other lots along that property line uh where they would ask for a similar exemption.

So, what the cost would look like, I have no idea at this point. It might come out to be similar because of the train we're talking about. Um, it might be the same or it might be less, but by how much less, I wouldn't be able to tell you, but it would take some time to look and come up with a new cross-section and add it to um the subdivision bylaw. Sounds to me like it's possible, but may or may not come to fruition. Thank you. So, uh, this is from the chair to Mr. Miller. So we you say we can wave or alter that that figure uh but the danger is setting a precedent for the the other lots in that area. Is that correct?

To do to your worship um it is council's bylaw. they can you can make any changes you want to it but and you're not necessarily constrained by the decisions you make but it will be harder in the future if someone else okay on that road comes along and says I want the exemption I understand that so thank you for that clarification okay so uh the way I would like to proceed I already gave uh that I was going to separate this uh but before I do that I have to resend the old one right that hasn't been done So first of all that the approval of item 8.6 as part of resolution 20 26259 development permit with variances PLN01930 floodplate exemption PL uh N02032 be rescended. So I'll need a motion for that. So St. Pierre Baitman or Pearson any discussion to the motion? Go ahead, councier.

Through your worship to staff, if we vote against rescending, just essentially go forward and we skip all this mess. Um to the deputy mayor to councelor St. Pierre, I believe procedurally uh we need this rescended because it challenges the enforcability based on the advertising requirements. Okay. So no. All right. So hearing no other discussion, all those in favor of the motion. That's unanimous for Okay. And then the second one is um I don't know. Oh, you're going to put it up here. Oh my god. Um have you separated that one now? There's a lot here to read. Okay. Oh, sure. Yeah. Thank you. Section 14, Sue Land District Plan EP88370 to permit the construction of a duplex dwelling and a deck in accordance with the terms and conditions of draft development permit PLN1930 attachment one. Second, the council authorized issuance of development variance permit PLN1930 attachment one to vary section 3.21 of zoning by number 600 2013 by reducing the required setback from the present natural boundary of the seat from 15 m to 3.09 m for the principal dwelling and 1.2 2 meters for the deck. The council

grant an exemption under section 524 of the local government act and section 11B of the flood plane regulation bylaw number 7732020 to permit the proposed dwelling to be located 3.09 m from the present natural boundary of the sea subject to registration of a section 219 covenant under land title act to secure compliance with the applicable flood construction levels 3.62 geodetic elevation. the recommendations of the Ryzac Geotechnical Assessment dated May 6, 2026 as amended and related to flood hazard acknowledgement release indemnity and safe harmless provisions to the satisfactory of the district. I think there's one more the other one is being in terms of the block. I think there's one more a couple more sections.

Oh, okay. Yeah. uh that the flood plane setback exemption does not take effect until the required section 219 covenant has been registered entitled to the satisfactory of the district and the council deny yeah okay we stop right there okay so that that's the part that and we have a motion and a second is councelor Pearson any discussion to the motion hearing none those in favor and that's unanimously four uh so now um we can discuss the last part of it is that correct CEO. Uh, correct. And just to clarify, um, for this motion, if council, the applicant has requested a variance to not, I believe, do any of the frontage requirements and staff is recommending denying it. If council doesn't like either of those options, then the only option at this time is to send this back to staff to report back to council at a future meeting on what alternative options could be available at this time.

Nothing's ever easy. So if the applicant is in wanting to do this quickly, I believe that's why initially as councelor St. Pierre referenced, he agreed to the cash and loo amount and that uh in order to move this forward quickly, this is the motion we need council to pass if um council can also support the variance and require no frontage. I believe was the uh which is against the land use committee recommendation. Um or council can send this back to staff to work with the applicant. So we we can pass it the way it is. We can send it back to staff which god knows when it will ever get back. Uh or we can just say council take uh that we are not going to request the frontage improvement cost at all. So I'll go to councelor Pearson.

Okay. So I have to through the chair. Thank you. So in all in all of those options, could council propose a different amount through to Mr. Miller? That's kind of where I was going at the beginning of this. Uh through the worship to the counselor, again, it's council's bylaw. They you have the ability to change the bylaw to what you want. If you want to make it $1, you can. Again, you're now modifying the bylaw. You're not just modifying it this one. It's the whole cost system. Yeah. That you're modifying. So, if you say it's $1 for this one, it's $1 for the next one coming through because you're modifying the bylaw.

Yeah. And and I have I have a couple of couple of follow-up questions on that. Go ahead. So, through the chair. Thank you. Um, how many of these lots are left without a house on it? We should have an inventory because these are the rarest. According to DFO and surveyor of general of British Columbia, there's only eight or 12 of them that exist in British Columbia. These are the ones through to Mr. Riley, I guess. I don't How many do we have? Uh through the deputy mayor. Um I'm not sure. I think there are about a dozen or so. Yeah. Yeah. And so, and we understand that the survey pins are actually out in the water. Is that correct?

the parcel boundary stretch out into the ocean. Yeah. So that they and somewhere along the line 10 or 15 years ago, we heard that there's actual that's where the property goes to. I don't know whether the ocean came in or whether somebody well they survey I I don't know that part and I know it's irrelevant probably but um so if any one of the other how vacant lots came along to build anything on those tent lots and they could meet a building requirement would they be as individual lots required road frontage through the deputy mayor depends on the trigger. The SDS bylaw triggers frontage improvements for certain types of of dwelling types.

Yeah. But if the Okay, because we learned last week it was a duplex. If they were SFR, single family residents, each one not duplex, would they in fact have to pay road frontage? They would not under the SDS bylaw. And also the uh applicant could construct a single family dwelling as well and not pay frontage. Correct. So, the applicant's application is triggered to $107,000. Okay. Thank you. That's all my question. Okay. Um I guess with me, um I I don't feel comfortable modifying the bylaw number 9252 2025. Uh that is too far reaching. Uh I am very sympathetic to the applicant and I'm struggling to find a way to save him a few bucks on this because he's put his life and uh soul into this uh development. He did say that he would accept it as it is, you know, rather begrudgingly, but uh he did say that. Uh so I'm uh I'm willing to deny the request for variance because it is too far reaching to uh to make any further changes uh down the line. It affects too many

properties uh for for years to come. So at this point in time u I'm not prepared to do that. There's another system that will find some relief for this gentleman. I'd be more than happy to explore it, but I don't see it with what we have here. Councelor St. Pierre. Um, I agree that uh making changes to the bylaw itself will have farreaching consequences. We know that the public would like to have access to that area and that improvements at some point are going to be needed and this is pretty much the only way the district has to pay for it other than putting more taxes on residential taxpayers, which they really don't need. So, that's why development is expected to pay for this sort of thing. Having said that, I'm still struggling because the cross-section that we observe and that is um being suggested for this particular area seems to be somewhat more than necessary. I don't necessarily know it's going to cost a whole lot less even if it was a different cross-section. But having said that, I would be interested to know from

staff whether or not it's possible to have um language that would allow once that new cross-section because I predict we'll want a different cross-section for that area. Once that's determined, could we have uh a refund or a different cost attached for the applicant? Is that actually a possibility or is just too challenging? Yeah, I kind of think we're going down in the weeds here, but if you can answer that, fine. If not, I'm going to move on to your worship. Um, it's not a route we pursue very often, so I can't give you an answer whether it is or isn't possible. Um I think when our regular corporate officer who is on holidays right now and is more versed in these discussions uh I think he would be able to provide you an answer but myself I have never gone down this road and whether or not we could write an agreement to take the 107 and then refund a certain amount we probably can

but I don't know what that would look like and I have no I don't have enough so it could go on for months and months and months. So with that being said and thank you staff for that. Uh we seem to be caught in a sort of a catch 22 situation here but I'm willing to make the motion that council deny the request variant to exempt the proposed development for the frontal improvements requirements under section 3.2 of subdivision development standards bylaw 9252025. That's my motion. Do I have a second? Councelor Stamp Pierre seconded. Okay. Now, motivation. Um, again, I'm very sympathetic. Uh, but I just don't see a way around this without just delaying this and delaying this. U, the applicant did say he he woulding to pay it. Um, like I say, it doesn't quite sit right with me, but I there's just no way that I I could vote for changing bylaw number 925 2025 unless we uh had uh you know, a long staff report of the

consequences uh and a long discussion with council and uh that clock is ticking. So, I will make that motion and we have a seconder. Anybody else wish to speak to that motion? Councelor Pearson. No, he said he Sorry. Oh, um I think that the um So, you should have gone Yeah. from the staff is is that the application on the single lot to build the duplex triggers the uh triggers that that uh road improvement. So, um I actually think we can't I think we have to I think that's if if the applicant changes his his application from to to an SFR and doesn't trigger it, it's the duplex which is triggering it which is throughout our entire community. So, okay, that's I have to support the motion.

Okay. Thank you, Council Pearson. Councelor Baitman. Yeah, I'm I'm having a bit of trouble with this. um look looking at that roadway water street it it's a very narrow piece of property and what we're talk with the local urban suburban crosssection in the bylaw two sidewalks bio swale and two travel lanes now that that road is not going to accommodate all of that activity and that we I would suspect in future we will need a wildcard cross-section of some kind to deal with the realities of roads in in the district. This is a very unique piece of property uh that water street itself. And um so yeah, I'm knowing that Mr.

Miller said, you know, a few months he could tinker away and come up with a unique cross-section for this water street um uh reality. Um so yeah, I think I think I'm going to have to vote no on this, but that's fine. Okay, I'm going to call a question. And all those in favor of the motion, all those against, please note that councelor Baitman voted against that motion. That is passed. Thank you. All right. I'm going to take a uh five minute uh health break. So anybody can wash rooms or have a drink of water. That is

Could I get council members to come back? Councelor Baitman, sit down. Yeah. Is it Okay. All right. Now we'll go on to 9.3 park use permit commercial use staff report through you to your worship. Uh this is a parks uh parks use commercial parks use permit modification because there will be a commercial component to this but it is also uh the harvest event that the society has put on over the last two years. Uh so one I need council direction to modify the uh agreement and they have also requested that any funds or fees um associated with this permit be waved which has also happened in the past.

Okay. Thank you. Council St. Pierre like to move the motion. Okay. Go ahead and move the motion. Okay. The council authorized a commercial parks use permit for soupuchi society for harvest festival and market at the center of a community garden and orchard 2380 Phillips Road in accordance with section 6.0 Know the community park regulation bylaw number 101 and subject to conditions outlining the permit action one and that council exempt sukfuchi society for ad ministry of fee commercial use permit fee and deposit for the use of sun river community garden and orchard for December 20th 2026 in accordance with section 8 of the community parks regulation by law number 101. Okay, I'm going to take these together.

So one second's good enough. So uh councelor St. Pierre made the motion, councelor Pearson seconder. Any discussion to the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor that's unanimous. Thank you very much. Uh next one is 9.4 request for sponsor sponsorship soup music and arts festival 2026. Okay, that's moved by councelor Haldane and that is council approve the sponsor request for soup music and arts festival for the 2026 event in the amount of 1,000. Moved by second. We sure can. Councelor Baitman second that. We'll fight over it. It's okay. Any discussion to the motion? A question. Oh, a question. Sorry. Do we need to source like where the money's coming from?

I think uh uh to staff, we have money in the sponsorship still, don't we? That's what it's asked for. Yes, correct. Yes, I just want to confirm. Yeah, good. Thank you. Okay, then I'll call the questions. Sorry, Council Baitman. You're in the visible zone. I am in the invisible zone here. So, go ahead. Rightly so. Um what was I going to say? Oh, yeah. So, $1,000 has seemed to become a new normal in in these applications with the exception of the pickle ball tournament. As councelor Haldane me mentioned some six months ago, we need to to watch our our pennies. But these kind of events like the soup music and arts festival and the harvest festival are are much larger scale public events. All soup day as another example. So sponsorship um is in my mind anyway this $1,000 seems an appropriate amount. And yes, there's 1362 still in the sponsorship budget and we also have $18,800 in the council contingency.

So that will will cover this nicely. Thank you. I'm going to call the question. Oh, sorry. Councelor Heline, go ahead. Excuse me. Thank you. Yeah, because um I always go against the whole idea of uh small user groups who you know it's their own thing, but uh any of the arts festivals, music festivals, stuff like that, they involve the whole community, so it gets people out. A lot of free stuff at those things. I'm always for anything that families and everybody can get to be involved in. It doesn't cost them any money or very much money at all. And lastly, if uh the roofing is only going to cost us 230 grand, we have 250 budgeted for. We got a whole bunch of money we can call. Okay. Councelor Pearson.

Yeah. Just a clarific question clarification question through the chair to our CEO. What was the delegated authority on sponsorship that we uh 200 through the uh deputy mayor to councelor Pearson? It was $250. Okay. I believe. And so and and so have have you been using that that delegated authority? Uh I can I'll double check with Miss Mo. Oh okay. Uh through the deputy mayor. I believe we we've used it twice. Um but generally the asks are greater than 200 over in the CEO report. So now that you've been using it, is there any feedback? I know this is maybe because we're debating the question. Is there any feedback that you could give us that on that amount? Is it enough or is it because like these thousand ones, you know, we're doing these all the time. Should, you know, should that not come to council? Like, in my opinion, this is sort of a, you know, a no-brainer sponsoring this.

I I think we probably deal with that at another time. We just have the one in front of us today and I think we get this out of the way. I think that's for new business under another council meeting. But I I understand where you're going with Well, it is it is kind of germanine to the question. This is, you know, councelor Haldane actually summed it up pretty nicely. There's a lot of I think council has the um discretion and we we rarely say no to these important events here. So, I mean again it takes up council time, council minutes and things like that when I think we have to tell the staff. Oh yeah, we got staff. Go ahead.

Uh through deputy mayor to councelor Pearson. There may be uh this discussion will likely come up through the newly formedish uh MRDT tourism committee. One of the the items in the tactical plan is events and festivals and grant funding through that stream. So there is a mechanism to review this under that context and uh uh as MRD eligible projects there's certain data that we need to collect through the event. So this would be a conversation I am hoping uh to bring forward to the MRDT committee. Thank you. Thank you. No further question. Gray, you got something more to say on it or to the deputy mayor. That was the same narrative I was going to say is uh with the newly formed tourism committee. This is uh an item I know was going to bring forward to them for discussion.

Okay. With that being said, I like to call the question then. All those in favor, that's unanimous. Thank you. Uh next 9.5 update on wastewater bylaw development to council in our June committee of the whole um a discussion was held with respect to a new wastewater bylaw because the old one is coming to the end of its life and we have to come up with a new mechanism in order to pay for the utility. In that discussion, uh committee was presented with a model where partial was collected through partial tax and partial was collected through user tax or user feed. The report you see before you is fairly similar. Uh you might have noticed I might have recycled some of it from the committee of the whole with some deviation in there. Since the June committee of the whole, we've been working with our consultant to try to find out how we can make that work. And it was our hope that we would have been bringing back um first, second, and

third reading to council of the new bylaw, but we're running into difficulties either with our data with the interpretation and such to make sure that we're coming up with a fair and equitable model um for our residents and the users of the utility. And because of that, we've kind of there's an alternative way that um we could possibly move forward with this bylaw, and that would be the abandonment of the parcel tax portion and do it totally as user fees. Um so the reason why this is coming forward to council is so you're not I'd like to know. Yeah. Yes. So you're not surprised in September if you actually saw one that was all based off of user fees.

So again, we're trying to find this fair and equitable model that will not produce too many heart attacks when people see their bills um from what they're seeing for 625 parcel fee right now. And so again, it's just trying to give council the heads up that you you might see a different version in September. So we have already received the report, but you're just warning us with this that the report can change somewhat when it comes back to us in September. Just on how we're going to collect the uh the funds, right? So I just need a motion to accept this as information bouncer St. Pierre.

Oh, go ahead. Go with the question. Uh my question is uh does staff want any further clarification on whether it should be option one or two or are you good to go for the next stage without any further clarification from council to the mayor to the counselor? Of course it's council's final decision. If you like the parcel tax and a user fee we can proceed that way or we can continue to f again find massaging both the methodologies back and forth. um to find the one that is fair and equitable or and bring that one back to you. I mean, at that time, if you choose to go back to the other one because you don't like the one presented again, that's council's prerogative. Um it just uh we run into the election more than anything.

Okay. I need to clarify a little bit here. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. Okay. So, um, if I understand your answer, at this point, uh, working with a consultant, you're looking at really just taking it away from the parcel tax entirely and moving towards, you know, a utility billing type of situation. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Uh, and then in the report you have option one and two, but both of those are actually referring to a parcel tax, which we are at this which staff at this point and the consultant is considering moving away from. Is that correct? I included the parcel tax as background information for where we had started from and just for extra understanding to how partial tax but it's not necessarily even a front runner for consideration at this point in time in terms of where we seem to be moving. Correct.

It's one of two options that we're looking at. My my understanding is staff is still working on this and it'll come to us in September. Any further clarification on parcel tax other just received this? We we understand what committee had told us. Okay. So, Mr. Councelor Peterson, thank you chair. Um, is there any or Okay. Question. What when is the debt retired at the end of this year? Oh. So, so it has to be in place because and now my second question is there any ramifications from a portion of that parcel tax? We have to make a decision, I guess, is that my understanding and it's probably to our CEO is that $200 in interest, I think, or whatever it is that's paid out of that partial tax, partial tax will have to be it'll have to come off the bill if we don't do anything, right? Is that how right now the way it sits, it would stay at 625 unless the bylaw was modified,

but also the bylaw was set up as a partial tax and they have finite lives. So, it was set up till you paid off the debt and then the bylaw goes null and void. That is why we're going forward with another bylaw. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, go ahead, councelor Bait. Well, just a comment. Thank you very much for this heads up on this minimum fixed toll, the asset management toll and the consumption toll. Seems like a pretty interesting uh approach which we'll hear about in September. Thank you. Have a motion to receive this report for information. All those in favor? That's unanimous. Thank you. Uh next one. 10.1 short-term rental accommodation moderniz moderate modernization zoning amendment bylaw number 947600120 2026.

That council give third reading for the zoning amendment bylaw. same one uh to amend uh zoning bylaw number 600 to modernize soups regulation of short-term rentals. That's the motion. You make it council St. Pierre or do we have a seconder? I will second that. The only thing uh now we open for discussion. I'll go to you first and then I'll comment. I've got a couple of questions and maybe a comment. Uh my further question through your worship the staff is uh my understanding is that the one property owner that has the two uses that are at this point being stacked uh will be receiving what they requested which was a legal non-compliant status.

Is that correct? Through the deputy mayor um they would be legal non-conforming. Sorry. Yes. So just automatically legal non-conforming. Okay. um if they're looking for uh written confirmation of that, I'd be happy to to provide that to Mr. Hicks. It sounds like they would very much appreciate that. Thank you very much. Okay, so my qu second question uh is more to do with uh the stacking. So, uh it's been mentioned that other local governments are not actually in favor of actually having these two usages on the same property at the same time. And there were issues with stacking. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean and what the actual negative implications of having those two uses. Uh it seems pretty clear that at least one property owner has been able to do it for quite a long time. Uh it seems useful to be able to actually potentially invite a few guests for bed and breakfast and have something else where you can actually have some for a longer period of time. I don't actually understand what the risks to the district and in general could be and uh if you could

just explain why if you Yeah. through the deputy mayor. So, um, stacking, I suppose, uh, could have a negative consequence. Think about, um, a public nuisance. Uh, there's a threshold, uh, you can imagine, uh, where you would have potentially five, uh, bed and breakfast units, five different guests, as well as short-term rental accommodations occurring where the property uh, does not uh, contain these accommodation uses as accessory. they become uh basically the principal use of the property that is uh generally better suited for something more uh like tourist accommodation chalets or through a reszoning process would be more suitable to have those uses. I think there are some unique properties that are on larger lots that may be um uh less of a a concern um perhaps Mr. Hix's property. But if you're looking at properties located in uh town center areas or within community residential areas um that are a bit more dense um then those uh uses proliferated um could could cause uh some concern from like a bylaw and and public nuisance perspective. Parking as well it has to be looked at comprehensively.

Okay. So, if I understand correctly, uh the main concern is over areas that'll be in denser spaces where lots are smaller and you could potentially looking at public nuisance issues. Uh too many cars, not enough parking, that type of thing. Yeah, that's my initial uh thought on that. Um, of course, those issues can occur anywhere. Um uh but again uh depending on the uh uh like the the bed and breakfast provisions right now are become quite um permissive uh with the larger lot. So it's scaled uh by parcel area. Um so adding short-term rentals on top of that uh again does have the ability to substantially uh alter the the land use of that property. So, it's mainly a land use control measure that's in place and and I would suggest if there are properties that are looking to go that direction to have 10 uh you know short-term accommodation rentals through a combination of bed and breakfast and um and short-term rental. Um then we'd be looking at maybe potential commercial

use um a hotel or or tourist accommodation or chalet. Uh that's something we could look at potentially at through our zoning bio update upcoming next year. Okay. Thank you. I'd appreciate at that time that we just make sure that uh as much as possible. Uh we're not actually constraining people from providing tourism accommodations that we desperately need and you know making the best use of the property that they can. Uh as long as we're looking at let's make sure that we're looking at real risks as opposed to um things that may never really happen much. Just thank you very much for the answers. Okay. As a seconder, my main concern is that Mr. Hicks was uh grandfathered in and that's happened. You're going to give a letter to that effect. And so, uh I think at this point in time, unless there's no other questions, I'm going to call the question. I'll open. Oh, sorry. I didn't see your hand there.

Okay. Yeah. So, if modern means dissolving more property rights as we have done on numerous bylaw housekeeping changes in the past, then I will not be in favor of this change. Why do we care how people rent out extra units on their own private lands? I'm of the belief that given these uncertain financial times that we need to be coming up with more possible uses rather than less. It's my belief that people pay a heavy tax burden and deserve as many options as we can provide. I'm struggling to understand and now that I've heard some of the things back because of possibilities of something down the road. Well, Mr. Hicks hasn't had any issues in 25 years. So, I'm I'm having a real tough time understanding why we think somebody's going to have some issue at all anyway. So, I'll be voting against this as there's no compelling reason at all for this housekeeping issue other than staff wants full control as usual over people's property rights that I'm completely against.

Mixer Hicks and his family have proven there are no issues to this presence and these uh double types of use. So therefore, I will be absolutely 100% voting against anything like this. I'm not delegating any more authority for this. Pearson. Yeah, I have a few questions that came up and starts off, I guess, with a few comments. I following on councelor St. Pierre's words. The word stacking sounds it's kind of like a negative word to me. Like the word's chosen to be negative. I think mixed use on properties is clever because I think that um I I still think it's a homebased business too as well.

But but I think that given all the circumstances of of people moving, people selling a house, relocating, um coming to town for a short term, short-term rentals is an affordable option for people. And I think that if you've got property and zoning dictates the density, you've got property that you could have couple bed and breakfast and a short-term rental on. I think that's advantageous not only to the property owner, but to us as a community. It it puts an affordability component in there. So there's options for people when they get into these situations. Transfers, relocations, houses being renovated, flooded, damaged, all these things that come up.

And if we don't give options like or I should say the the presenter today, Mr. Hicks, he gave a you know a very valid u uh or compelling argument I think is to think that they can coincide quite nicely on on a piece of property. I it seems like we're fixing a problem where there isn't one. To me, I I I got that sense. Um so through to staff I think you gave the explanation uh to Mr. to Mr. riding through the chair is that the mixed use you feel could increase density somehow like I don't I don't get that kind of in your presentation you talked about density like a big piece of property having five bed breakfast and five short-term rentals but we've only got one in our entire district that I kind of think the risk is low for people on something yeah through the chair so uh the fundamental component here for consideration is the fact that these accessory uses uh become primary become the primary use of the property. So when you have a residential property

residential zone that is really intended for residential use not for commercial use. So this is where uh the stacking or for lack of a better term um the combination of uses operating concurrently can exceed the intended use of the parcel. So that's why we have zoning bylaws is to confirm exactly what is reasonable where we have residential zones, we have commercial zones. So if you want to say all residential zones can be commercial, you know that that may be problematic for lots of people and has obviously some negative consequences and that is why it is best practice and very commonly uh restricted for those to operate concurrently.

It's not saying that they can't be permitted. Both are permitted, right? those operating those uses concurrently right now there's only one property may still operate as they are as they have been and their property is likely very suitable for this use right um yeah and so if the secondary use is becoming the primary more of a commercial lean uh property you know there's there's potential for reszoning to permit that type of use as well if suitable to council yeah okay and thank you um so I have two other questions um m if if we grandfather you you said two things if the use discontinued for 6 months that grandfathering would come to an end.

So what like I mean there's all these I thought about you know 200 things like extenduating circumstances that could 6 months is not very long like somebody could have you know an extended vacation and shut down their bed and breakfast at their house 6 months and go to go to stay in Mexico for six months well would that constitute discontinuation of that use I mean I think we're kind of it's six months feels slippery and what happens If the question what we ask all what happens if one of those units burns down is that used now discontinued. So two questions for you. Thank you for the questions. Um so in terms of uh the legal nonconformity it's a it's a local government act statute right. So this is discontinuation of six months. I think a good evidence would be that there's a business license that's existing on the property and if that continues to get renewed, I think that would be adequate for our purposes. Uh we're not going to

be standing uh property side confirming that people are actually renting these units. Um but if they have submitted a uh a business license year after year, I think staff will consider that to be legal non-conforming. um in terms of the actual uh the structure uh being demolished or burning down through a hazard. Um the use itself can still remain as is. It just can't be expanded upon. Um there's legal non-conformity when it deals with structures as well. Uh that's a that's a different part of the LGA with legal non-conformity. But yeah, this the structure and the use could could be rebuilt in a sense as long as it isn't expanded upon or the operation isn't seized for that period of of 6 months or for the duration of their their one-year business license.

Okay. So, uh we have another comment from staff. Mr. Marshall, you had something to say? Yeah, thank you uh deputy mayor um and council. I think the you have to think about this as in the in the sense of would you want this business as a neighbor? If there was five rooms in a bed and breakfast and they had several short-term rentals and there was now eight cars coming and going on a nightly basis, there's garbage cans, you know, strewn down the street. there's a lot of extra noise. There's a lot of extra activity. And so I've certainly had experience in communities where the public just absolutely gets up in an uproar when these types of things start happening because it's that's not what I bought into when I bought my single family house in a single family neighborhood that I'm going to be dealing with all this noise activity and people coming and going. So, I think, you know, that's what we try and do with zoning is try and give people certainty as to what they can expect when they buy a home in a particular neighborhood that they can

expect that that's sort of activity and commercial use isn't going to be happening, uh, next door. And so, um, yes, there's lots of these types of businesses that aren't a problem, but unfortunately, we as a municipality and many municipalities have to deal with the one-offs where it's a real problem. And if you don't have the zoning in place to enforce that problem, um, then there's no way of dealing with it. So, um, that's the intent anyway. Okay, here. Yeah, over in the blind spot here. I know. I saw it this time. Little Yeah. I I just want to be clear here. This is a modernization of our zoning bylaw to align with the short-term rental accommodation act introduced by the province of British Columbia uh designed intentionally to uh free up or preserve long-term rental housing. Is is that correct? So really Okay, go ahead.

Answer that for Yes, it is correct. So uh again we we've mirrored uh many of the uh the provincial uh regulations in the act um in terms of uh the permissions for uh the principal residence framework. So we we've just basically mirrored that and build that into our zoning by or at least in the draft amendments. Um in a lot of cases it's it's slightly more permissive. Um but in some cases such as the extension of of the 30 days to 90 consecutive days and also the rental of the uh of this of the principal dwelling and the ability for the host not to live on the premises. So that's where it's it's is becoming a little more flexible.

Um this one element here of the of the amendments about it being more restrictive is is one small piece as well. But then there's also a more broader modernization where we're actually filling a lot of really needed gaps here. um just in terms of actually providing regulations around short-term rentals which is completely lacking uh in the bylaw and unfortunately has been uh uh considered under homebased business regulations whi which don't which literally does not make sense in terms of the the set of regulations that exist. One example is that a homebased business must occur on a size of of no greater than 50 square meters. Um and we all know that size of a suite they're all over 50 square meters. So, there's just been these inconsistencies and interpretations that just have not been clear for staff or or the public and and that those these are the gaps we're trying to fill while also being as permissive as possible uh in alignment with those uh provincial uh regulations

and law um and also looking at other minor forms of modernization that that happen to be this one in particular being a bit more restrictive. So, hopefully that answered your question. Yeah, it does. And I know you're you're this is advanced work on the new zoning bylaw. Effectively, this is going to make the job easier when you get down to the actual renewal of bylaw 600. Um yeah, I think that's good. Thank you. Okay, councelor St. Pierre, you want to speak again? Yeah. Uh first of all, I really appreciate the answers that have been provided. Uh they've really helped a great deal, especially uh the distinction in usage and that we're actually potentially when we're looking not densification number of people but densifying commercial usage. So Airbnb rentals looking more like a hotel type situation. Once you get to a certain threshold realistically it's to the benefit of for example residential taxpayers in the district but that property is on commercial. It's going that direction so that the

residential taxpayers aren't actually paying for the services on the wear and tear in the community and the needs of a commercial business. uh especially when our residents are being way too much. So I think that's one piece that I'm feeling pretty strongly at this point. That makes sense. Uh I also uh recognize that the one exception and the one truly affected um property. Our laws and bylaws are not actually for the best case scenario when someone runs a business for 25 years and follows all the rules. uh if everyone was like that, there's indeed any laws and bylaws. Uh the bylaws are actually because if you actually make a neighborhood where anybody can actually put as many Airbnbs and stack in as many STRs as they want, pretty soon there's nowhere to drive.

It's a little crazy now. I think that there's a space in the future where we could be looking at how do we manage to, you know, make that work. But I think what I'm hearing is that without actually being very careful, you're basically opening it up for that kind of thing to happen. And so I appreciate the answers and the discussion. I think I was very firmly against not basically I I thought we should allow this to happen together. But I see now that there's a need to be more careful, especially with regards to making sure that our residential taxpayers are not being punished while their neighbors who are having essentially a business on their property are flourishing and that we don't actually open it up so that we have no businesses in our commercial areas because it's so much easier to open a business in our residential areas. Uh so I I say that there's more to it and I appreciate the answers. Thank you. Any other counselor before I call the question? Councelor Pearson.

Yep. Thank you. Um through the chair. So do we have an inventory of non-conforming when we if if this passes do we have an inventory of where these illegal non-conforming through the chair of one property one property based on our data Mr. Vixon. Okay. Councelor Haldane, I'll call the question. My last [clears throat] thing would be is that the province and both proposed bill 44, Bill 44, and this council here before I got here was was against it. They didn't like it and the modernizing of that bill into our rules that we have here now wasn't accepted very well. Um, so I don't believe that provincial legislation necessarily makes it good business or or good procedure. Um, bill 44 in most cases isn't even possible and in most cases doesn't even work by design. So, I have little faith in the provincial expectations in most cases when it comes down to expectations with housing and and our little small bylaw changes and modernization. So, again, not for it. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Uh, do you want one more comment then? Just in response to that, we are, as they say, a creature of the province. When when a legislation of this kind comes down the pipeline, are we not duty bound to largely adopt? Councelor Hollain, you're shaking your head. So through you. Well, maybe we're not. I' I'd like to ask Chris Marshall that question. Mr. Marshall, if you could answer that and if not then I'll comment on. Yeah, I mean there are is certain legislation that is required for you to comply to. Yes. Um there's other legislation such as the um they there's new legislation around not legislation but guidance around how shoo housing could be designed and built and they provided examples of different types of housing and and to try and speed up the process of getting a building permit and just provide generic forms of of screw housing. Um that's not required. That's just something that is advisory to communities to help them to uh implement

uh the shimu legislation. So yes, there's legislation that's required to be uh followed and then there's other sort of more guidance type material. So okay, I'll comment now. Um I I'm in favor of of this. I see that there is one property that was concerned about it and that person's concerns had been met. Um there's not a great long list of people coming forward and saying they're going to be affected by this and also that the uh this new modernization uh expands a lot of time 60 to 90 days and a number of other things where I think the average person dealing with these things would probably be happier.

uh we've dealt with the one that wasn't and uh I think we should move ahead. So I'll read it out again that council give third reading to zoning amendment bylaw number 947600120 2026 to amend zoning bylaw number 600 to modernize suits regulation of short-term rental accommodations and that's already been seconded but all those in favor all those against. So that's 342 against that is passed and make a note of those voting against please. Next order of business 10.2 zoning bylaw amendment number 95612 2026 R2 housekeeping amendment staff. Yeah, there's um no presentation on this one either, but it is uh was uh reviewed by the LUDC on July 7th um where they supported staff recommendation. Um the amendment addresses the ambiguity created through the February 2025 snow amendments. Um the current wording could be interpreted as allowing each permitted single family dwelling to have both a secondary suite and a detached suite uh resulting in more dwelling units than was intended and it's a change from the bylaw unnecessarily uh that existed prior to the smooth

amendments in 2025. So we're just basically correcting that. Um, yeah, I'm I'm available for questions. Uh, if council has somebody like to make that uh motion and then we'll go to questions. Anybody willing to make the motion? Well, we're giving first and second third reading zoning amendment bylaw number 956121. No, no. So this is a housekeeping. I'll make the motion. Somebody second it. Otherwise, it's dead. Okay. Councelor St. Pierre. All right. Any discussion? Anybody any questions for staff? No debate. Comment. As as stated in the report, the proposed amendment to the RU2 zone is a housekeeping correction intended to resolve an ambiguity created through the February 2025 shoo amendments. So that's common sense and thank you for the work.

Okay, then I'll call the question all those in favor. I got three and councelor Pearson, Councelor Haldane, I didn't see a movement. You want to stand a yes or a no? No. Okay. Councelor Haldane. Yay or a nay on that motion? Yeah, I know. So, it's a nail. Okay. Thank you. I just want a clarification to make sure I get it right. Thank you. All right. That passes three to two. Uh, next order of business. Permissive tax exemption application from catalysts. Okay. The council adopt the bylaw site progressive tax exemption amendment bylaw number 949 2026. Somebody want to make that motion. Okay. Councelor Baitman Counc St. Pierre seconded. Any discussion to the motion?

Well, go ahead counc were comments at the beginning of the meeting. Normally with an adoption we just move it forward. But in light of those comments, it's worth worth noting a few things here. Um, you know, this is a five-year permissive tax exemption on those, I believe it was 30 units in the building that are are considerably below market. So, we're not uh exempting the uh at market or near below market units. Um this as as we discussed when we this came up at first, second, and third readings, uh this council did struggle over this permissive tax exemption. Um we we've looked at it for that five-year phase out for nonprofit housing. Um, the permissive tax exemption remains in place for a wide array of of uh local organizations.

Um, it just seems appropriate to me that we continue to uh do what we can to attract nonprofit housing to suit knowing that they've just got a fiveyear window here to uh to ease into the market. So, that's what that's it. Thank you. Anybody else? Councelor Pearson. Yeah. Um, thank you, Councelor Baitman. You're you're correct. We did debate it. Um, I'm um happy that um it's actually an accelerated rate. It's not going to be five phased out of after 5 years. It'll be phased out by 2030. So, it's going to be compressed by it'll be a fouryear. Um and I think we had robust discussion around, you know, the portions of catalyst that were there. Um it's part of the project where hopefully it uh breaks ground soon and we get our medical center as part of this. So okay, no other questions and I'll I'll call the question. All those in favor? Okay, that's unanimous. Thank you. Uh any uh new uh yeah any new business hearing?

None. Items removed consent agenda. Uh council verbal reports. Anybody have a verbal report? I just have one. I attended the opening of the horseshoe uh roof the pitch as deputy mayor and got cut the ribbon with the big scissors. Uh and it was ironic that uh just as I was cutting the ribbon, it started to rain and that's what we were cutting the ribbon for is the cover so they can lay horseshoes in the rain. So it worked out really well. It was a lot of fun and uh it was a good time down there. Anything else from anybody? Yeah, go ahead. We we skipped the verbal reports last time, so we we didn't talk about Canada Day. Fred Milan Park was was a uh second year in the park and um a number of us were there for that event. It it was a it really works well in the park, I believe, as much as we miss the flats. Um yeah, so I also there was a special meeting of the souk

homelessness coalition uh which I have been an informal um representative uh on behalf of the mayor uh over the last six years and unlike other groups such as the souk region food systems network which formally appointed counselor St. Pierre to that role. I was never formally appointed. So I have some concerns um that uh that this may may have some problems going ahead particularly with our other co-chair Melanie Cunningham stepping out. So, um, we determined at the special meeting that we will go out to the council candidates and seek, uh, seek their views and opinions on how, uh, the district can, uh, formally create some sort of intermediary or body or organization that will, and the soup homelessness coalition has served this purpose, be a um, uh, a link, an accountable link between council, the district, and the community at large with the souk shelter and with our homeless population. So, that's something we'll be doing. I also uh attended a number of CRD meetings on the mayor's behalf, including the environmental services meeting at which a new um

climate action uh strategy for 2026 to 2030 was introduced, arising out of the work that your task force, Tony, you were part of. And this is staff bringing forward a very pragmatic approach. This is the key point. They've taken the politics and the panic out of climate action and they're taking a pragmatic approach to uh dealing with areas in which the CRD has some direct um influence. So these are things like the home energy retrofit program, the delivery of very strong climate data to to local governments, um outreach programs, and then a lot of corporate emissions reduction policies as well as development of a new regional transportation plan.

And um while I'm at it on the subject of climate action, I just want to note that I attended the um the Fed Federation of Canadian Municipalities webinar um implementing and integrating climate adaption plans which our CEO spoke to in her last report. Um, it's worth noting this this presentation, as she stated, um, emphasized the district's practical olive organization approach to climate adaptation by aligning action with shared goals, saving time, saving money, reducing risk, and protecting our environment locally. So these are local actions done through a whole of organization um uh action by the by the district of souk and its staff and built into our master plans. So this the the FCM in its wisdom chose souk and uh St. John's Newfoundland as the two two model communities for how this climate action ad the integration of climate adaptation plans into district business. So I just want to thank um our communications coordinator for that work and I really do hope that FCM will be uh uh posting

that webinar I believe on its website and it it's well worth watching it. It does sort of you know I know that there are concerns that the climate action is such a wicked issue at such a dramatic level that we ensue can't do anything about it but we can and that is part of this protection of natural environment for future generations as is our this council's mandate from the get-go. I could go on but I I'll stop now the early guy. All right. Is there anybody else before I adjourn to a closed meeting? Hearing none, then I'll adjourn to a closed meeting that council closed the July 27th, 2026 meeting to the public pursuant of the following subsection of the committee charter 91 uh I uh received advice that subject to solicitor client privilege including communication necessary for this purpose. So, thank you. Uh do I need to have a vote on that?

No, that's good. Yeah, I I thought I just moved it. Okay, I will just have a minute or so for the public to leave. Yeah, we'll take five minute bathroom break.