Special Council

Thank you, Sarah.

Good evening.

And I'll call the Town of View Royal Special Council meeting to order for Tuesday, June 11th, 2024, and start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Lakongwin speaking people, known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

I think everybody in the room has been briefed by Sarah on the events for public participation and question period.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone and you're listening in, you can call 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 169-046-625 pound.

You'll be immediately muted.

And once admitted to the meeting, please do not unmute until you're asked.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will then announce the last four digits of your phone number, ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback and ask you not to use speakerphone to ensure sound quality.

And uh then I'll have you unmute by pressing star six to begin.

Please indicate your name and street name.

Uh for the record, speakers will have five minutes each to speak during the public participation and two minutes to ask a question during question period.

Any will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Is there any errors or omissions or additions to the agenda as it stands?

Noting that you have a um late item to special council meeting, and that includes the recommendations from the committee meeting that we had on Friday afternoon.

And uh, of course, it being Friday afternoon, it was beyond the deadline to add to the agenda, so that's why it was there.

So the agenda as it stands with the inclusion of the uh late item sheet.

Are there any errors or omissions?

Council Rogers.

Uh a procedural question to staff.

Um I had um you know sent an email to to everyone um wanting to see clarification of a process, um, and I I'm assuming whether or not we're gonna be reading a um uh a notice of motion or a notice of no public motion hearing, but the the concern with respect to lot coverage and permeable services, if that's relevant to this or it you know is an add-on to what the province is stipulating that must be so comments.

Thank you, thank you.

Um so through through the mayor, uh yes, uh staff looked into this and staff went into this thinking the sole purpose of compliance with Bill 44 and the Local Government Act, and establishing the small-scale multi-unit housing zoning regulations required staff to look at the entire zoning bylaw to ensure they are there are no conflicting sections and provide some consistency.

However, if council disagrees with staff, then we can pull the lot coverage impermeable surface impermeable surface coverage amendment from tonight's bylaw and deal with it at a later date.

But that will be a council decision.

too is is a possible challenge that could be made to uh both the public notice and due process of of uh what's before us tonight um you know because technically it uh maybe some gray area that they remove lot coverage and impervial service area um in that particular line you can see it's a second bullet of uh of the notice given um and uh there's some um uh thoughts that uh that's not a that is something that uh is not specifically um to the uh local government's prohibition of uh small scale multi-unit housing under bill 44 and uh that's probably to be on the safe side uh without any further challenges to this bylaw and to any subsequent uh bylaws that would come out of this um uh this meeting um you know if we might want to uh consider and and weigh the possibilities of that and uh therefore remove that particular section thank you uh this is just uh the approval of the agenda so I think we're gonna hit that in the agenda and and I'd encourage you to bring up your concerns in there.

Okay.

But I I think at this stage uh we just need to approve those things that we can deliberate later on.

Uh okay so wherever we can second uh so we as that comes up we can um we can amend or put it to the the council if they wish to amend as we go through with your argument.

But I think at this stage we just need to approve that it's in there and we'll wait till we get to that line item in order to deal with it.

Um so we got a mover and a secretary to approve the agenda, including the light items uh addition.

All those in favor.

Uh any opposed.

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And uh Sarah, just to confirm we've got no minutes of other special council meetings that we're adopting for this meeting.

Uh mayor's report.

Of course, this uh brings to uh before council one of the last um objectives and bylaw modifications to be compliant with Bill 44.

Um and uh the province has given us a date of the uh 30th of June to be compliant and uh send a report for bylaws in for it.

Um a number of municipalities have uh stated their displeasure uh in having to be forced to do uh the bylaw.

I think uh with uh the committee recommendations and the standing committee's recommendations, we've managed to come up with a View Royal um uh special, if you will, and that taking those uh the best out of what's been uh the cards we've been dealt to try to give us uh some direction on how we take this legislation and incorporate staff's work into making it work for View Royal.

Um, and uh that's where uh I think uh all of the agenda items are focused on this evening.

Uh just two other brief items that I wanted to make public.

One is that where there was a call for power uh meeting by BC Hydro.

Uh what they're also doing is very interesting to for staff, and they're trying to streamline processes of authorizations and permitting for BC power work within municipalities as well.

Um as you may all be aware with the electrification of everything.

We've got an increased demand of power.

There's a new substation going into Langford, new transmission cables to the mainland just to keep us void up.

So they will be reaching out to work with our staff on how we can streamline approvals for uh for hydro to continue servicing the things that we we already have.

Um and uh the yeah I'll leave it at that for the for the mayor's report.

Uh and petitions and delegations.

We have none, but that brings us to our public participation.

So we can start in the room first.

Would anybody like to address council on any item of the agenda?

Please go I really listen, Sara.

Gary Mathies uh on uh uh Stewart Avenue in uh View Royal.

I, as an ordinary citizen who actually did hardly anything to get this approved, and uh except I was against it like everybody else, I'd like to say thanks to the council who put in way more work than you ever expected to in this uh session, and to any committee members who, whether they're here or uh out and about uh for participating in this.

I think some of the other municipalities who jumped up and near the end and said, nope, we're not going to do this, and we're going to send back.

I often wonder if they maybe didn't have the same diligence that was exhibited here, and therefore they're getting to D-Day, they're not ready, they're not done.

Well, the other thing to do is to push it back to other people.

I I wonder if that's uh possibly what's going on.

I lastly agree with what uh counselor Rogers said earlier about permeable surfaces being included in this discussion tonight.

Um the way I understand uh is that that wasn't any part of the mandate by the province and uh therefore I wonder if it should be in.

I respect that it's said to be consistent, and so since I don't know all the details, I don't know exactly what that part means.

But my two cents is that it probably shouldn't be included.

Anyway, I thank you all again for the work.

Do I hit a button now?

Thanks.

Thank you, Gary.

Is there anybody else that would like to address counsel in the room?

Going once, twice.

Carl, have we got anybody on the phone that would like to address counsel?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers.

Very well.

Thank you, Gary.

Then we can proceed.

And I think that brings us down to um 8 3, which is uh staff.

Did you want to talk about this now?

And that's uh for the minutes of the standing committee.

I guess you don't have to talk about it.

Uh I think we could talk about it up here.

So on your uh blue sheet, you're going to see essentially the same um the same text that was uh incorporated into it.

Um so again, apologies for lateness, but just with timings and staff work and trying to make meeting schedules work, um, that uh here's where they are.

Uh I just talked to um to Leanne uh at the beginning of the meeting to confirm that item A has been incorporated into um the work and the bylaw that you're seeing this evening.

However, um a uh or site standards package A setbacks and floor space area exemption for garages is not included.

If I could um talk about the heuristics that the council was kind of looking at in order uh to provide guidance.

One of those was what would fit on each parcel of land, because they're not being consistent.

Try to allow as much setback and separation.

In the legislation itself, it had recommended that each community identify their tolerance and their comfort level with two things.

One was an intensity, and one was massing of these structures and how they fit with your current communities.

So I think the committee did a fairly good job of marrying staff works in legislative intent and try to make it again as view royal as possible within the guidelines.

So leaving enough space for trees if one wished to have one, uh enough privacy in between properties, uh, thoughts about um reducing as much uh semi-permeable or permeable area as possible, such as driveways and garages.

Uh, for instance, is there a need to have a garage with a fourplex?

Uh some houses are built without garages.

So, what would that do to um to view royal if there was a bunch of ancillary buildings associated with each multiplex and how big of a footprint that would take up?

Also looking at how expensive that would be to pass on to a consumer if our intent was to focus on affordability.

Um I'll leave it to the other two members of council that were committee members.

Have I left out some kind of the higher level of discussions and motivations around some of those areas?

I'll go to you first, Councilor Matson.

I'm sorry.

So do you want like a is this a motion then we can discuss now that you've sort of gave broadly?

Is that the idea?

Uh just something I left out uh overall in the committee's work and guidance, but well, if you just want overall comments, yeah.

Uh regarding the setbacks, um, when the committee staff included the setbacks were basically part of committee's recommendation, but what the committee didn't, you know.

Well, sorry, committee out there, we didn't have a firm grasp on what we were recommending.

And so what it was was the province's setbacks, which were I think two and a half meters staff, you can correct me, uh, front and and back, whereas council initially and our bylaws were like seven and a half front and back, and staff were recommending somewhere in the middle.

And so, and council said, well, we like staff's recommendation better than what we had initially put forward, which was the the provincial.

And so that's how we got to the this recommendation.

Just want to reinforce that we wanted staff's recommended setbacks.

Again, as was mentioned, we were concerned that, and if you they took the worst case scenario, you'd have uh say four townhouses on one lot, and they would be each a thousand square feet.

Well, if you could carry, if you could actually if we didn't include the floor space for the garages, you could have another 1600 or more square feet of garages.

And so we thought that sort of conflicted with the whole goal with the whole massing goal.

We also talked about well, maybe we need to have space on site for you know storage, etc.

And as staff pointed out, what we did in the bylaw is we brought forward council's current ancillary buildings bylaw or that component of it into this document.

So and staff, I if you could correct me on the number, but I think under the draft bylaw, if we exclude the we include floor space and graduate floor space, they'd still be able to build up to 640 square feet of ancillary space.

And I might have that number quite a little bit off.

Yeah, so through the mayor, thank you for the question, Councilor Mattson.

The one can still construct an accessory building on the subject property, and the maximum floor area is 60 square meters.

So that works out to yeah.

That's where I thought 640 feet.

Yeah, 640 square feet.

That's correct.

Okay.

And the other comment we had was in as initially the way it was written, it said, well, if you're using the garage for an automobile, it isn't included.

And as most of us know, as soon as there's a garage for most people, it's filled with stuff that has nothing to do with the automobile.

And so we thought all in all, given there's still lots of ancillary space on the site that they could build storage, and we didn't want the problem with massing.

We decided that floor space for garages should be included in the total floor space allowed.

Thank you, Councilor Matson.

Uh Councilor Rogers, please.

Uh yeah, in in terms of uh the the uh let me let me see if I get this right.

So we've got the um the minutes um that's uh for receipt um and then there's the recommendations that came from the standing committee uh listed there.

Um so clarification with staff, are these points um now included in the um bylaws?

Uh only A, because that is just uh dealing with more of a typo clarification.

Items A or site standard package A, setbacks and floor, that's that's a a real change, and so council needs to approve those changes uh because we've already given notification of this particular bylaw, and so count staff cannot go ahead and start making ch changes nilly-willy to a bylaw that's been given notice already.

So uh if council supports these recommendations from the standing committee, then council is going to have to make a motion tonight before the bylaws are given for second and third reading to make the changes.

And I I think and Sarah can correct me if I'm wrong, but basically it will be first second reading of zoning bylaw, amendment bylaw 1135 as amended, and council must be very clear on what those amendments are.

So members, we've um we hadn't seen the minutes of of this.

This is just came on to um our council agenda probably around noon.

So um we haven't seen this, we're not sure what was recorded by by staff in in the minutes, and yes, we do have notes uh for amendments.

We have a package of amendments that we'd like council to consider.

And as Council Matson says, this is not only with respect to the issue of having uh garages, but the setbacks are important because when uh the standing committee made a recommendation back on May the 14th, uh we said to be incorporate the following, but we had nothing about the setbacks because um the committee was happy with the setbacks provided in option two.

Unfortunately, that wasn't um you know misunderstood, and the setbacks of option one was put in, which is the provincial um regulations, and and it's much better, quite frankly, to have um the officers of step two uh or option two that was on on May the 14th.

So it's complicated and it's difficult, but quite frankly, we've got to get this right or don't do it at all.

Don't buy, you know, if we if you're at all hesitant about uh what we're proposing and what it means, because it is an extremely complicated, but that complication if we don't will reverberate in the community.

So um it it is um we got some work to do tonight in making sure that we've got these things correct um uh well documented.

And I think the the information I've given um both um staff two copies of this, and as we work through it, um then we can have a better sense of um uh how we're going to achieve the best possible bylaw zoning amendments to uh to um uh put forward to both the province and the community.

So I'd like to move the floor space area document specifically that the committee oh Jesus, I need glasses.

I guess it'd be council now.

That count uh basically that the garage floor area be included in the floor area calculation.

Staff is that sufficient?

Pardon me.

Through the mayor, yes.

Um the way the motions are written here in the minutes are all of them are very clear and gives council clear direction.

Staff have not reviewed this document that was just shared, and so we would have to go back and review it to make sure that it doesn't change it doesn't require notification again and another process.

Just for clarification, the uh yeah, that's the motions are you understand those and very clear.

Those are fine.

Okay.

And do we have a secondary for your motion?

Second of the counselor brown.

Uh any motivation from the mover of the secondary?

I've I've already commented on it.

Personally, I live in a 14-unit townhouse since 2005.

Out of the 14 units, four of them do never never use their garage for their car.

One's a workshop, one's a child play area for their kids, and the other two have their kayaks and bikes stored in there.

And and the parking's uh it's not the greatest.

So it's just annoying to me that people could use that extra square p they should have bought a four-bedroom place instead of a three-bedroom place, and then made the garage their fourth bedroom.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Uh any other comments?

Councilor McKenzie.

Uh yeah, I just have a comment first about the process.

I feel like um I'm surprised we didn't have a staff presentation to kind of explain some of these recommendations just a little bit more, but I understand it's because I think some members of council have already received uh a little bit more.

So I feel like the ones who aren't on the standing committee might be at a little bit of a disadvantage.

But um that said, I am not in favor of the uh floor space uh exemption for garages.

I I know some people don't use the garages for cars, but if by doing this, we're not going to encourage the the building of homes with garages, which will result in negative consequences on parking of nearby streets.

Uh there's also not going to be somewhere where people can store their bikes securely, and therefore we which we want to promote because we want people to be cycling and doing active transportation, as well as storage of bins, uh, so that we're not having to bear proof uh our bins.

And lastly, it um I understand from staff's report that it does align with common practice that um that it is exempted, so I think we should align with best practice.

Any other comments?

Council Rogers.

Yes.

Um I I appreciate um you know the the uh the need for um bike storages and bins and so forth, and and um I I think that that is something that um um we can look at at a later point in terms of uh sheds, accessory buildings, accessory sheds that would enable uh the storage of that.

But the fact is that um you go around town, you go like in the Chuco area, and you'll see that there's all the cars that are in the driveways.

Why are they in the driveways?

Because they can't fit in the cardboards.

So if it's a garage, if we're gonna call a garage a garage, then they better put the car.

But we can't enforce them to put them in this space that is free.

And so, you know, the the if it's going to be storage, if it's going to be any other use, it's look at the look at the we've got examples where garages are now turned into secondary suites.

So uh I think the um the point is that these actually are used for living spaces they're not used to the vehicles and um I know that's what the whole point that's what the province is saying the province is saying is that we should be focused on living space and um if they don't uh feel that there should be parking space on the sites well obviously they've got a sense that everyone's gonna buy and bike and walk.

Why would they need cars?

Why would they need garages?

So I I think if we're thinking of storage for alternate modes then storage sheds are obviously um the the further refinement that this bylaw can go through after we get it through June.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Just a quick question for staff before I go to councillor Matson is that um we're not mandating with this bylaw that people need to build garages.

That's the option of the developer whether they build them or whether they don't build them, correct?

You're correct, yes.

So that it's not mandatory for the uh a builder to build garages.

However, if a developer wishes to build garages, then this is how we would deal with it.

Uh counselor Madsen.

Yeah so the other part of this too is just uh if you build three units you might they might put in a garage but if you're putting four of them in you you probably you probably wouldn't just because of the space constraints.

But I the whole issue about putting you know storage etc etc I I just want to reiterate that under the bylaw they would be able to put 60 meters which works out to about 640 square feet of ancillary buildings on the site for storage or anything else they want so in reality they don't need the garage for storage it's just doubles doubling up in the storage space that's eliminating the staff um is is there a standard size or required size for a garage.

Uh through the mayor uh the the yeah, so the the 45 square, well that's uh 45 square meters is a hold on I'm just gonna check with Sterling here for a second.

Just bear with me.

Okay, so just a clarification with the Sterling.

So uh I think it it's safe to say that it's a double car garage ranges between a 36 to 45 square meters for two car two for two parking spaces.

What about a one-car garage?

Or is there such a thing?

Oh, oh absolutely.

There are single car garages.

Uh it would have to probably around 20 square meters approximately.

And and just further to further to that, in it I I believe it was at the last committee of the whole meeting would we when we looked at the bylaw and we we we went for option three which would provide um versatility.

So there would be you know you had the potential of a larger dwelling and smaller dwellings.

With the smaller dwellings, say if there were a five, six hundred square foot um dwelling.

A garage would take up a lot of that potential living space, wouldn't it?

Through the mayor, I think we'll be, it'll be, I doubt we're gonna see uh usually we see garages associated with townhouses.

Uh we've said I don't think I've ever seen a townhouse unit that's 600 square feet.

Um we are that would be more of a houseplex size of unit.

And I have not seen in my experience of project I have not seen houseplexes with with garages.

They're mostly un units, and then having a detached building for like an accessory building to house the cars or have sir or surface parking, generally surface parking.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I think the motion on the floor is to incorporate the floor space area exemption for garages, and that the committee recommended to council that garage floor areas be included in the floor area calculation for the bylaw that we're going to be seeing in um agenda item 10.

Uh so there's no other comments about it.

Yeah, as I said before, I think my concern is about the quality of the homes that we are going to be building in View Royal.

We want homes that people can stay in long term, where people can have hobbies and store their outdoor activities in a space without having to worry about having to share that space with other people.

Otherwise, we're gonna have turnover in our neighborhoods when really we want people to stay here and uh settle down and set down routes.

So thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Uh any other comments, questions?

So all those in uh Counselor Lemon.

My concern is that if off street parking is no longer required and we don't provide garages, that puts everybody out on the street.

Uh thank you, Council Lemon.

I think there's two things there.

Do we need a place to park cars or do we need garages to park cars in?

So uh uh living on Canard Street where there's lots of suites, um it will put cars out on the street, regardless of whether there's garages or not.

I can honestly say that because many of the garages in those homes have been converted to other areas where the garages are now on the street.

So um or filled with stuff.

So I I think that the the principle that I think the committee was following, and and certainly if they weren't following it, I I in my own head was following it, is that can we avoid um uh digging into more green space than needed?

We're already extending the the property lines out.

So that if we're putting a garage, obviously it's probably got to go behind the building.

So now we need to push a largely uh non-permeable driveway through the building and then uh and then more non-permeable for the the garage itself.

I mean to Leanne's point, it's I'm hard pressed to look at a new smaller fourplex or um uh houseplex that that has a garage attached to it, right?

That that you bought it that way.

So again, a developer can come in and and not build garages.

I would suspect that most garage most developers wouldn't, just for the extra cost but if they would then uh our our bylaw really the question is uh would those garage floor spaces be included in the floor area um calculation or or or not and the whole idea was to limit the amount of massing and intensity there so I think the the the the parking's uh another issue but I don't think it's parking equals garages necessarily in my thoughts okay we're ready to vote uh all those in favor of the uh committee's recommendation to council for four space area uh for uh garages that is in the agenda.

All those in favor, all those opposed noting councillor uh Qualitage and Councillor McKenzie are opposed to it.

The motion carries so staff um that would be one of the amendments, I would assuming, and depending on how council votes on the other two.

Um we've got two other areas there.

Item A.

I'll move the setback one.

Moving setbacks, uh the next one.

Uh moved by counselor mattson, seconded by Councilor Rogers.

Uh councillor Matson, do you wish to add that?

Just again, under the what what we currently have would allow building right up to within two meters or two and a half meters of the property line?

And staff.

And what would it be under the old staff recommendation?

Through the mayor, I believe it's four meters.

And which is obviously less than what currently we have seven meters or six meters.

Depends on the zone.

Councilor Rogers, please.

Yes, thanks, sir.

Again, allow me to reiterate.

Um back on on May the 14th, when we had uh staff given us the report on option one, two, and three, um, staff were recommending number two.

Um, when we had the motion of option three, option three had um talked about uh floor space and so forth, but it did not.

He said to incorporate these changes to um uh to the town's existing setbacks, which was in option two.

So um there is obviously a miscommunication uh you know to suggest we were not saying that we wanted um the the amendments of um um of uh May the 14th uh to be paired with option one.

We wanted it paired with option two that uh that staff had recommended, and those setbacks are uh far more reasonable and far more conducive to the um uh the ambience and and aspects of our of our community and uh you know still able to succeed with um the provincial regulations.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Any other comments or questions?

Uh so really what this does is marry staff's recommendation with the committee's recommendation uh to the option that we uh voted in favor for last time.

Uh Councilor McKenzie.

So do these setbacks only apply to uh SMU or how do they relate to uh you know right now, the the housing setbacks?

If you're the mayor, they would only apply to small-scale multi-unit housing.

And is the recommend the recommendation here uh greater than I know you said it depends on the zoning, but um so the I the option two recommendations is greater than the the provincial manual and site standards because staff felt that they these setbacks are more suitable for town of view oil context and ensuring that there's appropriate breathing room between buildings and things like that, so that uh they're on the high higher side.

Did you have another question, Councilor McKenzie?

You seem to be thinking, that's why I didn't want to.

Well, I'm just curious why we're proposing greater setbacks than we do before than we had before this new legislation.

I think the setbacks for a normal house are much bigger than than our current ones.

Leanne, if you could give Councillor McKenzie some example.

That is correct.

Yeah.

So these setbacks are smaller than the R1B zone or the R1A zone.

So our single family residential zones, they are shorter.

So the way I understood it big currently, um our option was here and the provincial option was much smaller than that.

Is that right, Leanne?

That's about right.

So essentially there are our ones for a standard house now or were gracious.

The provincial ones were were very much smaller and we're somewhere in the middle now.

So if there's no other questions or comments, all those in favor of um uh adopting committee's recommendation for the setbacks.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed motion carries.

And I think there's two other parts to this.

One was the site standards package groups.

And Leanne, you had said that that had that change had already been made in the bylaw that you've got here.

So really it's just down to site standards package A.

Um, and that the committee recommend to council that the appropriate wording consistent with the provincial policy manual and site standards be included included in site standard package A to describe the parcels inside and outside the urban containment boundary.

I had a I had a question from Councillor McKenzie and Leanne, if you could just clarify site standard package A and those areas outside of the urban containment boundary.

Really, what we're talking about there in View Royals context are those areas north of Thetis Lake uh Park.

So through through the mayor, yes, those are the the parcels.

However, the the the council's motion is is obviously it's different, different different so the direction we received from council earlier on to draft the bar law is different than this.

Staff went back and had a look at the provincial policy manual and site standards uh following the discussion that happened at the standing committee and if uh the the site standard package a which is for two units town of your roy would essentially be exempt is exempt from site standard package a in the policy however that's not how the motion read it it read as if if you were to build two units under this under small scale multi unit housing you'd follow the the site standards uh in part and in sites in package a so anyways but when you go back and look at the the manual we're we're exempt like we m most of our small our small our small parcels are exempt from that thank you lean uh counselor mouse so i guess i'm a little confused does that mean this motion isn't needed um through the mayor what it means is that if you're so the way the the interpretation of schedule e is that if if one say you have a property that is zoned R1A and it currently only permits a house.

And with these zoning bylaw amendments, it will also allow small-scale multi-unit housing.

And but if you just want to build a duplex, so just two units, then you would be subject to the zoning provisions for two units under Schedule E, which speaks to the maximum floor area of 372 square meters, uh the setbacks, that sort of thing.

That's sort of that's how it's it's in interpreted.

So this is one of those I'm just wondering.

I mean, I'm confused and I'm always on the committee, so I'm not sure how my colleagues feel about this particular motion be and what it really means.

So I guess my question would be if there's as much confusion in my mind as or in theirs as in my mind, is this one that we need to actually put in tonight or can we look at it down the road?

Because I don't under site um uh package A, is it just blank now, Leanne, or is uh is it actually filled in?

Um my apologies, Mayor Tobice.

I'm not quite following the question.

Yeah, so if you look at standard site package A, is um it blank because it's exempt, or is there uh word exempt there for site package A with a something that says uh exempt outside of it is outside of the urban containment zone or inside the urban containment zone?

No, but I think we if I know where the committee and council will where the standing committee is going with this, we really don't need site standard if if this is what they if council wants.

Because I have to go back to the manual.

Oh, thank you.

Oh, so okay, yeah.

So for for site standard package A, so I'm this is from the provincial policy manual and site standards uh that this is where uh uh a municipality can or parcels that can you where you can only build two lots and in or two part two units and the the jury the loss in jurisdictions where this requirement would apply are the lands are that are within a regional electoral district that's not a that's um pardon me that are not identified in an urban containment boundary established by a re that's just not us we're not in a regional electoral area the portions of municipalities or municipalities that are wholly outside of the urban containment boundary, again, that's not us.

And those, but those parcels around Cedus Lake are much larger than are much larger than 4,0050 square meters plus they're they're not on servicing, so they're they're exempt from SMA.

And then lastly, municipalities with populations less than 5,000.

Well, that doesn't apply.

So what I'm saying is that I think the the site standard standards package A for two units in the manual doesn't apply to view royal.

However, the way it was how the motion from the standing committee to which council approved, is it it's it's not really clear on that.

And so we have a oh yeah, it we can delete it or we can just keep keep it in, which means if someone would like to build two units, then they would have to comply with site standard package a that's how it's written however if council can also remove it um but then again that's a pretty big change to this bylaw council rogers yeah uh I know this is uh a little complicated um just have um I gave you some notes there that uh talked about the site standard package a and and the draft bylaw um that we have um reads that site standard site standards a in table 2.1 pertains to parcels of any size and I I think the um i understand the the uh the fact that you know the um properties in north we will outside the urban boundary are are uh larger but um the in in table two point one um it um i think we should be deleting the word duplex and house with secondary suite is more appropriate i i think that's again i don't have that in front of me right now but you know those are the concerns that there's um you know maybe you're right, maybe we should just take it out.

Leah.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um, we are at the 11th hour with this bylaw, and these are some significant changes to this bylaw that may require new notification.

My suggestion would be is maybe something we we we look we bring back to council after the fact.

But again, you're asking staff to make some several changes without giving staff sufficient time to look at these.

And again, staff delivered on council's motion of following option three and the recommendation that was in those tables as part of option three.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Did you say that you have now you had already implemented the changes that were recommended um uh from Friday's meeting?

No, what I the only one we did, which was very, very minor, which was a clarification on the frequent transit, the the prescribed frequent transit map, uh and i and also just adding the within 400 meters of a prescribed frequent transit stop to section 1.1 D of the schedule E.

We made that change.

That's just very minor.

That's more clarification.

These other changes are are big changes, and it's it's it it deviates from what council directed staff to do originally.

And and again, like we are really at the 11th hour with this.

And so if we're being brought forward multiple changes to this bylaw, then maybe we need to do it all over again.

Okay, so leave that for another day is what you're suggesting.

Having it in doesn't hurt our bylaw right now, but it's something that we can address afterwards.

Because basically what it's saying is that if you have if you have a if you have a property that's zoned R1A, where you could just build a house and you want to build a duplex on it, then you would just have to follow these regulations and schedule E for a duplex, regardless of your lot size.

Uh before I go to Councilor Matson, if somebody right now without this uh policy being enacted for a bylaw, could somebody without rezoning uh apply to build a duplex in the urban containment zone.

Currently uh if they're zoned R1A they'd have to go through rezoning to rezone to R2, which actually um allows for much uh correct me if I'm wrong, but larger floor areas and lot coverage.

Actually this is more restrictive than the R2 zone.

That if they went through rezoning they could actually get that okay thank you uh for the clarification, Leanne.

I'll go to Councillor Matson and then Councillor Lemon.

So just my understanding is what you're recommending is we just don't do anything with this motion on site standard package A at this point in time.

And then sometime in the future, we'll bring it back.

You might bring it back if needed.

That's correct.

It it yeah, that is correct.

It it it's it yeah, I'm not gonna say any more.

Yes.

And it sounded as if it would if we did do it include this, then we might have to actually bring the whole motion back.

That is correct.

We probably have to renotice and do it all over again.

Okay.

So with that, I'd like to just move that we eliminate uh or or not do anything with the site standard package E.

Yeah, yeah second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor.

Seeing none opposed motion carries.

Any opposed?

And I think this brings us down to, Sarah, we probably have to make a clarification, or do we?

Was that clear enough that the I think what we did do is approved floor space area exemption for garages setbacks.

Uh site package A was already included in the change.

And the uh only one that we didn't want included was uh site standards package A.

So when I introduce the small-scale multi-unit housing, really what we're doing is approving the bylaw with the proposed amendments that are recommended by the committee, correct?

Correct, including those ones you just mentioned, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Leanne, it's all about you.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor and Council and members of the public.

We've gone right to the recommendation here.

Okay, great.

So this evening we staff are bringing forward this small-scale multi-unit housing zoning bylaw amendments.

And as council and members of the public, this has been uh about four are we now or June.

So this has been um close to well, five months in the making.

There's been a lot of work from staff and council and members of the standing committee on housing to bring forward the zoning bylaw amendments this evening.

And so this presentation is just a very short presentation because we have discussed this a lot over the last few months.

And I am just going to give a quick overview of what these zoning bylaw amendments are.

But we do have a staff report that speaks to it as well as all the other documents that are attached, including the May 14th Committee of the Whole Report.

So the proposed zoning bylaw amendments that are being brought forward for council's consideration include adding a new Schedule D, which are the garden suite regulations, and Schedule E, the small scale multi unit housing regulations.

The province under Bill 44, we are required to legislatively have to make these zoning bylaw updates.

We must permit garden suites, and we must permit small scale multi unit housing in the form of duplexes, houseplexes, townhouses.

As part of sort of the rolling out of these the SMA zoning bylaw regulations, we have to look at the entire bylaw to make sure that we're not messing up other things in the bylaw.

And we also have to make sure we're consistent throughout the bylaw.

And as part of this, Sterling has spent hours going through our zoning bylaw, reading all everything to make sure that we had we don't we don't exhibit any discrepancies because that will just make things make staff's life very difficult.

And so there are a couple of things that we've done.

We've added some residential use definitions.

For example, we did not we we did not have a houseplex definition, so we had to add that because that is a new housing form that is being introduced as part of these zoning regulations.

We also added a definition for breeze weight for some clarification because it's a bit of a loophole in our zoning bylaw from uh actually from a floor area perspective.

So we have done that for council.

The other thing we've done is uh secondary suites are permitted to have level one home occupations, and so we added garden suite to that because that just makes sense.

We, as part of the secondary, we also made some refinements to the secondary suite regulations in accordance with Bill 44.

Um, several years ago, the BC building code removed maximum floor area for secondary suites, and many bylaws are now zoning bylaws are being updated to be consistent with the building code because there's no maximum, and this also allows for um you know maybe slightly larger secondary suites um but it would but slightly larger secondary suites would most likely be a part of a new build just give given our existing housing stock so anyways for for consistency to to make planning and building and just in terms of uh our like you know the councils and or our OCP's objectives of increasing rental housing in our community.

It just it appears to be an appropriate uh change.

The other the other change that we've made is a reduction of the minimum separation distance between a principal building and an accessory building.

This is also to be consistent with the building code because the building code is 2.6 meters and it's also to be consistency with the garden suite regulations.

We we did our garden suite regulations we let me start that again we used our accessory building regulations as somewhat as a starting point in establishing the garden suite regulations if that makes any sense and because you know towning bureau does allow quite large accessory buildings on on properties.

And so it was we want to make sure again there's there's consistency in in the bylaw and it just gets really confusing for everyone.

So the the change is reducing the separation distance between a house and an accessory building from three meters to 2.6 meters, pardon me, 2.4 meters, which is consistent with the BC building code, as well as the garden suite regulations and Schedule D.

As part of the SMA, we are also encouraged to look at our parking regulations associated with residential uses.

And so we have done that.

And uh in the bylaw you will notice that there um are the recommendation is to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces for uh well single family dwelling and for town uh townhouse and and duplex and houseplex we added one for houseplex and we also added that a garden suite must provide a parking space just like for secondary suites so this is all part of SMA and then lastly um placing lock coverage and impermeable surface coverage under a new heading in all the standard zones and both comprehensive development zones for consistency with schedule D and E.

So the variant variance versus rezoning and so I know this was a topic that council is bringing forward tonight tonight if um this is legit to make this change as part of these um the in terms of section 481.3 of the local government act of prohibiting uh public hearings for SMA.

And as I said when I started talking about my first point tonight, is that we are these changes, staff's thinking throughout this whole process, we wouldn't be you know making these changes otherwise at this time, is being triggered by SMA.

And so and so the sole purpose is SMA.

And um, however, if again, as I mentioned earlier in the meeting, if council disagrees with staff, then um we can uh remove this amendment from um the bylaw this evening.

Thank you.

Um before I do it, I go to my colleagues for questions.

A couple of questions for you, Leo.

Oh, and I just wanted to say the recommendation is just to receive this report.

Thank you.

Um will uh are we've already approved the changes for transit oriented development.

With these changes, we are in compliance with Bill 44 and provincial direction if once passed.

There are other things that are down the pipeline of when to do an OCB and housing needs analysis, but that brings us into compliance with provincial expectations, correct?

Through the mayor, yes.

Consistent with the legislation, yeah.

Um, the province will look at the the zoning provisions to make sure it meets the attempt of their objectives and will let us know.

But in terms of meeting the legislation of introducing small-scale multi-unit housing and garden suites in our bylaw, we have done that.

Thank you.

Um that's all the questions I have, Council McKenzie.

Thank you.

I noticed that some of the comprehensive development areas uh where it's like a bare land strata, so it's strata but individual homes.

Um, you have added in for consistency Schedule D and E.

However, because they are strata, how does that relate?

Like, does it override um strata rules?

Do you know, or do these stratas need to update their bylaws to reflect this?

My understanding, I would have to go back to my notes, but no, no, no.

I mean, those the strata bylaws all still apply.

The legislation doesn't speak to that.

Okay, so this bylaw doesn't override a particular stratus bylaw.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Councilor Matson?

Uh any other comments?

Councilor Rogers?

Yeah, so thank you.

Thank you for the report and and I appreciate the work uh that's gone into this.

You know, you talked about the uh parking and the reduction of of parking spaces and in this as a part of the amendment package, and um and the requirements that um the uh garden suite would have a parking spot and the secondary suite would have a parking spot, correct?

What happens if um those individuals living there have more than one car each?

The minimum is one parking space, so maybe them that might park on the street, but that's how it is now.

Yeah, that's another yeah, another problem.

Um and uh you know, well back we talked about um secondary suites that um do not have to be owner occupied, and so that would also apply where um there's a property that has a secondary suite a house and a garden suite and still there's the require there's no requirement for owner occupation.

That's correct.

Okay, so we will have some interesting work to do with respect to bylaw enforcement and and respect and ambience for the community.

Thank you.

Uh so we got to uh first and second for receipt.

Any other comments or questions?

Just receiving.

Yeah.

Uh councilor Lemon, go ahead.

It may be premature, but I do want to thank staff for what was an unwelcome, huge, lumpy, um, unpredictable, unpredicted piece of work.

And uh thank you for your your diligence and stick to it and for pr producing something on time.

Thank you.

So all in favor of receipt.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Uh thank you.

Leanne, and I think we get down to the zoning bylaw now.

Uh, and we're looking for a first, second, and third reading of the bylaw that my computer is just having a real hard time pulling up uh so zoning bylaw nine zero zero twenty fourteen amendment bylaw number one one three five twenty twenty four bylaw to amend zoning uh uh to introduce small scale multi unit housing uh zoning regulations do I have a mover and a seconder for first second and third, Councillor Mattson moves uh first through third counselor matsen seconded.

Counselor Mattson seconded.

Now it's on the table.

Any comments or questions?

Councilor Rogers.

And despite the work that has been done by council, by the um staff and the standing committee, I will not support this.

I um this is the uh um the implications of this uh provincial provocation is is very severe.

What it will uh do to our town.

And um, you know, it's when we imagine um the um because we haven't even taken care of you know the uh social and uh physical infrastructure that's going to follow, and I doubt very much that the province is going to respect our needs and allow any exemptions.

I think this should have been made conditional upon the exemptions in good faith by the province and all the other municipalities that have uh expressed a similar concern, you know, through the lower mainland and and uh and elsewhere.

So the um again it's not because I don't appreciate the work.

I don't appreciate the push.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Rogers.

Councilman.

Yeah I mean the reality is we don't have a choice uh and when this first came in it was I viewed this as such a horrific thing.

It just was going to devastate our community.

Uh through a lot of work of the committee, council and staff um I I no longer feel that way anymore.

And with this bylaw, there will be things that we don't like, but we can change them as we can change any other bylaw.

And I just think we've come an amazing distance in a short period of time.

Staff are to be commended for their hard work and diligence.

And so I'm just delighted where we currently are.

So I certainly will be approving this.

Thank you, Councilor Mattson.

Any other comments or questions?

I have uh one comment on it, and I I would again like to thank the committee and can't thank staff.

Uh I knew when we started how I conceived when we started the process of how intertwined bylaws can be with 20 years or more of evolution of other bylaws and things that are associated with them.

Um, but you really saw see it come out and uh the level of complexity Sterling had to go through and saying what are actually the dependencies?

Why is this in here?

What is this going to affect now that it's dangling or out of there?

It means unfortunately that we've got a whole lot more work to do because we're gonna find stuff, right?

Um, in that that isn't consistent rig despite all of our best efforts of doing so.

And that's okay, uh, I think to meet the intent.

It it gives me a little bit of uh solace to say that if somebody buys a plot of land of View Royal and decides to buy a single or build a single family house they can do it.

If they decide to build uh a a fourplex or a garden suite for uh their grandmother and uh an ensuite for their kids they can do that too.

Um they can take a house maybe there's one or two in View Royal that's big enough and maybe convert a character house into a um a uh a a fourplex or a what do we call it a houseplex a new word for me too.

Um but I think it gives a range of options.

I am interested to see on how many people are gonna bite and build the maximum to the extent that this bylaw allows for.

Certainly council has been inundated and staff have been inundated with very big projects and comprehensive developments.

But unfortunately I haven't seen as much of what we've just passed go through that I'd like to see happen in View Royal.

But I think there's parts of View Royal that could definitely stand um uh for uh fourplexes and not you know six to eight stories.

So I I think this is something that um uh is is as an option is is perhaps more appetizing to me than to see some of the larger developments that we've approved, because this is, I think, the type of View Royal that I would like to see in the future.

It's a place that's affordable, place where you can raise your family and you can own it, as opposed to necessarily renting, which if you looked at rental costs, they are significant now.

So am I supportive in the work that we did?

Yes.

Am I supportive of the way it came to be?

Uh, and that the uh the province was kind of uh either do this by this date or we'll do it for you.

No, I'm not very uh appreciative of that at all.

Um, because I think uh it doesn't allow municipalities to be what they meant to be, and that is a group of neighbors electing neighbor representatives to be the most visible part of government government that we have in Canada that affects what you see when you look at your window every day.

So yeah I'm I'm very happy with the work that we did as as options.

So we got a mover and a seconder um another comment Councilor Rogers?

Yeah I'd like to make an amendment um for uh first and second and and uh I again is the all relation to the um um uh the fact that the um information if this was going to be uh under the uh Local Government Act section 467 that um uh removal coverage and and permeable service uh should not be in this bylaw it should be um at least for tonight because it's nothing to do with um the no public hearing it's um so i would uh move that that portion be uh stuck from the first second or third do you have a seconder for this i'll second uh just for discussion what impact uh specifically to your argument and what needs to be amended specifically in the bylaw well uh i think it's a it's a technical question that constitutes a challenge um to the uh uh to this um notice of no public hearing um to the process uh tonight um to the special council meeting and um uh I mean we could take our chances if uh somebody uh if you want to leave it in and somebody wishes to challenge because it had no pertinence to the um uh uh into the uh prohibition of uh any public um uh input because that portion they could have had public input if uh if they decide so we have a technical issue and if it's going to be legally challenged there you go.

Um what would that do to the bylaw?

It's risky.

So if we are proceeding with uh what we must do, then take out what we don't have to do.

And do that another time.

Can you specifically direct uh us to the page and the paragraph you're referring to, Councilor Rogers?

Yeah, in in general terms, uh the purpose of the bylaw, uh, I'm just reading from the notice of no public hearing, uh and all standard zones removal of lot coverage and imperial service coverage as provisions of the density and uh place them under a separate heading.

Um that's the particular clause that really, you know, it I I understand the housekeeping, but it doesn't pertain to the provincial requirement and the provincial prohibition of a local government ha holding a public hearing under um small housing multi, uh small scale multi-unit housing under Bill 44.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Staff, do you have a comment on it and impact if we do remove that?

Uh through through the mayor, there's there's no impact to to remove it.

No, no.

Um we can just do it later if that's what council wishes.

But again, it's like it'll be a council decision.

Thank you.

So uh council Rogers, if I understand you correctly, you're um objecting to that being in there because it's not a uh Bill 44 or provincial legislative requirement to include it.

Is that correct?

That's right.

And we so you know, we're gonna let's keep straight and narrow.

Um, what we have the essentials of um other provincial regular requirements of Bill 44 and take care of this part uh later.

It's up to you guys.

That's motion.

Councilor Matson and Council.

Yeah, just a question through to staff.

My understanding is that uh by leaving the with the permeable issue left in, you've already gone through with this with our lawyers and it's a hundred percent appropriate, then we're not gonna have any back feet or backlash on this, correct?

So through the mayor, I did have a conversation with our legal counsel on this, and um obviously it can't provide legal advice um in an open meeting, uh, and it's not my position to be doing that.

Um, however, from a procedure procedurally, so the if we just brought forward um as amendment to the zoning bylaw so we used section 481.3 of the local government act to move lot coverage as a provision of density and move it under its own heading so that it would be if anyone wanted to deviate from that from a rezoning to a variance and we and we sent out a notice saying to prohibit a public hearing that would be incorrect that that would not be that's not correct um as I mentioned earlier and and pardon me council does not council does not um need to hold a public hearing on that either.

Council can actually waive the public hearing on that change in accordance with the local government act.

However, stating it as um prohibiting would be incorrect.

However, staff is making this change as and the thinking of this change is in relation to Bill 44 and ensure, and because our small scale multi unit housing regulations, lot coverage is not a provision of density.

It's its own, it's its own heading.

So if someone were to want to make a change, it would have to vary.

Staff thinking on this was that to make that consistent throughout the bylaw.

However, council feels uncomfortable about that, and there's always there's always a risk to get challenged with I think with anything really.

But um if that is if council feels, if all of council feels uncomfortable that we can easily just delete it and deal with it later uh if that's what council wishes to do.

It's it's no it doesn't impact staff at all.

Um but uh anyways I wanted to share that with you.

Good question.

Yes, Council Rhodes So uh staff I thank you all for dissolution.

Um if we remove it now deal with this um bylaw and then uh council could make a motion to waive public hearing on that part that's correct.

That's more procedural and the accurate uh to do that.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Council McKenzie, did you have a question?

I think I've answered my question, but I'll just confirm.

The provincial policy manual and site standards then does not provide um like specific or required coverage, lot coverage.

Or min I'm sorry, maximum.

So the manual speaks to law coverage.

Okay.

Then in in that case, I I feel it is um yeah, like we can't include it because it relates to approving the site standards and and things like that.

Any other first time speakers, questions, comments?

Counselor Rogers, did you want to say something?

Yes just the ease of housekeeping.

If you want to keep it legal and strictly legal, then remove that portion, vote on on um the um the rest of the bylaw and then subsequent there can be a motion to waive public hearing on that particular section.

Thank you, Counselor Rogers.

If there's no other questions, uh do you feel you want to motivate more, Councilor Rogers?

Um I'll uh I'll support this amendment mainly because I think we've done a lot of work just focused on uh addressing Bill 44 and SMA uh specifically.

Um and who knows if this is intertwined or um with a government change this could be undone.

So you know, then that's maybe back to us with another government coming in potentially in the fall that says um you have the option now to go back to the way you are, which will be a council decision.

Um and it would be much easier to unravel that if we knew that this update version X was just this and didn't uh uh incur anything more than the minimum requirements.

We're certainly at liberty to add anything else we want to in the future, but just making this about Bill 44, I think might makes it much more cleaner to digest than uh adding anything more into it.

So that's my motivation.

Uh any other comments or questions on it?

So, Council Rogers, could you specify your amendment again so everybody understands?

Yeah.

Moving that uh we remove um um think the particular section standard zones removal lock coverage and imperial service coverage as provisions of the density and and uh place them under a separate heading.

I mean we move that.

Was that understandable by staff?

Or do we need to be more specific?

I I think we we capture that, so that's fine.

So this is uh moving first, second, and third reading on uh bylaw 1135 with the uh amendment uh that council rogers just went over.

All those along along with the I should move the amendment.

That would that would be the one.

So we'll yeah, we'll vote on the uh amendment, but it it is amended.

Uh no.

No, that's right.

That's what we're voting on.

We're voting on the amendment, which then we'll alter the bylaw if that passes.

Yeah.

Uh so all those in favor of the amendment.

All those opposed to the amendment.

So what do we got?

Two opposed to the amendment, Councilor Quelwich and Councilor Mattson.

So three, Councilor Matson and Councilor McKenzie opposed.

Motion carries.

So the amendment uh passes.

I'll move first, second, and third with the amendment.

Uh Councilor Matson move first, second, and third with the amendment.

Do you have a seconder?

Seconded by Councillor Brown.

Uh all those in favor of moving the amended version.

All those in favor.

Councillor Rogers, it was your motion.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm still opposed to the uh the amendment of the rest of it.

So we we took care of what I've done.

Okay, all right.

No, that's clear.

Uh counselor, uh all those in favor, then please share your hands.

Councilor Matson, uh Merit Tobias, Councilor Lemon, Councilor Qualitz, Councilor Brown, all those opposed.

Uh, Councilor McKenzie and Councillor Rogers.

Uh so motion carries.

So um is it you with the guidance you worship and and with staff, uh is it um appropriate staff to now make a motion to waive uh public hearing on this this action?

Yeah, so I would move that uh we weigh public hearing um uh with respect to uh sh standard zones removal of lock coverage and peripheral service coverage as provided by the density and familiar separate heading was that counselor metson I second it I gather we're now going to approve but we just took out so we got a mover and a seconder any motivation certainly um so if we've taken it out where are we putting it no yeah um through the mayor so with these amendments what's so the next steps for staff and yeah, we need to make a longer motion to give staff the direction, basically.

So the the motion would include the following.

One is that council waive the public hearing to move lock coverage and imperipheral surface from density for all standard and comprehensive zones.

And the second part of that motion is to direct staff to write the bylaw to bring it forward.

And how that process looks is that before the bylaw is brought forward for first and second and third reading, the town will have to give notice, which will include just social media, website, and posting outside.

There's no no newspaper ads in accordance with their public notification bylaw.

Did we just do for the second and third?

Pardon me, Councilor Matson.

Didn't we just do first, second, and third?

We did.

So I'm confused.

Sarah We did of the main part, except that piece got pulled out.

So this is now addressing how that piece will be handled, which is we'll waive it, we'll create a new bylaw just to deal with that piece, and then we'll bring it forward for readings consideration of that piece.

Uh Councilor Madsen seconded it.

Counselor McKenzie.

Okay.

Any other comments or questions on it?

Uh all those in favor.

I'm opposing just because it's that time of the night, and I can.

All those opposed.

Um and uh so that passes Sarah or Leanne, can you walk us through the next steps for for this and and the timing for that, please?

Absolutely, Mary Tobias.

So the next step will be that staff will bring back this uh zoning bylaw amendment number 1135 to council next Tuesday, June 18th for final adoption.

And that's for June 18th, and that should be our last council meeting of the month, correct?

That's correct.

And on June 19th, staff will send it to the province.

And then and then you're going to go back to the province after that passes with a package and and uh start that okay.

Thank you, Ann.

Um so that brings us uh to uh I think new business, which there is not any.

Um, but it also brings us to question period.

Um is there anybody in council chambers that wishes to address on on any issue that's related to the agenda, as Sarah would remind me.

It could be actually any questions, but for for uh presentations that generally is aligned with her agenda.

So if there's no questions, I'll go to Carl on the line.

Any questions for council, Carl?

We have no callers right now, uh Mayor Tobias.

Thank you, Carl.

Uh we've got nothing else standing in your way except a move for termination.

Okay.

Moved by Council Rogers, seconded by Councillor Matson.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thanks, folks.

Thanks for coming out.