Council Meeting

Good afternoon or good evening, folks.

I'll call the town council meeting to order for Tuesday, July 7th, 2026.

And just a reminder for the public and perhaps for council as well that this including this one, this is our fourth last council meeting before the end of the term as well.

We've got two council of the whole meeting.

So the agenda is a little bit bulky this evening.

Um but uh we can make it through.

Um so with that, I'll start with our um territorial acknowledgement and that we recognize the Lekwungen speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation, the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from you uh during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

If you wish to provide your comments to council regarding the development variance permit for 18 Fenton Road, there'll be a specific time to speak to this application when it is considered during this meeting.

Uh if you wish to provide comments during the public participation period or ask questions during the question period, please begin by indicating your name and your street uh name for the record.

You may then give us the benefit of your views.

To provide comments virtually during the public participation period or to ask questions during question period, scan the QR code or use the link on the live webcast stream screen or the town's website under the live webcast.

Again, we ask that you provide your name and your street name uh to begin your comments.

Your comment will be read aloud at the appropriate time by a member of the webcast team.

Public participation uh comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to items on the agenda.

Question period is open to any question and is limited to two minutes for each speaker, and you will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

You're consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

Here in her capacity with the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee.

So if I could uh get support to move her up uh rate after public participation before we get into our lengthy bylaw discussion.

And uh is uh is there any other changes including pulling anything from the consent item that uh you may want to council blood?

Yes, uh if I could pull um correspondence I uh which is the letter from uh Mayor Murdoch uh obey uh from uh section 10 to section 11 for discussion.

Thank you. Are there any other changes, amendments, or anything pulled from the consent agenda.

Then your microphone's still on time.

Uh seeing none with those two changes, the movement of our uh delegation from uh the Victoria Family Court as well as moving I.

That is, I guess what we're moving.

Uh all those in favor of those changes.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, that motion uh carries, and that brings us right down to the public participation period.

Uh would anybody in council chambers like to talk and it has to be related to anything on the um on the agenda.

I think whoever put their hand up in the back will have you up second.

Uh you just I should know this by now.

Okay. I just brought in a sign that you guys have probably already oh, I should sort introduce myself, Andrea Miller, Parker's Place.

Um Mayor and Council, thank you for the opportunity tonight to speak to item 4B.

I just brought up that one of these uh lovely signs that you've probably seen around town.

Um, Wild Wise gave me a supply of these, and when there is a bear sighting that gets uh reported to the BC conservation officer service, uh Wild Wise gets notified, and then they call me and I go around and post the signs, and I also provide uh wild Safe BC brochures to people.

I made up my own brochure brochure as well, uh fur bearers brochures and uh a list of them and talk to as many people as I can.

So I just thought I'd give you a bit of that uh information before I start my presentation on item 4B.

I'd like to really thank staff for bringing forward this report.

I appreciate the work that has gone into the bylaw amendments.

A couple of years ago, I came to council to ask for a wildlife attractance bylaw.

Council supported that direction, so I'm very pleased to finally see this before you tonight.

These bylaw amendments give the town a tool to encourage residents to be wildlife smart and improve safety on our streets.

Many people change their behavior simply because they know something is a bylaw.

Also, the allowance of extra bins for secondary suites and garden suites is very smart and much needed.

But I must point out an area needing attention.

We need bylaw provisions that prohibit people from allowing their attractants to attract wildlife at any time.

Nearby municipalities, including Lankford, Calwood, and Souk, have adopted bylaws that prohibit residents from storing garbage and other attractants in any way that is accessible to wildlife.

It states except for the reasonable use of bird feeders, a person must not feed, must not leave food, waste, or any other material that is likely to be attractive to dangerous wildlife on any property.

Tonight's staff report refers to wild safe BC's attractant by lock toolkit, which which says one of the best ways to reduce human wildlife conflict is to stop wildlife from access accessing attractants.

However, the proposed amendments in front of you tonight only deal with the time that with the time that garbage is placed on the curb and that time frame.

Wildlife conflicts don't happen on only on collection day.

They happen any day when secured garbage, unsecured garbage, compost, pet food, bird seed, or any other attractants are left accessible to wildlife.

Adding a general provision like those used in our neighboring municipalities would strengthen our bylaw.

It would also give staff another tool to educate residents and address problems before bears become food conditioned.

I appreciate staff that staff describe this as an incremental approach, but since neighboring municipalities have already adopted broader, adopted broader attractant bylaws, I would encourage council to include that provision now rather than waiting for another amendment in the future.

Overall, I do think this is a really good step.

I'm really uh grateful for it, and I thank council and staff for the work that's been done.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, Gabrielle. Anyone else that would like to address council? Yes, please.

I have two things.

Um the rezoning that we're that uh Kyle Porter's doing.

I just wanted to let you know I went and talked to the neighbors that are most directly responsible and they had no problem with it.

So I just wanted to reiterate that I don't think they sent a letter in, but I did talk to their friends of mine.

So that now the other um item was the uh letter that I wrote to you guys about our pump station.

I'm not faulting the town at all, I'm faulting my neighbors who complain about a ladder and a bag of garbage, and a guy has to drive down from Nanaimo, which is where this company comes from to move it.

Um I'm kind of really disappointed in the neighbors.

They've been parking all over the new dirt and everything that that they've and seed that they put there.

I think they might have fixed something today.

It's not my idea of what the problem is.

What I worry about in all of this is the town does not have their own companies doing this.

They have to tender the project.

Well, these people are getting f really discouraged by all this that's going on.

The word gets around to all the other people that are trying to tender businesses that maybe it's not such a nice place to work.

And I just kind of think that if we if we don't get as many tenders to a job, we're going to be paying more money.

More of my tax dollars is going to go into it.

And I just wanted to flag that problem and hope that somebody keeps an eye on it.

So thank you very much.

And I'm off to look.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to address council and chambers?

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight uh regarding the development variance permit application for 254 Island Highway.

I'm here to respectfully urge council to deny this application.

The application is about much more than the loss of a cafe.

It's about whether commitments made to this council and the community during the development approval process continue to have meaning after the approvals are granted.

When this development permit, when this development was first proposed, council approved two additional stories based in part on the promise of a grocery store or market.

That was presented as a significant community benefit that would provide residents with convenient walkable service and help justify the increased building height.

Unfortunately, the grocery store never materialized.

I appreciate that finding a grocery tenant in today's economic climate may have been difficult.

However, council was also told that considerable efforts had been made to secure a tenant, including lease incentives and outreach to prospective businesses.

Despite those statements, the evidence supporting those efforts was never made available to the public.

The developer then returned to council seeking a rezoning to permit medical services while retaining a smaller portion of the commercial space for a cafe.

That rezoning was supported in part by the prospect of attracting family doctors or family physicians.

At the time, I wrote to council explaining that the real obstacle was not the availability of medical office space.

It was a province-wide shortage of family doctors.

That was never a there was never a shortage of lease space.

There was a shortage of physicians.

The correspondence included with this application appears to confirm that point.

Medical tenants, such as the physiotherapy clinic and a dental practice, have signed leases or on some kind of contract-based thing.

But family physicians have not.

Now the developer is back once again asking council to eliminate the cafe space altogether in favor of additional medical commercial space.

What concerns me is the pattern here.

Council approved additional height because residents were promised a grocery store.

When that did not happen, council approved a rezoning because residents were told that they would still be a balance of mixed community service uses, including a cafe.

Now the cafe is proposed to disappear as well.

With each successive application, another community benefit has been removed.

Medical offices are important.

I am a medical provider myself, and I support access to health care.

But council should also recognize that medical spaces generally command significantly higher lease rates than cafe spaces.

Converting the remaining cafe area or reducing the necessary size of that cafe to allow additional medical offices provides a massive financial benefit to the owner while reducing the community-oriented uses that were originally presented to justify the development in the first place.

This is also not simply about replacing one type of commercial tenant with another.

A cafe serves a different purpose in a neighborhood.

It's a place where residents meet, where neighbors connect, where people stop before and after work, and where the community develops a sense of place.

Those kinds of gathering spaces are increasingly rare, and once they are lost, they're difficult to replace.

I also want council to consider what this means for the future.

The owner of the cafe at 284 Helmcken Road is planning to retire within the next year.

When that business closes and the cafe space is converted to medical offices because it's much more financially lucrative to sell a space to doctors rather than cafes, View Royal will lose one of its very few local coffee shops, particularly in that area.

Once the space becomes medical office space, it's highly unlikely that it will ever return to a cafe or community gathering place.

The same is to be said about 254 Helmakin, and that's just because lease space um the the leaseholds you must invest to create a medical office are are quite high and the cost of then converting it back to a cafe or the other way around is just not financially viable in in any way.

At what point sorry if if community amenities offered during the approval process can later be removed through successive applications, what confidence can residents have in the commitments made by future developers?

At what point do the promises made to council actually matter?

Approving this variance would mean that a grocery store has disappeared, the cafe has disappeared and the community benefits that help justify this project have gradually been replaced with more financially valuable commercial uses.

I respectfully ask council to deny this application not because cafes are more important than healthcare, but because the integrity of the development approval process matters.

When developers offer community benefits in exchange for additional height, density or other approvals, those commitments should mean something.

If they can be removed one by one after approvals are granted, the public has every reason to question the value of those promises.

I urge council to preserve the cafe space and to send a clear message that commitments made during the approval process are not temporary bargaining tools but lasting obligations to the community.

Thanks. Thank you.

Anybody else in chambers want to address council?

Seeing nobody. Carl, we got anybody on the line that has sent anything in for public participation.

Mayor Tobias, we have no messages on the form.

Thank you, sir. And I think that brings us down to petitions and delegations. Marie Therese, you're up.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor Tobias, Counselors, staff, and community.

I'm so impressed by your respectful community.

Thank you for having us tonight.

I want to introduce Kimberly Garri.

Can you hear me?

Yeah. Introduce Kimberley Gary, counselor of the City of Langford, Vice Chair of the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice.

And we're here to present very pleasantly and very proudly the 2025 Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee annual report of 2025.

Some of you have been on the court before, some of you have been members of this, but some of you don't know the structure.

Next slide, please.

Yeah, I just thought I would go through just a bit of the brief history of the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice.

It looks like I have a 60-minute presentation, but I'll stick to the eight and a half minutes I have.

Regarding the next slide, please.

That's great.

So we have a number of annual report highlights here that I'll go through at the end.

So there's many, many highlights that you've you've undoubtedly already read, but I'll get to them at the end of the presentation.

In terms of committee history, if you can take this to this next slide, please.

Thank you. The Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee was created in the 1960s with Victoria Sanite Joke Bay and Esquimalt as members under the now Provincial Court Act.

At the same time, CRD was tasked with constructing and paying for the Family and Children Court building.

In the late 1980s, the letters patent were amended to task CRD with funding and participating in the Family Court Committee.

The committee was designed as a youth justice committee by BC ministers of attorney general under the now Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Around the same time, the committee amended its terms of reference and constitution and gave CRD additional membership.

In the 1990s, Central Sanich, North Sanich, and Sydney joined the service and committee and the committee as the peninsula courthouse had closed.

So we have a long history.

On the late uh 1990s, the service was amended to provide grants to the Capitol Region Action Team on Sexually Exploited Youth and other board-approved committees.

Until 2019, the committee continued to do advocacy and community granting work.

In 2019, an informal service review was initiated, which resulted in the committee deciding to become a CRD delegated commission and a commission bylaw being adopted by the CRD board.

Next slide, please.

Okay, this just outlines what I've just mentioned in terms of the Provincial Court Act, the Family Court Committee, the Youth Justice Act, as well as the CRD bylaws of late in 2019, bylaw 2560 and 4453 to identify, inform, educate, and advocate for and report on the gaps in the regional resources for youth justice and family court issues.

Next slide, please.

Oh, this is about bylaws.

I'm gonna skip this slide.

Um move along. That'd be great.

Thank you. Um, we did have a committee governance review and the committee governance.

I'm just gonna turn this over to Kimberly because I'm um a little bit coffee right now.

Do you want to go to that?

Uh number seven.

Yeah, this is right here.

That's right. Not the higher thought.

No, okay.

Okay.

Uh so the commission bylaw number 4453 includes requirements such as a mandate, membership, term of office, appointment procedure, delegated powder, power, financial plan and budget, meeting procedures, record keeping requirements.

Uh, we follow Robert's rules of order as far as how our meetings are proceed.

Next slide, please.

Uh so we have a steering committee that sets our agendas a couple weeks before, which is made up to of anyone uh the in the committee that would like to join, and then our agendas go out uh four days uh prior.

Uh they're also posted on the CRD website as we are an entity of the CRD, so they are open and available for everyone.

Oh, next slide, please.

Uh so this is quite unique.

Uh I'm I'm actually on several external committees uh as part of my my work in Langford, and this one is the one that requires the most of my energy because we are in fact a working committee.

Um so the work of the committee is done by the committee members.

We don't have uh staff that are put moving business forward.

Uh we look for members of the community that have education in this space and that can provide uh their their own expertise.

So though most of the the committee is made up of um local government officials, uh school board school district trustees, as well as appointees by the CRD.

Uh next slide, please.

Okay, and I'm gonna pass it back to the chair.

Thank you. There you go.

We'll switch. Okay.

Thank you. So um if anybody asks you what the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice do, it's very simple.

We advocate and we educate.

We advocate for children and youth within the region, those that are coming in contact or may come in contact with the justice system, as well as we um educate.

Um sorry, we also advocate for the service providers, providers in the community, the boots on the ground.

So, like MIST, uh the foundry uh youth empowerment Society, we advocate for them.

And then we educate.

So our committee, as as uh counselor guy, vice chair guy mentioned, the committee is populated by counselors, and so we need to educate them on what is happening in the streets, what's happening on the streets.

And we do this by providing that conduit of information from the service providers to the counselors to the school board members to the CRD appointees.

Next slide, please.

So educate and advocate.

That's that's basically it's really simple, actually.

So where am I here, Kimberly?

Yep.

Yep. And we we can and cannot do things.

Okay. So we're a delegated CRD commission.

We uh follow all the CRD procedures bylaws, um, council procedure bylaws, uh, as well as all the bylaws, the code of conduct, all of that kind of stuff.

Uh but we can educate, we can advocate, we can canvas community members, we can take on specific issues of advocacy, and then there's certain things that we can't do, of course.

Next slide. And next slide.

Oh, this is it.

That's great. And that the uh committee cannot amend bylaws, for instance.

Uh let's see. So the next slide, please.

We do have many subcommittees, as um vice chair Gary mentioned.

Um, and this is a working group.

So it's it's a lot of work, as um your appointee will know, Counselor Brahm.

And we do have a three year strategic plan.

Next slide, please.

And it's here. We do have a mission statement as well as a vision, and we'll just get to the next slide, which is really the meat.

Um, oh, actually, the the next slide as well, which is the meat of the annual report.

There we go, the highlights.

I can't read this.

I've got to read this one.

Sorry. We've got two going here, and this is small font, and this is big for young and older.

Okay, so in our annual report, um, number one, we've got the year in review, uh, the month-to-month recap with of this CRD delegated commission, uh, the presentations given to the uh Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice, the updates, it's all there.

Um, we've got uh a financial statement and a budget, as you would expect on page 10 and 11, uh the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Subcommittee structure and function, uh, the efforts of the Capital Region Action Team CRAT on the sexual exploitation of youth in the Greater Victoria area on page 13 and 14, the grants administrated by the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice, our annual open house, some of you who came, so thank you very much, um, as well as Dr.

Rebecca Nelm's research on the mobile youth services team, and that's available for you if you ever want to know more about MIST.

As well, we most importantly, this year we've held a panel discussion on the integrated police units in the region and the ramifications of strategic funding withdrawals of the West Shore RCMP and Central Sanage Police.

And with that, I think we'll close.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming tonight, Marie, Murray Therese, and Kimberly for you know just uh shedding a bit of light on us.

I know um through their tenures, many of the counselors had spent some time on the um on the committee now commission.

Um but if you're happy to entertain some questions, I think we can start with Councillor Brown.

Thank you very much, Kim and your worship.

It's not very often we get a mayor presenting to us, so thank you for coming.

And thank you for chairing the committee.

I'm a member of, and uh it's a very eclectic group.

So um I I think of herding cats, it kind of reminds me of the committee sometimes.

So, but you do a good job of uh reining stuff in and keeping us focused.

So I really appreciate that, and thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, it is an eclectic group because everybody on that that committee is very passionate, and so taming that passion um is is a challenge sometimes, but we we're up to it, the two of us.

Thank you.

You uh go to Councillor Rogers and uh Councillor McKenzie.

Thank you. Thank you for coming.

Um I had uh I reviewed the annual report, uh 25.

Um great information there.

One thing that struck my uh interest uh was the um proposed graphic novel, JARS, uh surviving trafficking.

And I know that um so far $12,000 had been invested in it and it's still yet to come to print.

Can you give us an update on when that is likely to be completed?

Thank you. Um our uh the uh chair of the Capitol Region uh Action Team has just recently retired from that committee um after serving 20 years.

I think 30.

30 years. Uh uh the comic book uh is excellent.

Uh had a bit of a slowdown during the pandemic and then got some traction again.

Uh and then um, as you read in the report, we're at a printing stage.

And so I don't have a further update as of that.

Our new chair of the committee, who is Councillor O'Steton, the alternate from Highlands has taken over.

And so I can certainly ask for an update and I'm happy to get back to you if you'd like.

Yes, thank you.

And I'd um knowing how much how popular and how they are able to communicate the issues, particularly for youth, um I would really hope that that uh could become um that could be a completed project and distributed to to the youth.

Um the advocacy side, um I've done 30 years in corrections, so um I'm very well, and I was a youth probation officer for about 10 or 15 years.

Um, and one of the things that really disturbs me recently with uh not recently, but um the disappearance of the youth detention center that we had, we were youth remand center at um on uh Talcott and the fact that there is no youth remand or custody center on the island.

And I think that is a travesty and a grave disservice to our families and to the youth uh who and uh even to the uh the uh youth workers that um you know when children are are placed in the Burnaby Correctional Center, and how does that probational officer communicate and plan for their return and their ability to have support in this um on the island?

I think that uh so is that one of the areas that um you would think family court could take a stronger position on and advocating and even suggesting that the UBCM can entertain a resolution or A VICC.

We are often inviting guests to speak to the committee to uh share various gaps that we're seeing in the systems.

I haven't heard that one within my short time on the committee.

This is my first term.

However, this is these are always conversation pieces that we can entertain and uh and then often we'll we'll escalate those either through letter writing or uh we haven't done a UB resolution UBCM resolution uh at this term as well, but uh we use uh the the voice of the chair in order to speak to different levels of government um and and that's like speaking to those gaps in particular and use our our um our our our space as elected officials in order to add volume to those needs.

So I I appreciate that feedback.

Um and that's something that we could probably uh look talk about at our steering committee as to like how we would hear about um from a particular person in the community that could share that.

Council McKenzie.

Thank you, and thank you both for coming tonight.

Uh I actually have two questions, if I might.

Um the first is you know, the the structure and and the demand on members of council to uh do the work.

It's a working board, right?

That's quite unique.

And I was wondering in the future if there's a possibility that that might change, um, thinking more like maybe community members uh taking on the role.

Yeah, thank you.

I'll answer that question.

I'm sorry, John.

I I didn't hear your question, but Kimberly will relay it to me afterwards.

Um, Councillor McKenzie, that's a good question.

Um it is a demanding committee, and anybody that is appointed to it has to understand that.

We receive funding from the CRD of 15,000 a year, 15,000, uh 15,000 a year, not 50.

We don't have um a lot of staff.

We do get help from the CRD, uh, but we're a small but mighty committee, and we're we're not interested in more money, actually.

We we do well with what we we've got.

Um if if the committee members weren't doing the work, then we'd have to have a staff.

And and it's not necessary.

And actually, this the problems that we see, the problems that the service providers are are recognizing the gaps in the system are so complex.

Once you do a deep dive by doing the work, you understand it.

It's not one of those committees where you can not read the agenda and attend.

And so I wouldn't be in favor of that, uh, but with the recognition that if you're on the court, you've got to do work.

Thank you. And uh my other question was I understand that this was an informational presentation, but normally there's like an ask either now or in the future.

I'm wondering if that's the case with you guys in terms of is there anything you royal can do to help you with your work?

Yeah, actually there is now that you ask.

It sounds like we've we've taught before.

Um, I've taught to you once before, but not about this.

Um, there is going to be a uh service review at the CRD, and it's not pointed towards us.

We're just one of the committees, the delegated commission that is undergoing the the service review.

I would ask your representatives who sit on the board, uh, my colleague and friend Sid, uh, to support the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice.

Uh, you've got the annual report, we've got a track record, we've done everything that the CRD has asked and more.

So I ask that all of you support us so we can support the service providers, so we can support the youth in our region who are really at risk.

We hear very sobering stories about kids in Victoria, Oak Bay, View Royal, Machosen, it's not just Langford, it's it's all over.

And kids as early as 12 years old.

It's so heartbreaking.

Um, kids that are that are trafficked and predator um predators are taking advantage of them as young as 12.

And so we hear stories like that, and we we bring it back to our our councils.

Uh we provide advocacy for those groups.

We provide really great service for 15,000 a year.

Thank you again, Kim and Marie Trees for coming out. Yeah, very much appreciated.

Yeah, absolutely.

And now we get into why everybody's here, and that's uh seven motions of uh many, many bylaws.

Um I'm not sure uh who's first up, Scott, for our bylaws.

Leah, you get the pleasure of doing all the bylaw updates.

What did you do to deserve that honor?

So thank you, Mayor and Council, but I'll only be doing some of them.

Um before you are the proposed amendments, the town's business license, uh regulation, business license and regulations by law, the fees and charges by law, uh a municipal ticket information bylaw specific to home occupations, um sign by law, and the zoning bylaw, as mentioned, all related to our home occupation regulation update.

Um the amended bylaws have been prepared for bylaw readings, um, the majority of which go first second and third today.

Um however, please note that a public hearing is required for the proposed changes to the zoning bylaw.

Uh I will also note um that during the after um after the um sorry, during the May 12, 2026 council meeting, staff introduced changes to the aforementioned bylaws and council made a motion at that time to direct staff to prepare the necessary amendments, um, all of which we are proposing to come into effect on January 1st of 2027.

The proposed amendments were based on a review of the town's current regulations for home occupations, section 4.2, and bed and breakfast regulations, section 4.3, and regulations of several municipalities were used as the basis for um our proposed updates.

Since the May 12, 2026 um meeting, staff have further reviewed and the proposed regulations specific to daycare small, which only permits up to like eight children.

Um, and they're the ones that are based out of homes.

Um we've proposed that we remove these regulations based off of the community Care and Assisted Living act, which regulates uh daycares specifically.

So we don't want to counter uh what is currently in the act, and we'd like to be aligned with them.

Um so based off of that, we've removed those proposed regulations with the exception of uh including a required one parking space for any employee after the business license holder.

Thank you.

So uh just dealing with uh the bylaws, that would be A, and this would include uh the one, two, three, and four, correct.

Or sorry, five and six as well.

Yeah, that's it.

Okay. Yeah, uh let's go to questions, Counselor Rogers and Councillor Matson, please.

Yeah, thank you.

You you had mentioned that um the uh daycare is now um would be required to provide one parking space for each employee after business license holder.

Um so what was it before?

That's where it's gonna be, what's it now?

Also, through the chair, there was no requirements previously for employees regarding the daycare.

Um there like we had slightly based it off of the home occupation requirements.

Um, however, that is incorrect um based off of the fact that underneath the act, they're not really considered home occupations.

Yeah. Yeah, I think staff had a comment.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um through the mayor.

Um uh what um uh Miss Critus was saying is that um there wasn't a parking requirement for um employees um in the past, and this bylaw is introducing uh one parking space for um every employee of a daycare.

So that is it that's that's the new parking requirement.

Okay, thank you.

So uh are the existing daycare operators at the grant for other as an exemption on this?

Correct. Okay, great.

Uh yeah, that'll be interesting to see the implications.

Um, how a new daycare operator will will be able to find that parking, but you know, there we are.

Uh another question, if I may, um, in uh page three, the proposed changes include a maximum number of home occupations per dwelling unit and per lot.

But I don't know um, you know, so what's what's the current uh maximum number of home occupations and then per dwelling, and I'm thinking if we have a four-unit complex, you know, could there be four home occupations?

Uh is that possible?

Um just wondering what the implications uh of the number of uh that could be possible on uh a small lot or a four-unit uh dwelling um and the parking requirements on that.

So through the chair, uh new section uh 4.2.1 outlines the number of um home based businesses that would be permitted uh under the bylaw.

So for example, um it would essentially allow um two home home office, home based businesses, so those that have zero visitors uh within a dwelling unit.

So if you do have four units, each of those businesses could have a home office or a home office, home based business, uh, which would have no visitors coming to site, um, which would be totally permissible.

Um, then there is one home one minor home-based business per lot, and or uh one major home-based business per lot.

So um, and that's just to kind of make sure that we're not having the majors and the minors on some of those smaller sites.

So again, if I can uh try to understand the the thing is so that um the the home-based businesses can be one per unit if there's no uh customer traffic.

Is that what you're saying?

Correct. For the my uh for sorry, for the home office home-based business.

So therefore shouldn't have much impact on the community and neighborhood. Okay, thank you very much.

Council Masson.

Yes, thank you.

Um I'll start with the humorous one that I spoke to our CEO about uh in in this long list of bylaws and fees and fines that I've seen, um it notes that we're only allowed to have four chickens on a property, and the chickens have to be over four months old, and you can't sell eggs.

So I I'm just wondering about uh for the people who do manage to have a few chickens and the kids put the eggs together to sell.

Are you are you saying they're actually contributing our bylaw?

It sounds as if they're contributing our byline.

And why what's the difference between a four-month-old chicken and a five-month-old chicken?

So the chair, um, that was not reviewed as part of our bylaw update.

That's actually a different section.

I think it's like 4.4 in the zoning bylaw.

Um, that is just strictly what is currently in the MTI bylaw, I believe.

Just hoping to have some fun. Okay.

Counselor Mass, and you can cut your chickens in the next term when you review that one.

Uh throughout this whole process, what are the couple of items that you mentioned?

Are those the most significant uh changes?

So up through the chair, um during the May 12th um council meeting, we had provided a uh table that had a basic list of all of the proposed amendments to the bylaws, um the majority of which um were occurring to the zoning bylaw.

Um so, like for example, new definitions for home-based businesses, um, changing the name from home occupation to home-based businesses, um, and having a new classification system.

So instead of level one, two, and three home occupations, you're now looking at home office um minor and major home-based businesses.

Um, there was also the combination of the bed and breakfast regulations to the home occupations, so they're not classed differently, and it's made very obvious that in order to have a bed and breakfast, you have to uh follow the major home-based business regulations.

Um, other than that, the other bylaws um, for example, the sign bylaw, we're just transferring some of the language that was in the zoning bylaw uh to the appropriate bylaw.

Um the um yeah, and regarding the business license and regulation bylaws, it's simply the same thing, just removing the home crafts and aligning it with the new um verbiage if you will for the zoning bylaw and the fees and charges uh similarly as well um for regarding the municipal ticket bylaws just reflecting the proposed changes that the new regulations would require their counter or opposing um fines and fees if you will so thank you okay thanks are we doing no i'm just moving received yeah we got a lot of them to go to so uh stand with me yeah uh uh that's one of many um so so uh counselor uh lemon uh is moving the report for receipt um seconded by counselor rogers uh all those in favor any opposed uh if it's okay i'll stick with the same mover and seconder to expedite things along if there's no disagreement so uh first second and third reading of bylaw number 1174 2026 that the business license regulation bylaw nine five two twenty sixteen amendment bylaw number uh one one seven four twenty twenty six be given a first second and third reading and uh move by counselor levin second by council rogers all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries and just to remind uh both the public and us that this just brings us to a point where the last motion on this phase will be to bring it to public hearing where we can uh hear, of course, what the public thinks about it.

And uh so the next one is first, second, and third reading of bylaw number 1175 2026 that fees and charges by law number 958 2016, amendment bylaw number 1175 2026 be given a first, second, and third reading.

Counselor Lemon is moved, councilor Rogers is seconded.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries, and uh that um municipal ticket information bylaw number 643 2020 amendment bylaw number 1176 2026 be given a first, second, and third reading moved by councilor lemon and seconded by counselor rogers, all those in favor.

And that uh signed bylaw number nine five zero twenty eighteen amendment by law number eleven seventy-seven twenty twenty-six be given a first, second, and third reading moved by counselor lemon, seconded by counselor rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries, and that the um zoning bylaw uh number 900 2014 amendment bylaw number 1178 2026 be given first uh and second reading by counselor lemon, seconded by counselor rogers, all those in favor.

And finally, on this section, uh that uh public hearing for uh zoning bylaw number 900 2014, amendment bylaw number 1178 2026 be scheduled for the 21st of July 2026.

Moved by Councillor Lennon, second by Councillor Rogers, all those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, uh, that motion carries.

And I think that brings us maybe down to you, Ivan.

Thanks, Leah.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan Leong, Director of Engineering.

Just one bylaw on my portfolios for today.

So this I bring before you are residential garbage and food waste bylaw amendment for secondary and garden suites and wildlife attraction mitigation.

So this is a series of amendments that uh that either council has uh requested or um has been part of a previous project.

Um so there's three items here.

One is to reflect council direction to allow additional garbage and food waste bins to be provided for secondary suites and garden suites.

Uh there's another suggested amendment um in keeping with the mitigation of the exposure of wildlife attractants uh as per our previous bear safe bins pilot project.

Then a third item is a housekeeping item uh when it comes to uh town house developments.

Uh, what we've noticed is that there's been variances with driveway widths that would cause some hardships with our uh garbage collectors.

Um so this provides clarification in that it is up to um the town's discretion to uh would or allow to have our collectors go through those rows, or that if they need to have a private um collector do it.

Um I think that's basically the reports before you.

Uh, what staff are recommending is essentially first to first, second, and third readings for this bylaw.

Uh, but the recommendation for this report is that um that this residential garbage and food waste bylaw amendment for secondary and garden suites and wildlife attraction mitigation be received for information.

Happy to take questions before you go with your bylaw.

Thank you.

We got a few questions, so let's uh start with Councillor Mattson this time, and we'll go this way.

Go ahead, Councillor Matt.

Sure, just uh a couple of quick questions in terms of the cost.

Is there a cost for our resident to get a who have a secondary suite to get a garbage can?

And how would they pay for the garbage pickup?

Is that would that be like our three dollar sticker attached to the case?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, it'd be through the three dollar sticker, and I believe the purchase of the garbage can as well.

And Councilor Lemon.

I have a question about an existing clause, or if it's a clause, um, Ivan, and that is under wildlife attract attractant mitigation, um, the occupant shall place the garbage and household food waste containers collection at the curb site no earlier than 5 a.m.

on the day of collection, but no later than, and so this is the existing bit, no later than 7 a.m.

on the day of collection.

And well, I didn't know that my garbage is picked up at noon.

So what our bylaw says, or our old bylaw said, that I have to have my garbage out there at before seven.

So why why? Can you explain to me?

Yeah, uh, Mayor Tobias, while you're you're while uh Councilor Lemon's garbage may be picked up at noon, um, that's not for everybody.

And so some get collected a lot earlier in the morning.

And when uh the carts are not picked up or not put to the curb in time, that causes hardships to the collectors to wait.

But am I in contribution of the bylaw by putting out my garbage two hours later than the designated time?

Uh Mayor Tobias, technically that would be in contravention with the bylaw.

If I can just quick comment.

The uh I I think the reason you need to set up a seven o'clock time is because if you don't put if you put it up at eight o'clock and the garbage trucks already come past, it too bad for you.

If it's there before seven o'clock, you have the right to complain.

Not having your garbage out by seven, Jerry.

Uh Councilor Brown.

Yeah, I like the the amendments.

Uh um I would like to see a general provision for um leaving uh wildlife attractants out at any time.

Um the I know on the animal control bylaw, we already have a provision in there for people uh feeding wildlife, but the guy says, no, no, I'm just putting my garbage out, I'm not feeding them.

So uh it'd be nice to have another section in there, just uh general provision uh for leaving wildlife attractants out at any time.

Uh Mayor Tobias staff can bring that back and look at it's it's a little that general, the fact that it being being general makes it difficult to apply to bylaw.

Um, especially because uh we only have one bylaw enforcement officer.

So there's uh you know, staff can certainly look into it, uh, but in order to uh enforce it would require a higher level of service.

Uh go ahead, Counselor Brown with your follow-up.

Yeah, well, even feeding wildlife generally would be uh complaint driven.

So um, and usually people comply if they're you know someone uh addresses that.

I know we only have one bylaw officer.

However, um it'd be nice that again be nice to have that general provision in this bylaw for leaving animal attractants out at any time because uh a person could leave their garbage out uh you know, setting those time limits, and then it uh makes even more work for the bylaw person to to uh you know check the times, right?

Um whereas it's general, uh it could be enforced at any time or not enforced or uh complaint driven.

So uh the bylaw officer could uh you know it might not be high in their their list, but it could still be there.

Uh counselor Brown, if I could I could recommend uh if we uh put a motion for if I'd be willing to move something like um have staff investigate the inclusion of a general provision uh for wildlife attractance.

Um you could second that, Ivan.

Uh yeah, I I understand what Councillor Brown is speaking to.

Now that that would be under a completely different bylaw, so it wouldn't be part of this.

Okay, this is specific with garbage collection as opposed to probably something that what uh counselor Brown is speaking to is something outside of garbage collection.

Excellent. So we could still add it to the appropriate bylaw by motion and give you some direction to do that, Ivan.

Okay. So uh uh my motion specifically was on the applicable bylaw that uh staff investigate ways of adding that general provision as was brought up tonight and referenced by Councillor Brown.

If there's a second.

Yeah, I'll second that.

I think it's a good idea because it could be added to the animal control bylaw.

That might be the more appropriate place.

So I agree with that.

That's a good idea.

Councilor Lemon.

Yeah, I'm on the same theme.

Um, I was going to ask, and on the same theme, I and I believe it fits into what we're actually discussing here.

Um, I wondered if staff could take a look at uh at the bylaws of Colwood and Langford, as Mr.

and Mrs. Miller mentioned, and see if what those communities have could be applicable and would work for V Royal.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um, one key thing council should know about is that uh those municipalities they use a service called Wildwise.

So Wildwise is a uh paid-for service for educational purposes and is used in SUK, uh Otter Points, um, I believe Shirley and Colwood, Machosen, Langford, they all partake in that.

Um, we did reach out to Wildwise as part of the CRD Wildlife Attractant Working Group.

Um, they did a provide a little bit of a presentation.

I don't know what the costs are, but we've also engaged with uh Wild Safe BC's Wildlife Coordinator Program, which is upwards, I think 15,000 a year when you get the grants.

So um this uh bylaw amendment is a first step, and the recommendation is to monitor to see what level service is required to administer it, and then from there we bring forward we could bring forward another um uh council report regarding uh what resources may be required in the future.

Council Brown.

Sorry, I'm not trying to dominate the floor, but um if you were to add to add that section to the animal control bylaw, um the CRD looks after our animal control, so um it's contracted out.

So uh no, we we only have one bylaw officer, but the CRD has multiple animal control officers that could enforce that if that section is added to the animal control bylaw for leading um wildlife attractance because feeding wildlife is already in the bylaw.

Yeah, Mayor Tobias. I don't know. Um certainly something that staff can look into.

Thank you. Ivan, so we've got a motion on the floor.

Is there any questions or comments on that?

And that is to uh have staff uh uh investigate the proper general provision for the wildlife attractance bylaw vice or the animal control bylaw vice, the garbage collection one.

Um all those in favor.

Any opposed? See none opposed, motion carries.

And uh uh can I get a motion to receive the report from the director of engineering on residential garbage, food waste and bylaw amendment for a secondary and garden suites.

Moved by counselor lemon, second by counselor brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries and uh apply first, second and third reading for bylaw number 11 79 2026 that uh collection and disposal of residential garbage and household food waste bylaw number 745 2009 amendment by law number 1179 2026 be given a first second and third reading.

Moved by councillor Mattson, seconded by counselor McKenzie.

All those in favor.

Any opposed none opposed.

Uh motion carries.

Thank you, and I think where does that bring us down to?

I think it's likely the official community plan uh bylaw.

Um Leon, there you are.

Did you have a little intro?

I do. Uh thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Uh this evening I am going to be giving a presentation on the official community plan bylaw number 1180.

Next slide, please.

At the committee of the whole meeting on June 9th, staff presented the final draft of the official community plan.

At the council meeting on June 16th, council passed several motions that are summarized in the staff report and which I will discuss in the next couple of slides.

Following the council meeting, staff referred the draft OCP to the town's legal council for a comprehensive legal review.

The final OCP that is being considered for first and second reading incorporates provisions in a response to council motions as I mentioned earlier, as well as several edits to ensure that the OCP addresses the relevant legislation in the local government act and does not create any potential legal implications for the town in the future.

Now I will uh briefly summarize the revisions to the OCP.

There is a red line version attached to the staff report.

And I'll start with the first one.

The first change is that bullet point in objective 1.1 Summary of Policy Direction in section 16.2 Regional Context Statement Alignment.

Is that is a mouthful?

Now reads enable infill and redevelopment with existing neighborhoods through the small-scale multi-unit housing and land use designation.

Council requested that I can't remember the previous word at this moment, but it's replaced with enable.

Wording in resolution C 134-26, which is too long to be included on a slide, but it is in the staff report.

Um has been added to different sections of the OCP where it is appropriate and relevant.

So it's been added to the land use and transportation mobility sections as well as the regional context statement.

Next slide, please.

Two um changes were made to the land use maps.

Um these were some changes that were recently made, and council was notified of this because we had to update the the staff report and the agenda.

And uh thankfully um these were caught.

Uh so the first change is um on the north side of uh the Trans Canada Highway.

The parcel um which is little Little Road Park should be um designated rural.

The reason for this is because there are agricultural activities that are currently taking place on this parcel.

If we designate it park before we develop a park plan, then what is going on on the site right now will not be consistent with the OCP.

So when we do our parks and trails master plan, we will be looking at this park, and then we will update the OCP to ensure that it is aligned with the parks and trails master plan.

So it is crucial that we make that change this evening.

And land for little roads are just hanging it basically.

Is uh my understanding that correct?

They're using correct little road and hanging it and then feeding livestock, I'm assuming that's right.

Agricultural activities yeah.

Um, the other change that um we um uh we're not quite sure why this happened, but the uh four parcels at the end of um Heart Road on the water side um should be designated residential, not large lot residential.

Residential is the current land use designation of these properties in the 2011 OCP.

Council may recall that back in March the Heart Road properties were proposed to be part of the Western Gateway Corridor.

That was removed.

Council passed a motion that they're removed.

And the intent of removal is that those parcels return to the original OCP designation, which is residential, not large lot residential.

So we caught this and thankfully we did.

Next slide, please.

The um the next change, which actually was a recommendation of our legal council, is to replace the title commitments and targets with community targets.

And if we say commitments, that means we're committing to this, which we are, but if our bylaws are not consistent, then our bylaws will be void.

And we could also put the town into a situation where there could be some legal action or legal implications.

We do not want to do that.

Next slide, our snow stay here.

The next um change is um also through our our legal review.

We did revise some of the reconciliation context and some of the policies to provide some clarity as well, soften and review remove some of the mandatory language to ensure that any future policies and bylaws will be consistent with the OCP and is not and and do not create a situation where any new bylaws that the nations adopt, their government or our government that are inconsistent with the OCP.

So the advice was to soften some of that mandatory language to give us a bit more flexibility as our our relationship as our government to government relations further evolve over time.

And then the next change is in other sections of the OCP, we did revise some of the mandatory language to provide some flexibility and minimize some of the potential legal implications or unintended consequences in the future when objectivism policies are formalized to bylaws.

I will give you an example of this.

Most of the changes are regarded related to our FireSmart policies.

So right now, there is we have some strong language regarding our FireSmart policies around commit to that, maintain this.

If we do that, and then some of the provincial policies and regulations and acts change or but our OCP is inconsistent with that, again, it will put us in a very awkward position with our OCP.

So under the advice of our legal council, we have made, and if you look through the red line version, it identifies which policies have been have been, for example, maintaining fire smart principles.

We change that to supporting fire smart principles.

If we say maintaining, that means that maybe maintaining the current ones right now, which open it it, yes, it's it's it might be a bit um overkill, however, it is something that we just have to be consider uh be careful about when we're establishing mandatory language in our OCP.

And again, this is um this was in response to the our legal review of our document.

And lastly, we fixed um so there's some spelling and a couple of grammar and punctuation errors that we noticed in the final draft.

So we just made some changes there.

Next slide. So the motion in front of you this evening is to receive council uh the staff report.

Um next steps will be count on this agenda is council consider first and second reading of the um of bylaw 1180.

After council, if the if first and second reading passes, then there is a recommendation that council schedules um the public hearing on September 1st to hear from the public.

We haven't heard from the public.

We need to hear from the public.

So September 1st would be um would be that opportunity.

Um also under the Local Government Act, we are required to um refer to the OCP to the Agricultural Land Commission, as well as confirm that our pardon me, um consider the OCP in conjunction with our 2026 to 2030 uh financial plan, which we already have done.

However, under the local government act, council must pass motions to those, and they that is in your on your sheet, um, so that if uh the province or anyone says, oh, was this done?

Yes, it was done.

We have the motions, uh, the the resolutions to prove it.

That uh uh completes my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Thanks, Lynn. Thanks to the team for all the hard work on it too.

Appreciate that.

Any questions for the end?

Uh go with Councillor McKenzie first.

Thank you. This question is more of a just interest.

I noted that one of the changes was around the reconciliation context.

And I think we um back when I had raised questions about like replacement or repetition, um, staff had said that we were also allowing our neighboring First Nations to review it.

And I wondered, just curious if that took place and might have led into some of those changes.

Absolutely. We did refer the OCP um to both the Squamalt and Song East First Nations.

Um they engaged consultants to be our um to be our contact in that review.

They provided comments on that.

Uh and uh the what we heard report that was presented on June 9th includes the comments that we received from the nations.

Um, as part of um following first and second reading, we will be um referring uh the OCP uh our bylaw to uh external agencies and the and the nations as well.

So they'll have another opportunity to look at it prior to the public hearing.

Council Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um with respect to the uh the council resolution that uh was um uh just yeah, C 13426 um on June 16th, and initially merit bias motion with your transportation mobility and and uh I really appreciate that.

The information had been added into the transportation mobility section, the second paragraph.

Um pretty much verbatim, so that's great.

Um what I'm not clear about is um the cross-reference to the RGS um statements and the objectives of improving multimedia connectivity and mobility, that page, and it seems that um uh that motion is not reflected in that section.

Could you uh assist me?

Uh I thank you, Mary Tobias. Yes, I can, and I'll have to go back to my computer to pull it up.

You have a page that was on the helper out council register.

Um sorry.

The the page that you're referring to, yeah.

Um so through the mayor.

Uh council may wish to refer to uh section 16.2 regional context statement alignment.

Uh bullet. So in objective 3.1 create safe and complete communities.

Um, in the summary of the policy direction column in the row for policy section 5.1 general framework and considerations under land use.

Um a bullet point was added, advocates for transportation and capacity improvements to support additional growth.

So that was added, as well as to uh objective 4.1 improve multimodal connectivity and mobility in the summary of policy direction column.

Uh in the row for policy section 8.0 transportation mobility.

We added contemplates transportation demand management and other strategies in partnership with adjacent municipalities, the province, BC Transit, and First Nations for improving the flow of traffic throughout V Royal, reducing congestion, maintaining mobility, supporting economic activity, and enhancing community livability, which is the language that is in the 134-26.

Yes, thank you.

And then contemplates uh transportation.

I well, I'm repeating myself here.

Contemplates transportation demand management, other strategies in partnership with adjacent municipalities, the province, BC Transit, and First Nations for improving the flow of traffic throughout V Royal, reducing congestion, maintaining mobility, supporting economic activity, and enhancing community livability.

So it's working with all with all stakeholders to achieve that and um and under the land use section of the OCP we uh get into the details of that we also have other supporting policy in the OCP around um uh traffic movement through through the town uh and so uh it's um from my from staff's perspective it's is is is covered um in the regional context statement as well as in other sections of of the OCP through context through policies and through objectives yes thank you my comfort level uh members is that um and what I particularly like about what staff had added in the um mobility transportation section um uh and the correlation that should exist I think on um um sorry what page 164 and our proposed a motion a wording uh motion that um expects that future growth would be informed by realistic assumptions regarding the delivery of provincial regional and local transportation infrastructure would there be any harm in in um proposing an amendment to the OCP to add that phrase to page 164 of the regional context comparative statement before we have first, second, and third.

I guess the question, Leanne and Elna, would be could we pass it as amended?

Thank you. I would suggest that you give first reading to the bylaw and then amend at first reading, and then we can give second reading to the bylaw.

Can you can you type your uh that odor cut and paste it to Alma and Leanne so that's uh a record and just maybe read it aloud again now just for our benefit?

Yeah. Thank you.

Expects that future growth would be informed by realistic assumptions regarding the delivery of provincial, regional, and local transportation infrastructure.

In essence, that's the last uh sentence of the paragraph that staff had put into um into the document.

And I I'd second that, counselor Rogers at the staff, you've done everything that we've um uh asked you to do and and made all the changes.

This will give, I think future councils a little bit of teeth, and that was the same thing Colwood had come up with potential developers that were looking at up to 20 stories in Calwood corners, and they actually turned it down because of lack of transportation capacity.

Um they just couldn't move that was the concern of council.

So this will give future councils some benefit to say maybe we like your plan, but it actually we can't make it work with our transportation needs right now.

So Councillor Rogers, I I would support this and um and open it up to any questions or comments from other folks.

We can just uh give first reading amend it and then do it all tonight.

But I'm just hoping that future councils have the benefit of hindsight and we are able to use that regional growth contact statement um to their advantage in the future.

Councilor Brown.

Just about the uh the public hearing um is very important and it's important to get a good turnout.

It'd be nice to see the room full or people even line up the door.

I don't think that's gonna happen.

But September 1st, we're still hopefully in the heat of summer as the last week of holidays for school children.

So people are gonna be busy getting their children ready for school.

And uh I know we're pressed for time, but it would be nice to make it either September 8th.

I September 22nd, we have a meeting, however, that I know that's pushing it kind of late.

Um, or we even have a special meeting on the 15th of September.

Again, the first of September.

Um, hopefully, we're still in the heat of summer, and uh if people have young children, not to say they would necessarily come to uh public meeting, but it'd be nice to um you can never pick the perfect date, however, for me, September 1st isn't the perfect date.

Okay, uh, we've got uh at that point we'll have two meetings left.

Yeah, so I I I hear you not optimal, but um if it's council's intent to get this through because if there's a challenge or maybe there's something relevant that comes up in that public hearing and then um maybe something we have all overlooked and uh um it doesn't give us much of an opportunity to change it before it's too late.

Councilor Matson.

Just my comment to that.

I mean, we're lucky to get 130 people filling out forms and attend, I mean the likelihood of us filling the chambers are nil.

Uh and anyone who wanted and had an wanted to had wanted to comment, have already had an opportunity and they haven't taken it.

I mean, most like I say, nobody is either must they must really like what we've done.

Or because I don't have everything that's happened over the past couple of years.

So I John, I I don't think you're I don't think it's an issue.

Uh Leanne, so uh can you well walk us a little bit through the process as well?

So the public hearing would be on uh the first, and would we advance that to adoption on the first?

That's the intent.

Yes, through through the mayor, exactly.

Uh we we could have had the public, well, we could have recommended having the public hearing um in July at the next council meeting.

However, staff um in light of um councilor Brown's concerns felt that September 1st would be a better time to hold it and uh and based on our options and and where we are at in the year.

And uh after the public hearing on the first, council will consider third reading and final adoption.

Thank you.

Uh so uh I think what we've got is uh we could consider first I'll move first uh counselor rogers amendment.

Yes, absolutely.

Um so that that's the intent.

So uh let's go with the uh in order.

So let's receive Leanne's report.

First moved by Councilor uh Matson, second by Councillor Rogers, all those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries and that uh the official community plan by law number 1180 2026 be given a first reading.

So moved moved by counselor mattson, second by councilor Rogers, all those in favor.

And now, Elna, we amend, is that correct?

And uh so councilor Rogers, if you want to read in your motion to amend, and if you could uh supply the page that that would go on any details that would provide Leanne some opportunity to facilitate that.

Yes, uh this would be uh section 4.1 of uh the um RGS growth strategies uh document, page 164, uh adding a um a bullet in the summary policy direction expects that future growth would be informed by realistic assumptions regarding the delivery of provincial, regional, and local transportation infrastructure.

Seconded by Councilor Mattson.

Any questions, comments, discussion?

All those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed motion carries.

I'll move second.

Uh now Ellen, we move back, or is that going to wait?

First reading as amended.

Oh.

Uh let's go to uh first reading as amended.

Moved by Councilor Matson, seconded by Councilor Rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed.

Now can we do two and three?

Uh just a two. I'll move two.

Okay, so we've got uh uh counselor mattson move to second reading.

Uh seconded by counselor Rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, saying none opposed, motion carries.

And uh we say nice things about staff now.

Uh no, we're not done.

Uh that official community plan bylaw uh 1180 2026 be considered uh in conjunction with the town's 2026-2030 financial plan and any waste management plans pursuant to section 40 or 4773 of the local government act.

Can I get a mover in a second or please?

Sure. Move move uh move.

Uh yeah, that's uh the very last one.

Uh moved by councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, and now you jump the the gun with me, Councillor Mattson.

So uh the last motion is that a public hearing for the official community plan.

By law number 1180, 2026 be scheduled for the first of September 2026.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, not moved, seconded by Councillor Brown because he doesn't like the idea.

But Councilor Levin seconds it.

Okay. All those in favor.

Any opposed. Seeing that opposed motion carries.

And I think this is a big moment.

So thanks, Leanne.

Uh again to you and your staff for taking it through the goalposts.

Appreciate that.

And like Canada, just saying when it comes to soccer.

And I think, yeah, go ahead.

Sorry. Uh I missed the part where the with the resolution referring to land title or sorry, um agri ministry of agriculture.

Are the ministries we're okay on that?

Okay, good.

That was adopted in the changes that we just uh did.

Uh so I think uh we've got another VIP here.

We've got the deputy chief uh gonna give us because we're not done with bylaws yet.

Um he's gonna run us through uh some more bylaws for um fire safety.

Chris, please. Good evening.

We're just here tonight for adoption on uh four bylaws, and I'm here to answer any further questions that you might have.

Give the public a little bit of a refresher, Chris, what this is all about.

Okay, the the reason for these new uh bylaws or the amended bylaws is because of the implementation of the Fire Safety Act, which is brought in to provincial legislation in August of 2024.

And this new bylaw, we have several changes which align, uh modernize our old bylaw and take in account of all the changes of the new legislation, mainly being the fire protection life safety bylaw 954 and the fees and services.

By adopting these bylaws, it will uh put us in line in alignment with the provincial legislation.

Perfect. So there's a series of four motions.

Uh so uh councilor Lemon is going to move that uh we uh adopt uh uh bylaw nine five four twenty twenty-six that fire protection and life safety bylaw number nine five four twenty twenty-six be adopted, seconded by counselor brown, maybe uh all those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, and that uh maybe if the same mover and seconder would like to sponsor the following bills uh uh that we adopt bylaw number one zero five four twenty twenty-six that fees and charges bylaw number nine five eight twenty sixteen amendment bylaw number uh one zero five four twenty twenty-six be adopted.

Moved by councilor lemon and second by counselor brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, and same mover and seconder that municipal ticket information bylaw six four three two thousand and seven amendment bylaw number ten fifty-five twenty twenty-six be adopted.

All those in favor, and finally, um uh that uh 11 uh bylaw number 1170 2026 uh be adopted and that's the bylaw addressing bylaw number and that's addressing bylaw number 825 2012 uh amendment bylaw number 1170 2026 be adopted uh moved by councilor lemon second by counselor brown all those in paper thanks chris okay is there any more bylaws enough for tonight it's a lot of bylaws uh but we asked for it and we are behind a little bit so if you'll see the uh because we've asked Scott to maybe not encumber the following council on stuff that's really really outdated you'll see procedures and bylaws coming at us for the remaining meetings just so we can get our housekeeping in order that um some of those things have been around since um john so before john uh uh so uh yeah it's it's just good to update those and and uh maybe take a look at this mayor's report I do have a brief thing to say and I was won't gonna wonder what order I did it in but um as many of you uh may know counselor uh Alison McKenzie is uh military spouse, and her husband has been posted um to God's country in um Prince Edward County or close to it.

Uh uh and uh so uh Alison has been with us as a new counselor, her first term.

Um she is uh generation younger than than most of us.

Uh and uh it it is uh was a great sadness to lose both Damien Um and now Alison as well.

Um so yeah, the youngest folks are high tailing it.

So I don't know what that says, but uh so yeah, I'm next, I guess.

Uh so Allison, you came in the middle of the pack for even folks that have been around when it came to uh voting.

You your perspective I think was refreshing.

Um, and uh not that we always um that council always agreed.

Sometimes you weren't afraid to question, you went above and beyond.

And um, you know, one of your portfolios went from environment to West Shore Parks and Rec.

I don't know how much time that takes, as well as being elected as an AVIC representative as well.

So I just want to take some time to thank you.

And we got a little plaque for you.

Allison will be participating online, but she'll be between uh Kingston and here over the next couple of months.

So thanks for hanging out with us.

And uh Counselor Brown, I think you had a couple of things to say.

Yeah, I'd like to thank uh counselor McKenzie for her time.

Certainly, certainly much appreciated the uh the younger, much younger point of view.

And I know we didn't always agree, but sometimes you did convince me to change my views.

And you even seconded my motions a few times.

I think there were motions too adjourned, but you didn't second them.

But uh, I do appreciate it, and uh it's great, and hopefully uh in the next election we'll find some more of the younger generation joining us.

But good luck to you and Sean.

And when you when you do zoom in, we don't want to see a big bunch of palm trees and collect well, we'll see the snow in in October, November, I'm sure.

But but enjoy and good luck.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, you're not getting rid of me yet, but I will because it's the last time I've seen you in person.

I'd like to do some thank yous in person.

Um so yeah, it's been an absolute pleasure being on council with you all.

Um thank you particularly to Mayor Tobias for always making sure all the voices were heard at the table.

And now it's a very hard job, and you've done great at it.

Um to staff, I mean your patience is I've never seen such patience with us in our questions, and your knowledge is amazing.

And uh our residents also you know, we're very lucky to be in View Royal, as some of the mayor and the mayor and uh counselor said today.

Um everyone who comes comes with a problem-solving mentality and uh and engage meaningfully with us, and particular shout out to the VRCC or View Royal Climate Coalition folks, and the PAC who um full leaders, uh, and it's been great working with them.

And I'd be remiss to not say he's not here, but uh say thanks to my husband uh who has supported me in all my sometimes crazy endeavors.

And uh yeah, View Royal, it's very special to us.

It was where we purchased our first home, so we'll always be that place for us.

Um, I shouldn't get emotional, I but um it was where we lived when we got married, and uh we've had several adopted elderly uh animals as well.

So we'd love to end very sad to go.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alison, very much.

Um yeah, I I forewent my usual beat up of the uh provincial housing um legislation uh the last time, but I I can't resist this time.

At the same time, they're setting housing targets for communities to build of the same type they're now thinking about purchasing because they're not selling.

So that's my only point.

I'm a little bit confused with that.

Um, that we're actually bailing out the condos that we can't sell right now that we are obligated to keep.

And I hope future councils are listening right now in that uh we put up a bit of a fight more than usual, and we're still getting calls about it, uh, which is great.

Um, but it's short-term policy that's not able to adopt to new realities.

Um, even when I'm speaking to fellow mayors and councils from Sanichin and uh Victoria, uh, when I tell them BC stats has revised their numbers and there is going to be times that um you know we're not growing at all.

Um we're not gonna meet any future housing targets as we see development hasn't stalled, it's stopped now in View Royal.

Even those things that council has approved aren't breaking ground right now.

Um, and it's due to the uncertainty about a whole bunch of things.

So uh for future councils, I wouldn't be too worried if somebody says we're going to assign assign you a provincial real estate agency now they're that's who they're going to now to help us with our housing targets because when the economy was doing well we were exceeding our housing targets.

So there's nothing more any added process could provide to get to any more approvals.

So thanks to our staff and uh and and and our work those things were approved but I wouldn't be afraid of the province assigning anybody to us they're gonna the those things are gonna those things are gonna tell us that um uh you know we'll our our policies are fine because when the economy is is supportive things get built and I think that that goes without saying across the board uh we're seeing in a different type of interest now more commercial interest in building things potentially hotels as opposed to um residential uh and and perhaps more commercial um but there'll be more uncertainty I think in the market there's no way out of it right now um and I don't think the current housing legislation is helping as much as it's causing more confusion for us so that's the only deep reflections I have over um uh the past little bit and just to reemphasize that we've done a whole lot when we look at back at uh where we came from uh a little bit less than four years ago uh to now, particularly with the OCP.

So again, thank you to staff for uh arranging that for us um with any further delay, I think we can move into the development variants permit for 18 Fenton Road.

Jeff.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Jeff Chow Senior Planner.

Uh this is uh development variance permit uh 2023 for 18 Fenton Road.

Next slide, please.

And tonight the um the purpose of the agenda item for tonight is to uh make a uh decision on the proposal.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh the subject property is at the end of Fenton Road, just up the street from town hall.

Uh it's a uh residential neighborhood.

It's a fairly uh large property.

Next slide, please.

Uh the house is located, uh there's a house on the property, it's located near the rear of the property.

And um and in the front, there are uh couple small or two accessory buildings, one of one of which is a garage that is uh proposed to be replaced with a larger garage.

Um next slide, please.

Um so the proposed building uh would be well the existing garage would be removed, um, and a larger building would be placed a little bit closer to the uh front uh property line.

Um it wouldn't consist of a garage and a detached carport.

Next slide, please.

Uh this is what the um the front and side of the building looks like.

Um it is um basically would be um the siding would be a quick steco with wood doors, carriage style garage, and asphalt shingle roofing.

It's kind of consistent with the look of other buildings on the property.

Next slide, please.

Four variances are requested for the length and width of an accessory building, the location in a front yard.

Next slide, please.

And a couple of variances for building floor area and lot coverage of accessory buildings, and we'll discuss that in the next couple of slides.

Next slide, please.

So a variance number one is for the length of a length and width of an accessory building.

The request is to vary from 7.5 meters to 9.8.

If you look at the front of the building, the actual garage itself would be 6.5 meters.

And the reason the length is 9.75 is because includes the columns for the open carport.

That brings up to 9.75.

The rear, the side of the building, the width of the building is 7.62, where 7.5 is required, the 0.12 difference is not significant for this.

Next slide, please.

Second variance is to locate an accessory building in the front in the front yard.

In this case, the uh the reason for the request is because the principal buildings is at the rear.

More than half of the lot is front yard.

It's got pretty good separations of 18 to 27 meters from adjoining uh buildings on adjoining properties.

And if we recall them the front via photo, all those buildings, this garage is screened from all those buildings by trees or hedges.

Next slide, please.

And this is a rendering of what the building might look like from the front.

So this is a property that doesn't have very much road frontage.

In this case, the uh the building would be about 18 meters, which is actually further away than a house could be built on the property.

Okay, next slide, please.

The variants to increase the maximum building floor area, so accessory buildings are included in the maximum building floor area for the zone.

It's to increase it from 372 square meters to 567 square meters, which sounds like a lot, but uh in 2017, the uh the development variance permit was approved to permit 562 square meters, and that's that was to accommodate um an addition to the house and a secondary suite at the time.

So the uh the actual increase uh is five square meters, which is is quite minor.

Next slide, please.

Similarly, uh for accessory buildings, um the based on existing buildings on the property, there's uh the existing is 124 square meters, where 60 square meters is is the uh required or up to 10 percent of the lot area.

Um the proposal is for 158 square meters, and that's a uh basically a 34 square meter over existing, and that's because the it includes both the larger garage and uh the roof of the carport.

Um the reason it can be supported is because this is quite a large lot, and in terms of lot coverage, uh the total uh if the proposal is um approved, it's a seven percent lot coverage versus 10%.

Next slide, please.

Uh there are some uh tree impacts to this proposal.

Um the there's an arborus report that's been provided.

The main intent is to uh to minimize impacts on the uh a fir tree that's on the shared property line, as well as an arbus tree behind it.

Um so an arborus report that's uh figured out that this this location um the the pro the project's been through a couple of iterations where uh to kind of shift the location of the building as they found out more information about the tree.

And the proposed location is is um is one that the Arbor supports on the condition that um that when they excavate uh make sure there's no structural roots, uh critical routes for that for that tree in that area.

So usually the further away the better.

Um as a consequence, um there is a uh spruce tree that will have to be removed because it would be within the building footprint.

And uh there's an another birch tree closer to the front block line that has to be removed just because it's not in great condition.

So the uh so if this um application is approved, tree permits will be required to remove the two trees and also to uh make sure that construction impacts to the the tree on the on the property line is minimized.

And uh a condition to the to the if it's approved is that if uh significant routes are found on in the proposed building location, it gives the uh director of development services authority to help shift the location a little bit to minimize the impact on that tree and also other trees on adjacent properties.

Next slide, please.

Um so in sort of stormwater management impacts, uh it's it is a larger building.

Uh the driveway would have to be expanded a little bit to accommodate provide access to it.

And um in the building permit process, stormwater management will be required to make sure that any um surface storm runoff uh is not increased in terms of the system or onto uh the adjacent properties.

Next slide. Um the proposal can be supported because the lot is large, the incremental increase is is quite my quite small.

Uh the proposed location can be supported because it's not visibly prominent from Fenton Road.

Uh it's further away than a house could be located on that property.

And it would be screened from dwellings on adjacent properties by existing hedges and treed areas um and tree protection would be uh would be um required.

So the recommendation is to approve the proposal.

Thank you, Jeff.

The questions for jeff at all before we go to the applicant okay uh and is the applicant here uh representatives of the applicant are here okay do they wish to make any comments okay um uh questions for the applicants represented no move step recommendations uh so we've still got comments from the public oh just getting I hear you uh is the anybody uh in the chambers wish to address this no um carl have we got anybody online with um uh this property at all as far as webinar oh mayor toias just uh checking the checking the board for to refresh it's taking longer than usual um no messages on the board uh mayor to bias for the members of the public I just wanted them to note that we've seen this two or three times already so one of the reasons there's no questions uh and uh that uh I note the correspondence including the late item that we've uh received as well on it um so uh councillor Lemon you have uh moved the staff recommendation do we have a seconder uh seconded by council McKenzie uh all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion passes unanimously thank you and Jeff, you're up here for another one.

Are you? Yes, I am.

Okay, so we got a development variance permit uh for uh two five eight Humpkin Road.

My purpose of this um presentation is to introduce a rezoning application uh prior to preparing a buy-off.

Oh sorry, sorry, this is Glenary Drive, uh 241 Glenary Drive. Go ahead.

Yeah, purpose of this application is to um introduce the proposal prior to preparing a buy-off for a rezoning at uh 241 Glenairlie Drive.

Next slide, please.

The subject property is located in the uh sort of the Glenarley neighborhood.

It's it's basically a predominantly residential area.

Next that's uh close to a number of local features, including it's bounded by Homkin Road, Island Highway, uh, Ian Rail Trail, and Portage Inlet, and is close to uh walking distance to Shoreline Middle School and View Royal Elementary.

Uh next slide, please.

Um the on this this property is um uh 1,064 square meters.

Uh a house has been constructed at the uh north end of the property.

It's about 236 square meters.

Um the property um under the current zoning cannot be subdivided.

Uh it's uh 1,064 square meters.

It would need to be uh 1200 square meters to to subdivide.

Um the consequence the applicant is proposing to rezone the uh south end of the property to permit a smaller lot.

Uh the existing house that would be there.

Actually, next slide, please.

Um would comply with the uh current RONB zone of the proposed lot.

One thing to note about that building is actually built to uh to step code VC energy step code level five.

The current requirement is for level three, which is basically 20% more energy efficient than the uh the base building code.

And at level five, it's 80% more efficient and is considered net zero already.

So it's one of the first uh uh level five type buildings in in the town.

Um so the proposal is to um is to rezone the self part of the property to R1C, which is uh a smaller lot zone.

Uh the applicant has provided a um development concept for that for that building.

Next slide, please.

Um that shows uh basically it would be a detached residential building like you see elsewhere in the neighborhood.

Uh this one would have a secondary suite, but it would have a kind of a residential type character to it.

Um it should be noted that when you when you rezone, this is a development concept, so it's not necessarily tied to the rezoning, and we can't really do that because of provincial regulations.

Uh, and that's because this property and and all the residential zones permit detached residential use, which includes house, secondary suite, garden suite, or you can do small scale multi-unit housing, which uh which permits up to four units.

So uh so if the property is rezoned, those are the kind of two options for this property.

Um but this is what the applicant has been working on for quite a while, and that's and that's what they have kind of proposed to do to tie into what they've already constructed.

Next slide, please.

Uh this is a streetscape on uh Suzanne place where this uh this property would face and it kind of shows the relationship as the building steps up the hill between the existing building on uh facing Glenarley to this one to the adjacent neighbor uh further up the street.

Next slide, please.

Uh the official community plan designates this property as the small scale uh multi-unit residential, and the both of the proposals, uh both the development concept and what the small-scale multi-unit housing regulations permit.

Um comply with the official community plan.

And next slide, please.

Uh this table basically just summarizes the difference between the two, between the two zones and the main differences.

Um the building height, the setbacks, the front yard, side yard are the same as the R1C zone.

The difference is it's a smaller lot, and that so you can have a smaller lot.

Consequently, the building floor area is also smaller.

So that the so um you won't have like a large lot on a large building on a small lot.

Uh but other than that, the again the height requirement is also the same.

Next slide, please.

And this table here just basically talks about the requirements uh for the R1C zone for detached residential versus small scale multi-unit uh housing, small scale multi-unit housing, the difference is it does permit it does permit a larger building, but again, the same cap is the same as all the other houses in the neighborhood.

The difference is the height.

But that again that applies to the rest of the neighborhood as well.

Next slide, please.

In terms of transportation, the neighborhood traffic impacts expect to be minimal.

It's just one additional dwelling and secondary suite.

It is well located to support multimodal transportation options close to the EN Rail Trail and also to Island Highway, where there's the bus 14, I believe.

It's uh is a frequent transit network bus that provides 15 to 20 minute service through most of the day.

In terms of site servicing, there's adequate water and sanitary sewer capacity.

Um the stormwater regulation bylaw will require that uh stormwater runoff both off the property and into the municipal storm drain will not exceed the pre-development levels.

And that that will be addressed as part of the building permit phase and off and off-site servicing will be addressed in the subdivision application that's kind of been submitted in uh concurrent to this this uh application.

Next slide, please.

In terms of tree impacts, there's there's uh four trees on the property.

Unfortunately, they all on the uh on the proposed uh development site.

Unfortunately, all four will have to be removed um there is a garry oak site you can sort of see through the driveway uh that's the Gary Oak tree um to the right of the hedge uh it is healthy but it is within uh the building envelope in the in the center of the property um the other three trees are two big leaf maples and a uh cherry on the property line the big leaf maples are not in great condition and you can sort of see in this photo you can see dead branches and has kind of a a lean that is um not safe and uh and the other the second tree that's that's beside it is they're really kind of interconnected so we can't take one out without affecting the other um and uh it also is um infested with um with ivy the uh the the cherry tree on the property line is really not appropriate for that location so it would be removed to and if the uh with the agreement of the neighboring property owner and um and again in the tree removal process tree improvement will be required two to one replacement will be acquired on site or within the town or cash and loo next slide please uh community community amenity contributions whenever you rezone there's a policy target of six thousand per detached uh residential dwelling or if you're doing a small type, small-scale multi-unit type development four thousand dollars per unit.

That means for this property it could range between $6,000 and sixteen thousand dollars uh typically, that is secured in a covenant.

And at the time of building permit, when you know the number of units that are provided, the contribution would be provided at that time, but the amount is quite small for the costs of administering a covenant.

So the applicants agree to provide a cash deposit, and there would be so the money would, the appropriate money would be transferred into the community amenity reserve fund at that time and a possible refund if if they're building less than four small type units.

Next slide, please.

So in conclusion, uh the proposed developments uh generally in keeping with the character of the surrounding area, it's it's residential.

Uh the proposal facilitates um family-oriented infill type housing in an area that's close to parks, schools, and other community amenities.

And the it's considered a small lot subdivision that would provide uh provide basically a number of different types of units that are ground-oriented and uh meet the needs of current and future residents.

And those are kind of the official community plan policies that support this proposal.

Um so next slide, please.

So the recommendation is to is to prepare a rezoning bylaw for council's consideration, and that uh that council uh accept the security deposit for the community amenity contributions with a refund depending on the type of development that it is.

And um in terms of next steps, if council supports the proposal, uh a bylaw would be would be prepared and the notice on that first reading would be conducted to um residents and no no present op property owners and uh and residents uh within 300 meters of the uh property yeah that's per the development procedures bylaw prior to first reading of the bylaw so people will have an opportunity to provide comment at that time um question before i hand it over to to colleagues for questions um is with the new small scale multi-unit housing this could be a three or four unit proposal that goes into this site correct that's on e even if that lot was subdivided somebody could be coming in and be conforming with the OCP at four or three or four units because that's correct okay and uh so the the only thing that that council is considering that the application is on is is approval of that separation and the building plan they have for intent for use um and that is one family home plus a secondary suite correct uh the that it's the development proposal but the when you rezone it can be either that development concept or it could be small scale multi-unit highs in housing and okay great thank you Jeff and any questions for Jeff uh councillor Mattson and Councillor Rugg.

Yeah, and looking at one of the maps here with uh all the proposal all the properties.

Um everything looks to be the R1B.

It looks to be the the whole thing is an R R1B zone, so everything is around the 6800 square feet.

The properties.

Um some of the lots are larger and some lots are uh so yeah if you but I mean the minimum would be the 6800 square feet for most of the other lots.

Yeah, 600 yeah, 600 square meters, yes.

What uh six thousand square feet, sixty, eight hundred square feet, right?

I don't know what that works out in the meters.

I guess I'm pointing out that this would be and there's no other like R R1C designated area properties in this area.

Uh no. Um for the mayor, no.

Uh but in this case, um when you look at it from the street, it would have the same width.

You have a building with the same width width as other lots on in in that zone.

They were the same height as pretty much in that zone, the same setbacks from that zone.

It's actually a bit shallower than what you would see in the lot from the street.

Uh if you walk up and down the street, it would um that that lot width is what you would see elsewhere in the neighborhood.

But it's about two-thirds the size of any of the other lots, smaller lots there.

The width would be that I mean the the area rudgers yes thank you um my questions are on um page seven of the staff report and it's the two tables table one table two one ct tax residential zoning the other one's the small multi unit and so what confuses me is the um on the um table one it says proposed development concept so table one proposed development concept those were are those the um the setbacks that are being proposed for lot B and how does that compare then because there's a a disconnect between the proposed development concept distances of table one to table two particularly with the rear lot table two applies if you're building small scale multi unit development right so table two applies and so if that's the case then the rear lot amendments distance is 7.5 meters correct yes right so when I look at uh up at top table one shall I just disregard the whole idea where it says proposed development concept is that irrelevant to this issue or is that uh the actual dimensions and and lot widths and so forth that uh is being proposed for lot B the construction of the house and the location of that house.

Yeah so the the what that proposed development concept is is what the applicant is proposing for this uh what they're proposing to build, but it's the requirements is is what the uh what the rezoning is about.

Right. So okay, thank you.

So it again looking at the top line, um, the requirement lot line for the rear is one point six, and um so he's he's he's going to I think the the lot line for the rear lot line, he's proposing 1.6 meters, but in the table two, the rear lot line should be 7.5.

So is he asking for a variance?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that uh that part there?

Yeah, I know. Uh okay, once again.

So in the proposed development concept, it appears that the minimum rear lot line is 1.6 meters.

That's what he's proposing.

That's the distance that his house will be from the rear lot line.

Uh through the chair, I think there is a typo in that table there for the uh for the proposal.

So the rear lot line, yeah, the minimum rear line line setback is six meters.

It is so it's required six meters.

Yes. So and if it's going to be then table two applies, the rear law line should be seven point five.

So again, if he's doing six or seven point five.

So in my basically, are the variances being pro uh requested.

Again, if we're just dealing with table one, the rear lot line setback should be six six meters, but the proposed is 1.6.

So it sounds like again, it's it's inconsistent and less than and requires variance.

Yeah, through the chair.

Actually, if we can um slide um move our slides back to the um site plan, which is one of the earlier slides.

Yes, um can we have the slide right there?

It may not be this may not be easy for me to understand and and interpret.

So it if we can bring this, just make sure that we can bring it back in some sort of detail.

Uh well, unless you know that's that's okay.

Yeah, we're not deciding tonight.

No, Council Rogers.

We're just the our decision tonight is to approve to bring it back.

Um uh for us to go ahead.

And so bringing it back, we can just see clarifications of what I'm my confusion and and I think actually um on lot B, where is the rear?

Which can you point to me the rear lot line on and what you see there?

Okay, yeah.

So the rear lot line is the would be the east lot line.

Okay. All right.

So uh, you know, we can uh probably go off the line and and um we maybe we'll have it and I'll have a better look at this.

So anyway, I'm just uh still confused with table one, table two, and we can make sure we get this sorted out before we when it comes back.

Go ahead Leah um through the mayor uh just for a point of clarification so that um that larger setback of 7.5 meters applies if the applicant decides to build a small scale multi-unit housing development on the property so a houseplex or um some other small kill small scale multi multi-unit housing if the applicant um continues with the development concept then that rear yard setback for a single family dwelling is 1.6 meters so it's a greater setback if you're building basically more units on the property however the applicant is not proposing small uh uh the applicant is proposing a small uh a single family dwelling yes thank you for that and yet so that draws me back to table one but then they do with what's required and what's proposed it seems like the proposed is less than therefore requires a variance yeah through the mayor I believe there's there was a taste error in the in the table it's a six meter setback for this development concept which would comply with the new zone requirement there's a typo bingo thank you any other questions we got somebody willing to uh counselor brown loose the staff recommendation counselor lemon seconds uh pardon me.

Yeah, yeah we we we move it in the second, and then now it's time for um um uh discussion or comments.

So go ahead, Counselor Matson, then council Blood.

Sure. Um so we don't so what we're doing here is allowing a subdivision of a small unit in an area that's already designated a certain size.

So we're we're setting a wonderful precedent.

So anywhere in the town that someone has say in the harbor precinct or right across the street from John, they've got a 17,000 square foot property, 10,000 square feet is required for the zone.

There's 7,000 square feet left over.

Why not just rezone it to something smaller?

So horrible precedent.

We need to really be considerate of that because all the way through our community we have various properties that are larger, and why not subdivide off 5,000 square feet and make it a small lot subdivision.

In our OCP, which we just passed today, it says we will use SSMUH to enable infill.

That's the policy of our OCP that we're passing.

And so this isn't using SSMUH, this is using a subdivision to allow for infill.

And we've already known what happens when we approve things and uh you know they aren't necessarily etched in stone after we've approved them.

So I mentioned it's a precedent.

Adding a small lot in an area of larger lots, and one of the whole things when we ran this term, most of us was to preserve the quality and the character of the existing communities.

And what we're allowing here is a lot size that is not included in that community, and it's gonna set a precedent for the rest of our communities.

Because if we allow this one, why not allow small lots in the harbor?

Why not allow them next to Sid's area?

I mean, horrible precedent.

We should, if for no other reason, reject it on that.

And the fact that we said if we want to do infill in our OCP, it says we'll use SSMUH to enable infill.

So for those reasons, I can't support this, and I would really encourage my colleagues not to support this either.

It's a horrible precedent for our community.

Thank you, Councillor Mount. Some council Roger.

Uh Mayor Tobias, I don't know as a fact because we haven't looked in the details of the servicing, but uh it's certainly something that we can look at to try.

I do know that we are trying to work with the applicant to plant the trees on the lot, and if not, then certainly in the boulevard may be an option.

Thank you. And you know, in terms of um supporting the motion, um I hear Councillor Matson, but I think what this is uh is an avoidance.

This the there could potentially have been uh I would imagine uh um maybe total of eight units.

You know, if we applied the um small scale multi unit housing, there could be eight units um on on this one combined large piece of land at the moment.

So there's an avoidance here by um by having two units on lot B, not four.

I think that's the the approach here.

I think that's why there not only is it there less number of units, it being on a corner lot, meaning that there is much easier access um to the two lots, which makes it even more supportable, and the fact that um um the applicant has done other buildings that um in the neighborhood uh that the neighborhood uh has supported.

There's been what four or five letters of support and recognition for um uh for what's being proposed.

So I I I do support it going forward.

Uh it makes sense.

And again, we're not making final decision tonight.

We're just kicking it down so that we can collect more information and ask more questions.

Uh Councilor Lemony had a question or comment?

Yeah, a comment, and I want to thank Councillor Rogers for saying pretty much all that I intended to say.

I think you know, to count Councillor Matson's point that we're setting a precedent.

Um I don't you know others may come to us with similar proposals, but it's unlikely they would all come with the support and letters of all of the neighbors.

And this is an established neighborhood, and uh the people that that wrote in support of this care about the neighborhood, and I'm pretty confident that they would not be writing letters of support for townhouses, which would be allowed.

So that's what I have to say.

Any other comments, questions, Councilor Brennan?

Yeah, just motivation.

I I agree with what's been said.

Although um setting a precedent.

Um, if other people want to do the same thing, I mean it'd have to come back to council anyway.

So um uh I tend to disagree with that, but uh I do support the motion, and I think I understand the uh motivation of the uh the owner, certainly.

Um it makes sense.

I don't like the uh I like the proposal, so I encourage my my colleagues to support.

Thanks, folks. Uh counselor McKenzie.

Yeah, I I understand counselor mattson's concerns.

Um, but that tonight it is just um saying that we will uh do the notifications and then the further steps in this process, and I think during that time, uh, it would be good.

I'm sure the notification will explain that it could be in the future, maybe not that right now, but in the future it could be a four-plex, um, just in case uh, because I didn't note that any of the correspondents referring to that.

So uh just to make people aware that that's a potential use in the future too.

Seeing how everybody's had a chance to speak, I think that um we've got a mover and a seconder.

Um, and the motion was to support staff's recommendation.

All those in favor of supporting staff's recommendation, all those opposed, noting councillor Mattson is opposed to um supporting staff recommendation.

Uh Jeff, thank you.

And I think the last one is uh or on uh the go is uh development variance permit.

I will read, although it was interrupted, and sorry for that.

I usually don't check my email, but Ivan, you probably get the news as well that um uh FCM has approved our grant for 153,000 dollars for our um planning and building capacity to grow and manage V Royal's urban forest.

So thanks, Ivan, for the application.

It was good that that came through.

Thanks very much. Yeah, we're we're embargoed from doing a public notice, but informing council is is allowed.

So that's all I was doing, Ivan is informing counsel. Too bad the public is uh hearing it as we speak.

Um Leanne Thank you, Mayor and Council.

The presentation this evening is to present a development variance permit application for 258 Helmkin Road.

The proposal is to vary a condition of use related to a cafe use on the first story of the existing mixed use building.

Next slide, please.

This is the development permit, well, actually, it's a development variance permit application process chart, and the red star indicates where we are in that process.

Next slide. Next slide, please.

In 2021, the subject property was rezoned to CD20 to CD26 to permit the construction of this six-story mixed-use building.

The building comprises of 55 dwelling units and approximately 583 square meters of ground floor commercial space.

This building was completed in 2025.

When the original CD 26 zone was created, the only commercial use permitted in the zone was neighborhood grocery.

The applicant was unable to secure a grocer for this space.

In February 2026, council adopted a zoning bylaw to amend the CD26 zone by adding medical clinic uses as well as a condition of use, that a portion of the ground floor commercial space must be allocated to a cafe use.

The reasons for adding commercial uses and conditions of use in the zone is to allow for a wider range of businesses to support the neighborhood center, land use designation, address the commercial vacancy issues that was that this site was experiencing, and create a community gathering place.

Next slide. However, the applicant continues to be to experience challenges in finding an interested neighborhood grocery or a cafe operator willing to financially commit and occupy the ground floor commercial space.

According to the applicant, this is a result of the limited foot traffic and challenges accessing the site.

The original intent to allocate a minimum floor area for cafe use in the zone was to create an opportunity for community gathering in the neighborhood.

Varying this requirement would not remove the use or condition of use in the zone.

A coffee shop could still occupy the ground floor if there is demand for one at this location, but it would not be required or restricted to a minimum floor area as it currently states in the zone.

Medical clinics require less parking, and therefore, a parking variance would not be required if the commercial space is occupied by three medical clinics.

If a cafe is occupied the ground floor, then this would trigger a parking variance as there is not sufficient parking on site for two medical clinics and a cafe, they'd be short three parking spaces.

The ground floor commercial space has remained vacant since the building received a final inspection notice in June 2025.

Vacant commercial spaces are undesirable for a community as it decreases vibrancy and investment, reduces book traffic, and gives perception of economic decline and instability.

Even though it is this is a tough situation, it is recommended that the DVP application be supported.

Next slide. And here before you is the rec staff recommendation regarding the DVP, which would be to that council after giving notice consider the following motion, which is to vary the condition of use by not requiring a minimum floor area of 74 square meters on the first story to be allocated to a cafe use.

Thank you.

Thanks, Lynn.

Thank you. So just reading that recommendation or that motion, um, without a minimum, how do you ensure that there is still a cafe?

Like, yeah.

That's my question.

Through the mayor, the zone still allows cafe as a permitted use, but the way the zone is written right now, there's a condition of use that there must be a cafe on the ground floor with a floor, a ground floor area of 74 square meters.

So what this means by varying this condition of use, the applicant is not is not required to provide one.

But if a cafe operator approached them and said, you know, we are interested in occupying the space in the future, then that would still be still permitted in the zone.

So the proposal is not to delete the use from the zone, it's to relax the condition of use by re by allocating 74 square meters of the ground floor commercial space as a cafe use.

Sorry. So as with if this was to pass, they don't have to have a cafe. Okay, thank you.

Counselor Lemon, you want to moving back a few years, refresh me, please.

Didn't the applicant want a cafe?

Wasn't that his request and initiative?

Through the mayor, the are you is that when counseling considered a zoning amendment to the CD26 zone that was approved in February?

Or are you going back to the original rezoning?

When it was yeah, we if we have to do a grocery store, we could do a grocery store, but how about a cafe?

The um as part of the neighborhood grocery, you can have an accessory cafe or delicatescent use.

So grocery would have been the principal use, but as part of the grocery store, you could have a cafe or a delicatessent those types of uses that would support a grocery store.

But cafe was not a standalone use in the zone.

It was just neighborhood grocery.

Got it. Good. Thank you.

And just to clarify from your presentation, um, it sounds like the space is filling up.

There's a physio you said and a dentist.

Physio through through the mayor, according to the applicant.

Um, and the applicant has indicated that this in the letter to mayor and council that they have secured a dentist and a physiotherapist for the ground floor.

Great. Thank you.

Just in investigating clinic space and realizing clinic space uh renovation to bring it up from bare to um uh usable as a as a clinic space is expensive and you wouldn't often think of that.

But that whole area is likely more than a million dollars of investment of somebody coming in to renovate that.

It's a big investment, right?

Um, that regardless of it's finished and even more if it's turning into something that it initially wasn't designed for that needed exhaust or or what have you.

My personal opinion is we're being way over restrictive of this commercial space.

It is the only vacant space in Virgo, and we either have to be for business and like not be so prescriptive of what goes in there and make it more general, like staff has been encouraging us to do, but specifying and and I think it was a good idea to propose a grocery store for the first time.

The market doesn't obviously bear it, right?

The one thing we didn't do is go to the market, and I know they had somebody on the hook initially to come in there, but the market changes.

And there was not the demand there for somebody like Root Cellar to go in there.

And we've got a coffee shop less than a block away, and then right across the street, we got another coffee shop.

And we as a council said, Well, we don't like this thing about not having it, but we'll take a clinic and a coffee shop without even, you know, with no reference of doing a marketing study to see even if a coffee shop might be interested in going there.

Um so either we're friendly for business or we're so restrictive that it's the only place in Vie Royal that's empty right now, right?

So, you know, yeah, you might dismiss that, but there's a four-lease sign on that that's been there since the place has been open.

And I think that's particularly, and I and I appreciate that we can wish all we want that we want a grocery store.

I think it would be lovely to have a grocery store in there.

But if a tenant isn't willing to come in there as a grocery store, um, so we're actually gonna let it go vacant for how long before we have more negative effects of the knockoff or not having a place that's full.

Eagle Creek was largely empty for a while.

We had the the big footholds in there, like quality foods, but now the turnover is like immediate.

It's as soon as one tenant moves out, it's it's like there again.

Uh the same with Admiralt Walk, I think.

Um, you know, some of the things that I couldn't imagine going in there, like a vet hospital and some other things when the bank closed down or or uh Capital Coast moved out.

So my my only comment is that I think we need to let the market play a little bit in these weird times that we're in, and the more we try to be more restrictive, the less chance we'll have attracting a business to go in there, and the less chance we're gonna have as a developer coming in to build more commercial space if we're gonna be this restrictive.

That's my own perspective.

But happy to take other comments and questions.

Council Roger.

If we um when we created uh this new condition of having 74 square meters on the first floor for cafe, I thought we would have been told then that we needed uh a parking variance.

How come uh it's new information?

Uh through the mayor, I when we consider rezoning, it's not uh variances are a separate process from our rezoning application, and I would have to go back and look at the report.

Um, my recollection is parking was discussed in the staff report.

Um, I do recall a table in the staff report that identifies what the parking requirements would be for the different uses, uh, including a cafe use.

Okay, fine. But we had that information, and uh, you know, council made a condition of um first floor allocating a cafe space of 74 square meters, and um you know there was no particular comment from staff, well, you have to give a parking variation.

Quite frankly, I'm happy to give a parking variation, you know, in order to keep this uh cafe.

It seems to me that um, you know, they're getting more and more individuals moving into the building.

They're getting two businesses coming in, medical, which I would assume have uh staff that might be interested in going to get a coffee, um, and not necessarily from across the street, but right next door.

And it seems like these uh two businesses would have a lot of clientele who might wish to sit in in a coffee shop rather than in a waiting room, where there'll be no room in the waiting room or whatever, but also have the opportunity to uh make use of a uh a coffee shop that's uh you know convenient, great street views, outdoor patio, south facing.

There's a lot to be said for this.

I'm not prepared to support it this time.

Thank you. Anyone else? Council Matson.

Yeah, I mean we had a fairly impassioned presentation that earlier this evening, but I mean the reality is we gave him two stories so that he would put in a grocery store.

He didn't put in a grocery store, he put in whatever the square footage is of empty space that somebody would have to come in and spend a million plus to put all the infrastructure in.

So we we got an empty shell of the building.

And so what we're asking for now is a little coffee shop, 74 meters, for his two stories.

He's now got commercial space that he can rent.

Because we gave him two bloody stories so that he would be able to build this uh put put in a grocery store that we didn't get so and now they want to shrink potentially not do it at all or shrink it even more so they could put in yet another commercial person in there I guess is a vet or something I'd heard but again as was pointed out instead of reducing a rent or actually even giving away the space so he'll get his coffee shop because that's what we gave him two floors for and he earned millions of dollars for those two floors we we've got nothing and if we give up the coffee shop we'll continue to get nothing so what as was pointed out if we don't keep somebody's feet to the fire in terms of their promises to us why would anybody keep them to I can't support it.

Thanks Counselor Matson and uh having just toured the space on a squamout where a developer had promised to put in a medical clinic right and so they've been searching for um tenants for the medical clinic for the past two and a half years and um the space was kind of weird uh for for a clinic space um they're finally getting some of it now after two and a half years of negotiating that there would be a lower rent it may take a longer period of time or markets to change in order to get something through it's how long can a developer wait the neighborhood wait uh for it to happen that it might never happen right but that's my concern is that 10 years from now I'll be walking by that place that was supposed to be a 74 meter cafe and it's still not built yet.

So my my only concern is is that that why and I appreciate why we were prescriptive over that.

What I recollect that was an Indian restaurant the last go of it on that corner with lots of parking around it.

Um that wasn't a bad Indian restaurant if I remember correctly and then um and then it became this with a promise of a grocery store for the neighborhood.

So yeah I'm kind of on the fence in general I don't think we should ever I can't really say that ever into something so specific again um because the markets could change uh for density bonusing and and whatnot um that's that's my only belief is that this was a tale of a bit of misfortune and I don't think anybody did anybody wrong here.

It's just that we didn't really do and everything looked good I think the way you had a potential root cellar tenant uh initially and what have you but circumstances can change.

Council Rogers Yeah I uh one of the uh comments in in the correspondence is um um individuals are saying that uh there's a problem accessing the site yeah who built the site who built it like it is the applicant built it he submitted designs so he would know his clientele he would know that the ground floor is a commitment to have commercial and uh a grocery store or whatever.

So he's the one that designed and built and we all approved it because we figured he knew what he was doing.

And so the accessibility issue or complaint from other businesses are his problem, not our problem.

And so it's um uh I I really do believe in if if it's true that the um coffee shop across the way in in Royal View Square is uh time limited and we'll have no coffee shop and the one up the hill isn't sufficient too far away so I think there is still a strong need uh to um deny this uh application thank you council rose council I can't believe I'm saying this I kind of feel for this company this this applicant um I don't think he's making millions counselor mattson I think there's still many many vacancies and I think he's been hard pressed to fill that building I you know at the time that council approved it it was a different it was a different market um it was it it was a different time but I I I think that each time he comes to us he's a bit desperate councillor McKenzie yeah I see both sides on this one it's a bit difficult because part of me thinks so this was a need that was identified many years ago the people who probably were engaged at that point might not even live there anymore this kind of thing but I I think having somebody come tonight and it's not the first time we've heard on this subject, people really um still impassioned about having um this kind of gathering space.

Um and we had the grocery store um kind of idea out there for they tried for three years.

This one as a cafe has not been that long because it's been maybe a year or six months, even um, so to me that's not as much effort as they had put into finding the grocery store, and so maybe down the road it's worth a revisit, but I think the continued engagement on this topic means something, yeah.

Thanks, uh Councillor McKenzie.

I think we're uh gonna take counselor Brown.

I think everybody's ready to probably call a question on this.

Counselor Brown, go ahead.

Yeah, personally I like the flexibility, and uh it could be a coffee shop, but it doesn't have to be a coffee shop.

So uh the flexibility is important because yeah, the markets changed, and even if the coffee shop across the street closes, I don't know.

It's uh personally I don't like going to a coffee shop before I go to the dentist because the hygienists do not like that.

But anyway, that's that's an aside.

I didn't I think the flexibility is good, and I like the motion, uh suggest the staff motion.

So are you moving the motion, Counselor?

Yes, I will move the motion and uh I'll seconder.

So moved and seconded for the comments.

All those in favor of staff's recommendation, all those in favor.

Well, there's a post-staff recommendation.

So we've got a split, and I think that uh motion was not successful.

Um so thanks, Leanne.

I think you can inform the applicant that his um request was not successful.

Uh Ivan, I think this is for you building communities strongfront.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

I've been Leoung, Director of Engineering.

Another grant fund um request.

And this comes from uh a federal grant fund for that provides an opportunity to apply for a wide range of infrastructure projects that support economic prosperity, housing, sport, education, health, transit, and climate adaptation.

Uh the current direct delivery system is currently online and uh can be ready to be applied for.

Uh the eligibility requirements are quite strict though.

Uh it is for essentially shovel ready projects.

And uh given that we're halfway through the year, there is uh very few shovel ready products available.

Um additionally, there's a requirement for at least a class C cost estimate to be provided and that the works are not completed.

So uh projects like the Atkins Road Saba project would not be eligible.

Um however, doing a quick review, there are a handful of projects that the staff could apply for.

Uh one and which is the recommended one is the bus shelter installation program.

That program could use additional funding.

We're finding that uh in order to do this project uh uh meaningfully, we'll probably need a lift.

Uh the second project is the Watkiss Way Community Parks Development, so that falls under the Green Spaces project.

And again, that one could use uh a lift in funds for that.

That one is shovel ready.

We just need to go to tender, and we're holding off on this until we um until this council meeting.

Uh the third is a six-mile corridor streetlight and crosswalk insulation project.

We've just finished a tender here.

We haven't awarded it.

Don't expect the work to happen for at least a couple of months.

So staff believe that this is shovel ready and hasn't started.

So it's uh it it's due, it could uh be eligible for this grant.

There is an expressive interest stream, and that is for projects that are not shovel ready but have a class C cost estimate.

Uh again, uh very rare to have this.

It's basically we uh our project had to be based on the cost of almost being shovel ready, but is not yet still has a pretty good cost estimate.

And there's two projects that come to mind.

One is the Helmkin and Walkers Way uh intersection improvements, and then uh the Atkins Pump Station Pump Replacement Project.

So those are not shovel ready, but we do have cost estimates.

Uh so the recommendation before you is that uh staff pursue grant funding under the government of Canada's Build Communities Strong Fund direct delivery stream for the bus shelter installation program, Waukis Way Community Park Development Six Mile Road Corridor Streetlight and Crosswalk Installation Project, and that staff submit an expression of interest to the government of Canada's Bill Community Strong Fund for the future consideration of the intersection improvements Helmkin Road at Waukis Way project and the Atkins Pump Station Pump Replacement Project.

Uh the information is there before you happy to take questions.

Thank you. Council Brent.

The bus shelters, uh, I know in Atkins Road they've they finished the sidewalk now and they're putting bus shelters up.

But I I thought transit does transit pay for that.

Why did why why do we pay for it?

I don't understand the the funding.

Yeah, BC Transit pays for the bus shelter itself.

We pay for the concrete pad that has to be placed on top of top of it.

So is it this that project, even though it's named bus shelter and provenance project, it includes the bus shelter and the pad and the concrete pad.

And if we wanted to pay to put a shelter in there, we could.

However, we administratively just get free ones from BC Transit.

So this project here is quite literally for the civil works, which is the concrete pad curbs, um, sidewalk let downs, uh, wheelchair ramps and that.

And Councilor Brown, you just remind me, I think council should also be aware that the town and the taxpayers give BC Transit two million plus a year.

So it's not like they're another entity.

They're one of those other layers of governance that we pay money into, but have never sat at the table for the Victoria Transit Commission.

Other staff recommendation.

I'll second it.

Seconded, uh, yeah.

Let's see if we can get the grant uh karma on a roll.

Um all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed motion carries.

Thanks, Ivan. And Elna, is this you or Scott for admin?

Oh, wow. Okay.

I'm gonna get more stuff up that you're gonna have to present on just because before you this evening is a report that's requesting reclassification of uh seven policies within the administration section of the town's policy manual from uh council authority to the authority of the chief administrative officer.

As part of uh phase one of the project, staff are reviewing policies to ensure each policy is assigned to the appropriate level of authority.

Uh, the policies identified in this report relate to administrative and operational matters, such things like town facilities and equipment, town hall security, the display of pamphlets and posters, purchasing of flowers and cards for council and staff, and access to confidential and general files.

So these seven policies support day-to-day administration operations of the town.

And as such, staff are recommending that these policies be reclassified under the authority of the CAO.

So the next phase of the review will be staff bringing forward policies that may require amendments or uh repeal where appropriate.

And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Good.

So does that mean you don't think council should be responsible for cards and flowers?

If you would like to be, yeah, um, you're more than welcome to have it stay under council authority.

Go ahead, Council Ruther.

So uh so these policies are are that they're not being uh repaid uh dissolved, removed, they're simply reclassed under the auspices of the uh CAO.

Um my particular interest is um still keeping the flexibility for council chambers, um for other organizations.

Um there was uh once where the uh uh Water Advisory Committee, CRD wanted to move around to different municipalities, and and that was a great opportunity.

So yeah, um as long as we're able to continue that under the auspices of the CAO, I'm happy with that.

Yes, um you know, previously we've had um the RCMP hold an open house here.

Um we've also used it for for voting for I believe it was provincial government.

So uh those things are still happening, yeah.

It would probably even be more expeditious because then instead of council convening to see whether you want to have host the such and such meeting here, it would be just a call to Elma Scott to get it to happen.

So I move staff recommendations I second it so moved by councilor uh Matson, seconded by councillor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposing then oppose that motion carries uh brings us down.

We have an item on correspondence before the consent agenda, and that was uh a request from Songhe's nation to sponsor an island elders lunch on Lake Congan territory this summer.

I'll move that we contribute $500 like we did previously.

Yeah, yeah, we did uh 500 uh get staff to check.

So last one aside from the POW that the Songhis hold every year.

We uh for the elders activity last summer.

We gave uh 500 each to Songhis and Esquamble Nation.

So yeah, I think that that would be uh happy to support the 500 if somebody wanna move and second it.

All those in favor.

Any opposed that motion carries?

So that brings us down to the consent agenda.

So we did pull one out, and that was uh uh at John's request, and that's uh I so this would uh the consent agenda.

I'm looking for a motion to move A to H.

So moved moved by Councillor Matson, second moved by councillor Rogers, all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing that opposed, motion carries.

Go ahead, John for it.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Mayor Murdoch, uh District of Ope had uh written all the municipalities to advise the that the provincial government had released the uh service plan for the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, and the plan did not include funding for the continuation of the local government climate action program.

Um no final decision has been made, but um uh oak bay is uh reaching out to advocate for the continuation of funding of the uh LGCAP programs uh for all our benefits, and um I would ask that the mayor write a letter of support.

Second, thank you.

Any more work, but I'll support that.

I think that's a great idea.

Uh any other comments or questions?

That's it. All those in favor.

Any polls seeing none of those?

No carries your bike button still on.

Uh and I think that brings us to question period.

Anybody want to ask council a question about anything?

Going once, twice, three times.

Carl, we got any questions on the magic box.

Uh Mayor Tobias, we've had no questions this evening.

What is it? Was it Mr.

Dressup with the bag that we always people would write in and they pull things out?

Um okay, thanks, uh Carl.

Uh, so no questions.

So Councilor Match and uh down to notices of motions, capital reason arts funding.

Uh and you want to read out your motion, you can do some motivation and interpretive dance, whatever you'd like to do.

This motion is that staff report on the process, the legal requirements and financial implications of modifying or withdrawing viewer's participation in the Capitol Regional District Arts and Cultural Support Service, including any precedence from other municipalities and whether a service review would be required.

Anyone gonna second that?

Uh no, you so you had that you moved it. Do we have a seconder for it?

Okay.

Seconded uh for um counselor Rogers. So um you can now provide impassioned motivation.

Well, I'm I'm uh well, all of us were a little bit council was a little miffed when we found out that the CRD is trying to force us to uh a commitment we made decade or so or two ago, and we were looking at reducing the amount we pay because we have other considerations at this point in time in terms of the need for funds.

And we think that some of the funds, which I gather is equivalent to about a million and a half dollars over the past number of years that has gone into this organization, and View Royal, and in fact, probably the Western communities have seen little or no benefit from it.

So the request is to just find out what options we do have to get out of this commitment.

And I'm assuming, Scott, that would be yours to take on, whether you like it or not.

Uh and uh just uh maybe anything that you found out so far.

I may not be mine.

Um but I'll I'll delegate appropriately if it's not mine.

And um yeah, there's a lot of precedence for service reviews, service with withdrawals.

Um I I would expect that would be the process moving forward is to initiate a service review, but we'll uh look into some other options.

Um Mr. Bello's been looking into it a little bit, which is why I I hesitate to volunteer.

He's been in touch with the CRD about it.

And uh I've also let them know that council's displeased with how it was handled.

Councilor Lemon. Oh, sorry, you're right. Go ahead, counselor.

Yeah, thank you.

Um while I am absolutely not in favor of withdrawal, uh the wording is sufficient to in um asking this is the staff report, asking for a staff report to assess the uh legal uh opportunities and certainly in the CRD staff report to the arts commission was that we all did have the opportunity or or could have the opportunity first a uh procedural review under the local government act.

And so that's um I I'm I'm certainly supporting um staff reporting back to us that process of uh a review.

Um, because as you know, I there's another motion uh subsequent to this, uh, that we have another go at uh appealing to the regional district to um allow us to go to level two.

Concurrent to to um, and if we do uh approve that, these are two steps that it would be moved concurrently.

Concurrently, we would staff would be investigating the opportunities uh to um modify um and convince the CRD to modify under a service review.

Um and our uh concurrent to that would be um the other motion where we would be appealing again to the CRD to um voluntarily change for the rationale that I've provided.

Okay, thanks, Councilor Rogers.

Councilman, go ahead.

Thank you. Um I don't know why we would be entertaining this at this point in time.

It's not just the middle of summer, it's the end of the term.

And I think we presume to make a decision for the next council.

Uh we haven't there's there's no indication here that we're going to be consulting with um residents to see what they would like.

And um I'm I just I but I feel strongly that this isn't our decision to make now.

We have three more meetings, and this is this is a big decision.

It's it's it's not ours to make.

So I'll be voting against.

Thank you.

Uh Council McKenzie.

Yeah, I'm I'm uh supportive of this motion.

Um to me, we're past the point of tier one, tier two.

It's it's a principle of not being able to choose to remove yourself from a service that you're not feeling um is of value.

And it's not even that we're removing ourselves, it's that we're just contributing less.

Uh so for that reason, I think this is um a good motion.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

There are a couple of things that I did know that um the inspector of municipalities will never support a two-tiered system again in the future.

So there may be no way that we can move to a tier two in the future.

Um, for a service withdrawal, that may be another question, Councilor Lemon.

But I think staff can do its due diligence, and all they're gonna come back to this council or potentially the next council, depending on how long it takes, and say, here's your options, right?

So I don't think that the motion itself is anything more than staff doing a report and providing some direction to council, whether it's this council or the following council, that will then make a decision on on how to proceed.

Um I will foreshadow councillor Rogers' motion, and then I'll although I there's too many dependencies in your motion on a staff report that's got to go up that we don't know.

So they're the two are very related.

In principle, I support them, but I don't think I can do that without having the information back from step one.

Like if we can't make it to tier two, then your motion doesn't exist, right?

Not quite. But and when we get there, let's do with this one and then we'll happy with that.

So uh we've got a mover and we've got a seconder.

They both motivated.

We've had some words.

So all those in favor of Councillor Mattson's motion to basically have a staff come back with a report for options for us for the Capital Regional Arts and Culture Support Service, all those in favor.

All those opposed.

Noting Councillor Lemon is opposed.

So that motion carries.

Councilor Rogers, go ahead with your motion.

Thank you. Approximately 41,603, or $7 per average assessment by the year 2027.

Once done, allocating view, we would allocate the difference, approximately 70,000 a year and rising each year to a reserve account towards a West Shore Arts and Culture Center each year.

And that three, we would um encourage all West Shore municipalities to become group two uh members in the CRD arts service, or maybe that, or alternatively, uh create an arts programming regional service similar to the uh regional arts services for art facilities by 2027.

And now speaking to this, um, first off, when the CRD staff uh and the arts commission uh looked at this, staff supported View Royal.

They supported the amendment.

And when the vote was taken, the um uh I I think it was quite hypocritical uh of those members that were in level two to tell View Royal, no, you must stay in level one.

So I think that uh that was um a uh hypocritical position uh for for those members, um, which is really very unfortunate.

The um what I what when we had made the motion, um my motion was way back in 2025 when we looked at this or 2024.

When we looked at this, staff was suggesting that we simply you know asked to go back to level two.

We didn't give the rationale, and I don't think the arts commission um or the CRD understood that this intent was to create a fund for the West Shore Arts.

Create a fund. And no, albeit nice that the CRD has an arts programming uh for arts facilities, the regional service for arts facilities doesn't give a dime to build the West Shore.

It allows reports, but it doesn't give a dime to build it.

So, you know, here we are supporting the Royal, the McPherson and the Windspear supports with this um um levy in View Royal, but um it again is quite unfair that um this this um restriction on view oil doesn't allow to us to put funds um towards the construction of a West Shore facility.

And um I think if we made this as a regional policy, um it would be a problem going away.

But that's the part that they didn't hear about.

That's the part we need to tell both the CRD that we're not putting 70,000 into Javanier Revenue, we're putting that into a reserve account for what this West Shore needs.

So I I hope that you can support this.

Um I know it's off awkward, but they made it awkward.

And so let's get it over with that.

You know, we've got the two-step process, we've got the staff assessing the service review.

We got this one more opportunity for those individuals to seriously look at what uh what we're offering and not be hypocritical in the revoked.

Thanks, counseling. I think we should table this until after the report, Brown.

Yeah, I support the motion um wholeheartedly.

Um Tina, the Tina show, the kinky boot show.

Um they're very expensive.

Uh I know it takes a lot of money to bring Broadway shows to Victoria with all the costumes, the props, the support, the lighting crews, the actors, and everything else.

But you know, you're looking at 250, 300 just for the tickets, and that's one person.

So Mary Winspear with the Charlie White Theater is very nice.

It'd be nice to have something like that in the West Shore.

It's a 35 type uh seating, which would be awesome.

And whether it doesn't matter where it goes, it could be at a at the casino, could be with a new hotel.

Um, and it'd be nice because yeah, like Counselor Rogers has said, it's not like we're just putting the money into general revenue or to keep taxes low, which we all want to do, but it's putting money towards something that we can see in the West Shore.

And you know, it's uh yeah, we're long overdue.

Are you seconding the motion?

I am seconding the motion.

Okay, I'd like to table put a table in motion until after the report comes in.

Yeah.

I think that would probably be appropriate.

And I just wanted to bring this up for uh counselor Rogers.

Moving to Tier Two may be impossible.

Right. Right now there is no way to move to Tier Two, even for somebody to join as a tier two, maybe impossible.

Right. That came out for a very limited time in 2018 to get some people on at the same time.

Sydney left, soup joined.

Um and there was a two-year where you could get out if you were tier two.

But two still it still exists. It's an option.

There is no option to move into it or move from one to two.

There is no option to do that.

We went through that for an hour and a half at C RD table.

There is no way to move from one to two.

Oh no, I understand. I understand there's no way to move from one to two.

Yeah. And there's no way to join as a two. Yes, there is. There is a way to join as a one.

As a commissioner, representative councilor Lemmon, what's your recollection of the act?

Maybe staff can investigate that as well.

But um if I if I may, uh my understanding is that tier two existed long ago when you know, in the early days of young john and young Ron, um and uh it was in 2005 or so that they opted to go to level one.

So yeah.

Yeah so I uh that that may not be so uh counselor matsen put something on for table which seems to make sense because we're making decisions on some things that we don't uh know if they're possible or need some more information on it is somebody going to second counselor mattson's um to table um councillor McKenzie seconds so we'll yeah well we don't have to do anything except what we're gonna do with your motion and the motion to table it would be on reach uh uh to table it until pending stop report right so when it comes back we'll bring counselor mattson's motion back uh so we got a mover and a second or did you want to motivate it all counselor just if we can get if we can get the report yeah it's a tabling motion so no to be just no I was just gonna say let's get it done by September one so we can have it with the public hearing counselor matzon we've got a one uh mover and a seconder good point counselor brown all those in favor any opposed for the table tabling yeah no so no one's opposed uh that carries um and that I think brings us can I get a motion to adjourn I'll move that uh counselor I'll second uh yeah seconds all those in favor thanks, folks.