Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal, and welcome to the council meeting for Tuesday, October 21st, 2025.

Start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Laquangwin speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and also known as the Kosapsan Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these land continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public during public participation and question portions of the agenda to provide comments virtually during the public participation period or ask a question during the question period.

You'll see a QR code or URL on the live web stream screen or the URL on the town's website under live broadcast or webcast.

Scan the QR code or type in the URL and through the form that pops up, type in your comment or question to be read uh out loud at the appropriate time by a member of the webcast team.

You will need to provide just your name and your street name without the street number on the form if you are uh or if you're in council chambers public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to an item on the agenda uh question period is open to any question and is limited to two minutes for each speaker you will be time the meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast you are consenting to being recorded and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access um I have no changes to the uh agenda that I'm recommending however uh if uh you'll see the consent agenda everything on the consent agenda was from our committee the whole meeting uh would anybody like to remove a piece out of the committee uh meeting or the consent agenda and what which item 10 e the minutes of october 7th yeah mike i'm sorry uh uh 10 e the minute of october 7th 10 e and that will become uh 11a anybody else with an adjustment or amendment to the agenda?

Actually, I had one, and that was just to um ask a question of staff on uh some correspondence that we received from UBCM.

Uh just seeing here.

Uh sorry, no, that that's under correspondence anyway, so we don't have to have that move.

So the only one modification is um uh counselor rogers request to move 10E, which will now be 11A.

And with that, can I get a motion to uh approve the agenda, please?

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposing then opposed motion carries unanimously and um that brings us to public participation period um so if anybody in the chamber would like to address council on any topic associated with the agenda mr wilson good evening, Mayor and council.

Doug Wilson, View royal avenue.

Just a note: the information for letter writers that's always been on the start of the View Royal agenda.

Suddenly it's missing today.

It doesn't tell you how to write, where to write, or when to write.

I don't know why.

Anyways, I wrote earlier today to comment on the application for variants is at 157 View Royal Avenue.

The report supporting the variance application relies on arguments that deny the facts.

I urge council to reject the report and request one that aligns with both the letter and the intent of the Town of View Royal zoning by law.

Here's why.

The zoning bylaw clearly limits the size of accessory buildings.

Section 4.6.6 says the total cover lot coverage of all accessory buildings and/or structures on a lot must not exceed 60 meters squared or 10% of the lot area, whichever is smaller.

60%, 60 square meters or 10% of the lot area, whichever is smaller.

The report is asking you to ignore the mandatory condition, whichever is smaller, when they write.

The proposed accessory building lot coverage of 190 square meters would be well below the 10% maximum permitted in the R1 zone.

And this, the proposed accessory building lot coverage of 190 square meters would be well below the requirement of 10% for both the existing lot and the minimum lot for future subdivision.

The bylaw sets a mandatory condition.

Who cares if the 10% is not exceeded?

It says whichever is smaller, and you cannot ignore that.

The 10% rule has nothing to do with this application.

It will only ever apply to lots smaller than 600 square meters.

And the lot in question is 11,900 square meters.

If the 10% rule was actually allowed, then no variance would even be needed for a 12,000 foot square foot potting shed.

Similarly, the density actually allowed in the bylaw is ignored.

The R1 zone has a hard cap on floor space, 372 square meters maximum.

Maximum.

The bylaw also has an FSR of.42.

That would apply to lots smaller than 885 square meters.

That fact is ignored when the report states the requested variants would comply with the maximum density of 0.42 floor space ratio.

And the proposal does not exceed the maximum density provisions of the accessory building regulations and the R1 zone.

That's the total argument in the report.

Neither of them apply at all to this lot.

Those are the supporting arguments put forward.

Ignore the maximum building sizes.

Just ignore the mandatory conditions.

Instead, use criteria that do not apply to this lot.

This actively misrepresents the facts set out right in the bylaw.

Send this report back and ask for an accurate appraisal of the variances in relation to what the zoning bylaw actually says.

Thanks.

Seeing none, uh Carl, do we have any forms that were sent in for um comments to council?

Mayor Tobias, uh nothing in the form system.

Uh thanks, Carl.

Uh I will forego a mayor's report this evening and we can move directly into staff reports.

First one up on item seven is the development and variance permit for 2025 uh View Royal uh 157 View Royal Avenue.

Your worship, um we have uh number four bylaws.

Oh sorry, yes, I um skipped that.

Thank you very much for pointing that out, Council Rogers.

Um yeah, we're bylaws, fees and charges, and I think this was the sanitary sewer rate uh in fees uh adoption to move to adoption that we've moved uh first to third.

Move adoption second moved by councilor rogers second we've got councillor McKenzie any comments I don't think it's one of those ones that you really have to motivate on but I'll give you an opportunity um although uh you have a question I do yes please um staff would these rates apply when we receive our sewer bills within the next month or so uh through the mayor yes okay thank you good question, Councillor Willeman um thank you for that.

So we've got a mover and a seconder.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries unanimously.

I just want to point out we are down one today of Councillor Masson because he's underway traveling.

And I think that uh brings us now to staff reports.

Uh Jeff, go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Mayor Thomas, Jeff Chow Senior Planner.

Um, this is um the development variance permit application for 157 Viewer Avenue.

Next slide, please.

Uh so where we are in the process is this um applications just being brought forward to you for to introduce to you.

Um if the uh committee the whole uh decides to move it forward, uh public notification of adjacent residents would occur and uh would be forwarded to a another council agenda for a uh decision on the proposal.

Next slide, please.

The uh subject property is located in the um Harbor District, uh just around the corner from us on V Ral Avenue.

It's a waterfront property that is um as you can see is is is uh fairly large.

Um next slide please.

And uh just to show some local context, uh the top uh photo is uh across the street from the property.

The other two photos in the lower right and left corners are uh looking down the street at the uh the the drivers of the properties.

So most of the properties are quite secluded and uh screened by trees trees.

Next slide, please.

Uh the subject property uh it's actually comprised of two lots.

Uh so the colored area that you see there is the uh is the property that's the subject of uh today's application.

Uh there's another property with um uh delineated with the dashed line that's uh that's part of the part of the property, but is legally a separate lot.

Uh so this property contains a house, it has a couple of features on it, including a swimming pool and a tennis court.

The proposal is to construct a um uh accessory building uh beside the uh tennis court.

Next slide, please.

This is uh image of the proposed building.

It is um 30 square meters, which is about 320 square feet or so.

Um in terms of as a standalone kind of structure, uh complies with the height and sighting uh requirements.

Uh a variance is needed because of um, as mentioned before, uh because of accessory building lot coverage and uh total floor area on the property of all buildings.

Next slide, please.

So the increase is to um it's to increase the maximum coverage of accessory buildings and structures uh from 60 square meters to 190 square meters and to increase the maximum building floor area from 727 square meters to 917 square meters so those sound like large numbers for an accessory building that's only 30 square meters uh next slide please and that's because um uh on this property there are some uh other accessory building that were uh that were not counted and I can just there were three other buildings uh kind of one shed at the front of the building, one to the uh side, and the boathouse at the uh at the bottom of the screen there.

Uh so the way the zoning pile works, it does look at um the requirement is for 60 square meters for the entire property of all accessory buildings.

So when you add them all up you end up with uh with this uh this number um so the uh the the way the zoning bile works again it's it's based on um accessory uh lot coverage of a maximum of 10% up to 60 square meters whichever is smaller uh the 10% is kind of a density figure so relative to the size of the lot so any lot no matter how large it is the cap is still 60 square meters.

And on this lot where which is you know one of the largest residential lots in in View Royal uh the idea of this, the argument in support of it is because it's relatively small amount relative to the size of the lot.

I mean we're talking about 1.6% lot coverage for all the uh uh for a lot of the size and that also goes accessory buildings are also counted as building floor areas that means it includes the house and uh again that uh that the debt it's it's 0.42 or 42% of the lot um uh or um uh or uh in this case 727 square meters, whichever is the smaller.

Uh, there was a variance given in the past for uh to to renovate that the uh the mid principal house to 727 square meters, but the accessory buildings were not counted.

So as part of this application, uh, we'll be counting the existing house and all accessory buildings on the lot.

Next slide, please.

This lot located beside the tennis courts uh would be located on the uh concrete pad you see in the picture on the left.

Um, and when you look out from that site, this is uh on the right hand side is is the strees along the property line of both the existing property and the neighboring property.

So there's a big uh screen of trees for which um which uh there's no kind of visual impact on the neighboring properties.

And given the size of the lot, the uh the the low impact to adjacent properties, those are kind of the the rationale for uh supporting this application.

Next slide, please.

So the recommendation is to uh is to move the application forward, conduct so that notice can be conducted and a decision can be made made at a uh future council meeting.

Okay, any questions?

Thank you.

Um Jeff, I'm sure there's gonna be a few.

We'll go to councillor lemon first.

Um Jeff, the the yellow rectangle next that's illustrated next to the tennis court is that is that just to point out the location or is does that reflect the the the ratio of tennis court to potting shed size um okay can we uh scroll back to the uh picture with the yellow square um so that one that is the actual footprint in that in this case is the fo it's the existing concrete pad so that's uh that would be the the outermost dimension of the accessory building.

Got it.

Thank you.

Councilor Roger.

Okay, there was there was the question that um had um was presented during the public participation period with respect to um minimum size lot, 60 meters or whatever this 10%, um, and whichever is smallest.

Can you speak to that?

Uh yeah, basically it has to do with um lots come in different sizes.

Um in the zoning by law, the intent is to have uh a cap on how many uh how much of a building of a lot is covered with accessory buildings.

Uh but again in this case, this this lot is 11,900 square meters, where your average lot in the see even the R1 zone is 1,000 square meters.

This is over 10 times the size of your average lot in the R1 zone.

The 60 square meters actually applied across the board in the entire town.

So whether your lot is 300 square meters or in this case over one hectare, that's still the cap.

Okay, so again, let me let me so let me recap if I can.

So you're saying the 60 meters square meters is something across the board as a matter of point to whatever the size of the lot, because this property is so large, the 10% of the entire area enables um the what 192 um square meters as opposed to 60 because of the the the size of the property is it am i getting close?

Uh yeah so actually yeah it's still uh well it's it's still well under the 10 percent uh the 10 percent cap for 10 percent maximum for accessory buildings but certainly again the control in this case is the lower number and how how does the fsr um play into this do accessory buildings uh count for fs r as well?

They do.

So that's that's why the second variance is necessary.

And how many um again zoning on the zoning bylaw?

How many accessory buildings are residents permitted to build on on their property?

Um there's no there's no cap on the number of buildings that you can build.

It's limited by the lot coverage.

So that applies to and somehow I got the impression in the zoning bylaw that you weren't permitted to have uh accessory buildings in the front yard, front of the house between the street and the house.

Uh is is that uh is that true?

Uh yes.

Yes.

So doesn't this then um propose accessory building?

Isn't that in the front yard?

Uh the one of them is this one is not.

It's behind the front.

The particular the new building is behind the front building line.

So the front yard is the front the front face of your building all the way to the front lot line.

This lot is behind that line.

This this proposed accessory building is behind that line.

Okay.

I don't I don't really see that because the proposed accessory building which is next to the tennis court is still in the front yard and I'd look at the front yard as being both ends from the house all the way to the street.

So you see so that seems to be different um because the the the zoning bylaws a little vague in and in that okay I'll just I'll just kind of show on the screen here with with my pen.

I've got a couple questions, Jeff.

Regardless of the bylaw, the reason so that I understand the reason for the variance is because it's a deviation from the bylaw.

Am I correct in saying that?

That's correct.

We've entertained buildings that were in the front yard.

They've applied for a variance.

We've gone through uh and heard the arguments and have accepted those and and pushed them through.

Um thank you for that understanding.

What is the going to be the disposition of the existing um I I think it's a accessory building for the tennis court just will that remain or uh will that be removed once the the proposal is to re is to retain all the buildings.

Yeah this would be a new building.

And uh am I saying this correctly that there is a cement pad that measures out uh exactly where the new building will currently go.

Is that an exact measurement of the square footage of the building?

That's correct.

They they propose to build on that pad.

And how many trees will be removed because of either construction or the actual dwelling?

Uh zero because uh the it's already existing concrete pad they would they would actually build on it.

There's a there's a separation about four meters to the nearest tree.

And uh my last question is is that in the development application process on your slide two I believe really you're just looking for council's approval to advance the application process the next step would be public notification and then the DVP would appear on a council agenda in the future where council would have a decision correct uh that's correct or if there's additional information that uh that council would like to consider yeah okay great uh is there any other questions?

Or stuff?

Yeah, go ahead and so thank you.

So with the um uh the requested lot coverage of 109 square meters and we have four existing accessory buildings, are any more accessory buildings permitted?

Uh for the mayor.

Any additional accessory building they'll need a variance for.

So it sounds like um the the total number of the total number of buildings that we have, each of those lot coverages add up to 190.

So that's it.

That's the the limit of accessory buildings is exhausted, correct?

Uh yes, any more they have to come back and request.

Uh-huh.

Any other questions, comments?

No questions?

Comments?

Uh you want to raise the motion?

Go ahead, Councilman Kidson.

Uh I would like to move uh staff's recommendation.

Second.

No, I'm happy to.

Any motivation?

Given the opportunity, you don't have to.

So I think given the size of the lot, the uh you know, one size fits all lot coverage bylaw doesn't really apply in this case.

I think the tree coverage is very great in this area, and I I don't see it impacting on the neighbor.

Um, but I believe the neighbor will still have an opportunity to uh make comments if it if they uh wish to um in the future.

So uh for that reason, I I think it's a it's a reasonable request.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie, Councillor Lop.

Yeah, thank you.

This is why it's come to us as a variance.

It it is outside the parameters of the size parameters within the bylaw.

So it's here for a variance, and what we're doing is just advancing it so that neighbors and uh interested residents can speak to it.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Councilor Roger.

Yes, I I support the motion, um, even though I have lots of questions for clarification.

I appreciate staff's patience in this um uh given the sizes of the property and and the fact that Pad's already there and the privacy and so forth.

I think it's a is a reasonable thing to put forward to the community for input.

Great.

Thank you.

There's no other comments or questions.

All those uh it's been moved by Council McKenzie, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Next, Jeff.

And I think uh we've got uh the development permit uh for nine Erskine Lane.

Good evening.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

So this presentation is to reduce the development permit with variances for nine Erskine Lane.

So the application includes changes to on-site landscaping and five variances to the zoning bylaw for various retaining walls and two structures on site.

Next slide, please.

So please note that this presentation is clearly shown on the diagram.

So following this, there will hopefully be a public notification period followed by a future council meeting where a decision will be made regarding the requested variances associated with the development permit.

Next photo, please.

So on screen is an aerial photo of the subject project mid-construction.

Please note that there are presently four apartment buildings on site that are occupied with residents.

There is no uh changes to the form and character of these four buildings.

So 15, 17, 21, and 23 Erskine Lane.

However, this application has been submitted retroactively for works already completed on site, and I will discuss uh discuss these works and the uh variances requested.

Next slide, please.

Um, so here is a screen or some photos of what the buildings look like from the street currently from Erskine Lane.

Uh so in 2021, a development permit, a DP 202106 was approved by council with the following variances to the zoning bylaw.

A variance the height of the retaining walls from 1.2 meters to 2 meters, and a variance required to the vehicle parking spaces, which is not even discussed within this application.

So that's just a note.

Council also added a condition to the development permit, which states the following All retaining walls on site are mortared walls as per drawing PR 13 proposed materials from the architecture design and labeled retaining wall large concrete block as attached to this report.

So in May 2024, as staff conducted a site visit to determine if there were discrepancies between what was on site and what was approved as part of the development permit, and noticed that there was some discrepancies and that variances would be required.

The application was submitted in July of this year.

Next slide, please.

So the applicant is seeking a new development permit with variances for the subject property in response to several of those changes mentioned, including some landscaping as part of the previous DP.

Changes include significant changes to landscaping in addition to the fire lane access to building B, which was required by the fire department, variances for two structures, which are the garbage enclosures shown on the screen in a green bubble.

And variances for retaining walls ranging from two meters to four meters, exceeding the previously approved height variance.

So next slide, please.

Several changes were made to the site and landscape plans, primarily the result of changes to the grading plan for the site.

A grading plan was submitted as part of the building permit application and resulted in changes to the landscape configuration and some locations.

Other elements such as site servicing also resulted in some of these changes, which we we now see on site.

Next slide, please.

No, sorry, 21 and 23 are skin lane.

Uh so changes from the previous DP include locations and orientations of garbage and recycling enclosures, the emergency egress paths from buildings A and B, which are a requirement for the building code, fire lane access to building B, which you can kind of see in this like the paved area in front of building B.

Uh changes to the size and placement of retaining walls, primarily the one at the corner of building A, which is very slight, um, and increases the amount of surface parking by like three stalls, I believe.

Um, next slide, please.

And now we have buildings C and D on screen, um, which is 15 and 17 are skin lane.

Um, and changes to this site plan include the orientation and location of the garbage and recycling enclosures.

There's the emergency egress paths to building B at the rear of the building, which is also a BC building code requirement.

Um, there were removals of the pathways up to the CRD property at the rear of the property.

So uh in the corridor of building C, there used to be a path that led up to the walkway, which has been removed at the request, I believe, of the CRG.

Um the redesigning of the healing herb garden.

So previously it used to be a circular design to the side of building C, and now it's uh of a different shape and format.

Addition to a community gardens beside building D, which is right up front, which you can see from Erskine Lane.

And then there's also an increase, uh slight increase to the on-surface parking.

Next slide, please.

So on screen is the build garbage and recycling enclosures for buildings A and B.

So they're considered structures within the zoning bylaw as a result of the definition, uh, in that they're enclosed by a friend structure, which is with a gate, um, and therefore subject to maximum size regulations, which include um meter, if you will, like the length and the width.

So the approved landscape plan and the original development permit had this location in the general terms at the front of the building, um, and unfortunately did not include any measurements at the time.

So they've proposed a variance from 7.5 meters to 8.8 meters in this instance.

Next slide please.

So variance is also required for the garbage and recycling enclosure for buildings C and D from 7.5 meters to 7.55 meters.

And staff are in support of these variances as the applicant has partially screened them using landscaping to minimize the visual effect from the public realm and the neighborhood properties along Erskine Lade.

So at the bottom image of the screen, you can kind of see that you can't actually see the building well the the garbage enclosure from Erskine Lane very well from this angle.

And it is difficult to determine how hidden these will be based because the shrubs are still quite young, but I am fully or somewhat confident that at least this building sorry, building structure will be covered.

As you can see, there's vines already kind of all over it, which is kind of nice.

Gives a little bit more green.

Next slide, please.

However, the retaining walls, with the exception of the retaining wall that runs along behind building C and D, are constructed with the textured lock block look, similar to what was approved in the farming character of the previous design, I guess.

And I believe that's primarily for structural reasons that it was just done in structural cast or architecturally cast concrete.

Next slide, please.

The previously approved development permit varied the maximum height of retaining walls from 1.2 meters to 2 meters, and the two retaining walls constructed on the subject property exceed that two meter height from finish grade.

So the largest retaining wall on site is the one located behind building C, which is shown on the screen, and has a height of four meters.

Please note that that does not include the height of the fence on top, which is a guardrail and is required by the BC building code to be there.

So we've excluded it from the request for the height.

Staff are supporting all of them for the following reasons.

The retaining wall behind building C measures to a height of four meters and is retaining soil given the large grade change between the property line and the building.

The retaining wall in front of building D measures a height of 2.5 meters, which is only five centimeters above the two meter that was previously approved, and is required to maintain grade for the walkway path towards building D's entrance.

So it's right in the stairway at the front.

And the retaining wall behind building C is constructed in two parts, as you can see in the diagram.

And the first section of the wall is two meters and the second one is two meters, but it's separated by a distance of 0.7 meters and therefore requires a variance because it's everything is one to one.

So one meter height is one meter separation distance typically from another wall.

Um and it was designed this way ultimately because the second wall was um is is quite close to the property line, which would have required further blasting closer to where the CRD has an existing high pressure water pipe.

So we want to avoid that if possible.

Um so next slide, please.

Um our recommendation um or staff's recommendation is that council um bring this application to a future council meeting for opinion by the public and for decision.

Any questions?

Thank you very much.

I'm sure there are a few.

Councilor Lemon.

Yeah, thank you.

That was a lot.

Um the I the retaining walls, I'm I'm just getting fine clarification, they need to be higher because of unexpected grade changes.

Through through the chair.

For the one in front of building D, which is the 2.05 meter, that is only a slight grade difference and is really close to what was previously approved at two meters.

However, the retaining wall located behind building C was designed slightly different previously.

And it is kind of my understanding that as a result of um not having a grading plan done for the development permit previously, and it was done during the building permit, that some changes were needed in order to um construct a retaining wall that would suit the building design that they had proposed okay good so and essentially it's to prevent erosion right um it's it's also required because the building is pretty close to the slope itself um so it would be required just in order to make sure that none of those lower levels would be um you know in dirt okay thank you other questions council rogers yeah, thanks so um uh I appreciate the uh applicant provided um a letter, covering letter and and a rationale and and with uh excellent photographs.

Um they note that these are changes that were made between the approved site plans and what was constructed.

So was it uh from the um inspections that these um variances and uh issues were identified through the chair.

Um yes, as mentioned, we did a site inspection um in May of 2024, so a year ago, um, while looking, I believe it was for occupancy for buildings um C and D, so 17 and 15 Erskine.

And at that time, um both the building inspector and planning uh were on site and investigating uh exactly if there was any changes, and it was identified at that time.

There were some changes.

So is is it normal that um um builders would uh build and wait for the inspection and seek approval under the variance process?

That would likely differ between developers.

So um uh I I fortunately I don't see it happening in in this particular instance, but if there was a variance and um you know of uh construction as large as this um and the staff did not could not support it.

What would have been um the recourse that staff would have recommended?

Um through through the mayor, uh in the uh as you know you identified in the question that this is a very unique situation because the the project's completed and it's important for our um future colleagues to have a paper trail in terms of what has been approved, and so this is a situation where we're coming back to council um after something has been built.

Ideally, it's not the best approach.

Um however, it is where we are today, and it's the the reality that we're in.

So these retaining walls cannot be removed.

Um the accessory structures are blend in with the landscaping and the building design so staff do not have any concerns with those as mentioned in um Ms.

Curtis's presentation.

And so it's really to um ensure that we have um the documentation in place and they are variances and staff cannot approve variances.

Thank you.

Yeah no I I appreciate that and um I I again I appreciate the the comprehensive list not only of the variances that um uh staff identified but the changes that I appreciate the applicant um making uh a list of those those changes so thank you I'll leave my comments for later Councilor Brown like to move the staff recommendation second I've got some questions first before we go to a vote uh if you don't mind um one is um is the variance requested is it structurally and engineeringly sound some memos have been provided by the engineer suggesting that those retaining walls um are are good okay and um do we have a reason for the increase in size for the um garbage and recycling enclosure?

That was likely the result of not knowing how many bins they would require um at the time of the development permit.

Um it depended, I guess, on what kind of bins they wanted to get in the future.

So and just a question about procedure, and this may defer to Elna and Scott, but it was council's desire to move approval for this um variance now.

Staff has done its documentation on it.

Could it be done now?

Um through the mayor, I'll answer that question.

Uh the uh through the local government, the answer is no.

Uh that we have uh legislative legislative process that we need to follow for variance applications.

Okay, thank you.

My concern with this is that there's nothing in here that's really going to elicit a lot of public concern, I don't think.

We're talking about sometimes, you know, uh uh feet as opposed for retaining wall and uh garbage enclosure that needs to get bigger to put bigger bins in.

We're not talking about taking down trees or moving sidewalks or anything like that.

And so what would be the um result if the council says, okay, we we want the original dimensions for the garbage shelters and the retaining walls as approved.

So that's gonna lead to greater developer expense in order to do it.

So my question fundamentally is why are we doing this?

And and I understand it's procedural, but I'm I'm wondering why this is is before uh council for such small stuff and it's already built like as opposed to prior to construction um getting approval.

So it's uh through the mayor um the sort of two parts to your question.

Um the yeah I the dev um it may be maybe worthwhile to for the um the applicant to perhaps answer the first question regarding sort of why did they keep building?

Um why wouldn't they acknowledge no that's somewhat rhetorical.

I think I was uh it's already okay, okay, okay.

Um and then in terms of, I mean, this is a sort of a different conversation, but um uh you know, council does have the authority to delegate variances to staff um through a deleg uh delegation bylaw.

Um so that's perhaps something that council may want to consider in the future.

But as it stands right now, we cannot because our bylaw states that we must follow the application process because that's what our bylaw states, correct?

Um that is correct, uh Mayor Tobias.

However, staff is just quickly double-checking one um aspect of the local government act, um, just with respect to variances um and and process.

So we'll um please just take your time.

I guess my my question is, and you know, it's up to council to support or not but you know and stuff as minor as this could we make a motion to refer approval of these variances to staff one by one as opposed to a blanket ballot yeah so through the mayor um it's uh I would recommend that uh council look at it a little bit more holistically because um we would have to amend the delegation our current delegation um bylaw to to delegate variances to staff um council need to decide in terms of um what types of variances council feels comfortable delegating to staff um to what extent uh council feels comfortable delegating variances to staff.

So that is a conversation that staff would be happy to have with council in the future.

But I think my question remains unanswered.

But would that be within the realm of possibility?

Through the mayor, that's an interesting question, given that we're already through going through a public process.

So that is something that uh staff would have to look into.

I am I am actually don't have an answer.

I'm not I'm not sure.

Okay.

So Scott, did you have some insight?

Uh I have two answers.

Not tonight, we can't delegate to staff.

In the future, we can amend our delegation bylaw so that it is possible for this to be delegated to staff.

Thank you.

That's all I needed to hear.

So we've got a motion on the table moved by Councillor Brown, I think, or seconded by Councillor Lemon.

Uh Councillor McKenzie, go ahead if you have a question or comment.

It was more of a comment, uh, Mayor Tobias, just in relation to your question.

I just know that um in the past we've kind of done the opposite where we've said, oh, why didn't this come to council where we delegated the authority?

It was around trees, I believe, um, to staff.

So I just want to caution us against that because we've already done the opposite.

Yeah, and I think uh for me this one was um not involving I think things that neighbors would be overly concerned about.

Um because we're talking about feet and inches of retaining walls and size to put things.

Um so the so that was my concern.

Um, but I think we could probably when we review the bylaw or or have that discussion, we could say what are those types of things that we can we feel comfortable as a council in deferring to staff.

What are those things that we council wants to retain?

I think that's a good discussion for that.

But thanks for bringing that up, uh, Councillor McKenzie.

Councilor Roger.

Yes, um, um I uh support the motion um i appreciate the applicants coming uh before and our petitioners delegations uh giving us an overview of the success of the project uh and forewarning us uh that these things were coming forward um i appreciate staff uh bringing these variances to our attention and so that we can do the appropriate uh process of of uh consideration and approval um i think all all the um modifications and changes that were made in stream uh were basically to the um betterment of the project and the the structural integrity and so forth so um uh thank you for bringing it the staff and the staff's review of it I support it thank you councillor Rogers any other comments or questions uh yeah please do counselor Brown yeah first of all the retaining walls they look okay which is pretty hard for a retaining wall at least it's not a straight concrete wall which someone could complain about if it looks ugly but it looks fine the garbage containers I live in Estrata we only have 14 units but the garbage gets you got the composting now you got kitchen scraps um may perhaps recycling people may want to use those for that so and they're these are big buildings there's a lot of people living there so I think it's good to have the bigger size and of course they're they're they're they're contained, so they're not a an eye source so I think uh I think that's great.

Excellent.

Thanks.

Uh secondary, do you want to violate that?

Uh so I guess we'll um go to vote.

So all those in favor of staff's recommendation.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thanks.

Um and we have two items on correspondence, I think.

Would anybody and I think those were under staff recommendations as well.

Would anybody like to speak to them?

And that's item nine.

Councilor Lambert.

Well, I think they all probably need to be spoken to, but to the first letter on urgent elbows up for climate.

I think, you know, I think in a world now of drill baby drill, uh it's the right thing to do is to write in support of this national movement, which mayors and mayors and counselors across Canada are are um you know, fighting for for for the climate.

So I you know, I I'd be hum I'd be comfortable with signing this.

Perhaps all of council would be comfortable signing this.

Councilor Rogers?

I uh well I think it's up to each of us.

Uh you know, I think the letter is to uh it's clear that you know each count member of council should um seriously consider and and signs sign the letter and I seriously will do so.

So it's up to each of us.

Thank you.

Councillor Brown.

Yeah, if I've ordered I've already signed it.

Thank you.

I I I mean I guess um uh the crux of the concern, Councillor Lemon and you touched on it, it was all about let's fast track um environmental um initiatives that or in uh projects that could uh definitely have an impact on the environment without um seemingly the world changed overnight just because somebody was aggressive with uh drilling and their um uh and their disregard for some of the longstanding um climate action um interventions they had in place so yeah so i think your suggestion counselor lemon is is that um and counselor brown is that for uh counselors uh to consider it and signing it and that would be an individual thing uh and then the next one is the um backpack project that's come before us before move staff's recommendation.

And staff's recommendation is that we support a backpack project by allowing a donation box and a poster in town hall from November 1st to December 19th.

Got a mover in a seconder um joint did you want to motivate or is that uh no, it it's consistent with our practice from the past, and uh that's great.

Okay.

Uh recommendations on a separate white sheet, uh Councillor McKenzie.

Got it.

And uh so we got a mover and a seconder.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Uh so that was a motion to receive that, and the uh one was by uh council to um uh for information to do it.

But we should have a um a motion to um receive uh a b and c and then we can um have whatever action we want out of that so can i have a motion to receive course move a shitable uh move by council rogers second by council brown all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries and then there's the uh heritage conservation act consultation from uh the president of ubcm uh elna do you recall uh if council's already taken a position on the heritage conservation act consultation i thought we did, and that we were not in favor of it because we could move things into a closed meeting if we requested.

Staff have received a request to complete this survey.

However, it has not been done yet.

That's but we can we can complete the survey if that so it the deadline I think in the letter has been extended till November 14th.

So you don't have a problem extending uh meeting it by the 14th.

We will make it happen.

Okay, thank you, ma'am.

So do you need a motion to tell us uh for you to make it happen?

No, okay.

Good.

So we've already received it.

Um uh thank you for that.

And I think um we're now on the consent agenda.

And as agreed upon, we've uh when we approved the agenda, we pulled uh one item vote for Councilor Rogers, and that was um item 10E, which was the minutes from October 7th, and that they will become now 11A.

Uh Counselor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Just trying to bring it up.

Um sorry, allow me if just yeah, in in the minutes, um there was the the matter that we'd pulled off uh from the agenda with respect to the Choco, and uh the motion was to um I I thought I'd made the motion to move it to the committee of the whole meeting, uh not specifically to the a future community of the whole meeting.

And uh so I'm I'm a little concerned that um uh we may lose focus on this uh this matter.

Um so I guess my intent was to uh have moved it from October the seventh to uh the following committee of the whole, which was the fourteenth.

Uh I didn't see it on the agenda.

Well we um so I I guess either we you know I'm not exactly sure what to do with the motion, but I would just hope that we would not be able to put in uh require a future committee of the whole meeting that's gonna be way off into the future.

And staff has staff have their hand up.

Uh Ella.

Yes, um thank you counselor rogers this will be coming forward to the November 12th committee of the whole meeting it is scheduled to come forward then thank you my worries are over okay you're happy with that very much so thank you okay thanks and uh I think we need to move the consent agenda and that's items 10 uh a through uh three H, I think move consent agenda move consent agenda seconded by Councillor Brown uh all those in favor?

Uh any opposed um I'll just speak to something that um is on our consent agenda that you uh should be aware of.

That I got a call, I think it was yesterday, that uh unfortunately our Scotia Bank branch is consolidating with Uptown.

Um I'm a Scotia Bank user myself, but I mine is uh owed in in Calwood.

I know that this will affect some of our uh older residents, particularly, and the the bank is uh and the staff.

It's got an impact on them.

I um uh as well because they loved uh working in the uh in View Royal.

Um the other thing uh I was rested assured of is that the uh staff that work there will be moved to branches.

The actual branch itself will consolidate with Uptown.

I did everything I could to try to make them stay, but I think this is of course Scotiabank is a very large corporate organization.

Uh and uh they make these decisions uh um you know at a at a level uh a national or an international level.

Uh and John, it wasn't because of the taxes.

I asked that specifically.

Uh and I'm sure they could have uh could have afforded any any increase.

Um the uh land uh that Scott and I looked up is not owned by Scotiabank.

It is leased um uh land.

Um so I'll be contacting the owners of the land and um see what we can do because that is it's a bank.

So I think that brings us down, maybe Leanne and Scott, you know, to one lending institution, and that is Coast Capital, I think in Eagle Creek.

Um coastal community.

Yeah.

Is there last one?

Yeah.

Uh so that's our uh last remaining bank.

So I just want to make that aware mainly for the public as well, if they haven't heard about it.

Uh Council Rogers.

Uh yes, um disappointing to see the letter.

Um we'd been using the bank because it was indeed uh a bank in NV Rule and we want to use local business.

One of the other things I I think we need to think about is uh what the future use of that building will be, particularly since it has a drive-through.

And uh so that will be uh a curious thing to reflect on and and a big um what comes of it from staff and maybe um uh reconsideration of egress into the uh um into that uh square.

So there's many implications to be considered.

Certainly.

Uh we can deal with them as they come.

Council McKenzie.

Yes, Mayor Tobias.

I was just wondering uh in that call, um, whether you can shed some clarity on whether it's closing as of October 22nd.

That's when it's gonna so it'll be here of till 2026.

Okay.

Yeah, uh so it's a long-term plan.

There's also a process that will go that uh staff um uh residents and and council can can participate in and talk about impact uh for the community and uh from what I understand they're they're responsive to uh to that.

Some of the sometimes they're reconsidered because of isolation of a branch and the only branch uh kind of around or uh in this case where we're kind of distinctive that we've got um lots of elderly residents that have been using that service for years um so uh so yeah it would be uh there's some heads up maybe they'll change their mind I'll keep working them uh because it's uh it's always nice to to have banks in your community that's for sure um but uh with that I think we've already received it I just wanted to uh drill a little bit deeper on that in case there were some questions or concerns uh we've d uh dealt with uh 11.

Um there's no new business element.

Just um we'll need a motion to adopt the minutes now that they've been moved out of the consent agenda, please.

Yeah, we're gonna move adoption in the minutes.

Thank you.

Seconded by counselor brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

Uh so no new business.

I think that brings us to question period.

Um, anybody in the room like to address council on anything?

Once, twice, three times.

Nobody uh Carl, we got anybody online that uh would like to address council on uh any as far as questions go.

Uh Mayor Tobias, we've had no messages this evening.

Thank you, Carl.

And I think that brings us to uh motions and notices of motions.

And uh council rogers, just a reminder that you this is where we read your or you introduce your read-in for the notice of motion and any discussion occurs at the next meeting.

The motion is that all recommendations for the creation of shared path cycling pedestrians and bidirectional bike lanes, cycling lanes be removed and revised from the uh received active transportation plan uh one and two from any I know capital projects from 2025 onwards.

Thank you.

Uh and I think that's uh just a read-in.

Elna, do we don't have to have a vote on the read-in?

That's just going to occur on our next agenda um uh in early November, correct?

Um and we have no closed meeting resolution, no rising report that I can recall.

So can I move adjournment?

Absolutely.

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion is carried.

Thank you.

Good night, folks.