Council Meeting

Thanks, Sarah.

Call the meeting to order for the council meeting for the town of U Royal for Tuesday, June 4th, 2024.

And with that, a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Lakongan speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic uh connections to these lands continue to this day.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778-402-9227 and when prompted, enter conference ID 349-107-066 pound.

You'll be immediately muted.

Once admitted to the meeting, please do not unmute yourself 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 your speaker phone to ensure sound quality.

At the appropriate time, I'll ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

To begin, please indicate your name and street address or street name for the record.

Speakers will have five minutes each to speak during the public participation and two minutes to ask a question or questions during question period, and you will be timed.

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda if there is no exceptions?

So moved.

Second.

Moved by Councillor Lemon, seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And if there are no omissions or additions to uh the council minutes of uh the 21st of May, can I get a motion to adopt, please?

To move.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh and I just have a brief uh mayor's report.

I wanted to have a single topic on it because uh a person who is very close uh to uh this council and and and the town, uh Adam Flint uh passed away with too many years still ahead of him.

Uh in 2018, Adam, I believe, ran for counsel.

He was appointed Bugh Royal's citizen representative to the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee that he carried out diligently until recently.

And in 2019 until now, he was an advisory committee member, and Adam was on the town's community development and advisory committee.

He cared deeply about the town and its governance.

So just in recognition of Adam's commitment and his early passing.

So we have no uh petitions and delegations, and I think that brings us, Sarah, right down to public participation, does it not?

Is there anybody in the room that would like to address counsel on an agenda topic or anything else?

Yes, sir.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Doug Ford, 605 Douglas Street, Victoria.

I'm here to speak with regard to Island Highway 339 through 345.

We're here this evening to introduce an application for a development variance permit.

We're asking for this permit now rather than at the time of development at the time that we would request a development permit, because we're required to give up a third of our land for a covenant for a non-disturbance area, and our design is based on a six-story building as a result of shrinking back our site coverage in order to enable that to happen.

What we don't want to have happen, what we're not comfortable with is rezoning the property, giving up the giving up the land, rezoning the property that would only allow us a zoning for four stories when our whole development is based on a six-story design.

The design that we are requesting a development variance permit tonight is exactly the design that you approved on December 5th at the public hearing.

There have been no changes to it whatsoever.

But I was I was concerned when I read the staff report that it talked about discovering a discrepancy in the heights that we were requiring.

And I just wanted to point out that that was a difference in interpretation of the bylaw on how to calculate height of the building.

It doesn't reflect at all on the actual height that we are building that we're requesting to build to.

It's the same elevation as it was before.

It works out exactly the same in terms of how it relates to the properties around it.

So there is no difference in what we're applying for now than what we were applying for then.

It's just that we need the height by a development variance permit because it doesn't come with the zoning.

So I just wanted to make that you all aware that that's really what we're here for.

If I can answer any questions, I will.

Otherwise I'll sit down and let you get on with business.

Thank you, Mr.

Ford.

We usually don't entertain questions at this point for just public participation, but thank you.

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

Once twice.

Yes.

Prefer that it be on the agenda, but I don't think there's any hard rules that says it if it's not on the agenda that you couldn't uh bring something up.

Hopefully I got that right, Steph.

Did I no?

No.

Um there are hard rules in the procedure bylaw.

Um so the council can conduct its regular business, um, get that out of the way.

And uh at the end of the meeting, we usually entertain things that are off agenda topics.

So what's the appropriate part part of the agenda with that uh not be under questions if they wanted to make a statement?

Uh it would be it would be question period, and ideally it would be in the form of a question.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

I stand corrected.

I'll I'll uh staff straighten me up.

Uh was there anybody else that would like to address counsel?

Um from a technical uh perspective, I'm getting texts that people can't get into the meeting saying that the watch live link is broken or not working.

If you could get someone to check.

I was just trying for my phone, but I didn't have time to see if I could do it or not.

But two people have told me they're still trying to watch from home.

Thank you.

Thanks, Claire.

Anybody else in the room want to address counsel on anything?

Carl, we got anybody online that uh they're probably nobody online because you can't tune in.

Uh maybe if the link is broken.

Uh Mayor Tobias, we have no callers so far this evening.

Thanks, girl.

Uh and I think that brings us down to staff reports eight one.

Um I think this is Leanne Alpha.

Or Sterling.

And other people are able to watch the meeting, so I think that part is good, but we will look into what the challenge may be.

Thank you.

I think while we're we're waiting for Sterling to get queued up here, um, sometimes you have to clear your cache on your computer in in order to be able to sign in.

Um so we do we do try to get those instructions out to people.

Thanks, Scott.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Sterling Scorery, senior planner presenting development variants permit twenty twenty-four oh one for the properties three three nine, three four one, and three four island highway.

Um Doug Ford just just spoke with this.

So, purpose of the report is to introduce the development variance permit application.

Um I do want to be clear that the uh requested variants uh is consistent with rezoning application, and um the uh the presentation tonight and the report is strictly to talk about the consideration of the proposed uh proposed variants.

Uh staff will not go into the details about the rezoning application.

Uh so up on screen, uh aerial photograph showing the three properties uh highlighted in red.

And the purpose of the presentation is to consider two variances.

The first is to, and sorry, actually, not consider staff is just uh uh our council's just receiving for information, so I stand corrected.

But uh the the uh purpose of the presentation is to uh review uh the two uh requested variances, and the first is to uh increase the total number of stories permitted in the mixed residential uh land use designation from four to six stories.

Uh that is the land use designation within the official community plan.

And the second is to increase the maximum permitted building height in the RM3 mixed uh residential zone, and the height uh is re being requested to go from 13.5 meters to 20.7 meters.

Um with respect to the application, um the proposed building is uh designed and built to the natural slope of the site, and uh certain design elements such as build up building articulations and setbacks uh reduce the perceived massing of the building.

The total height of the building is less than what is the ground floor or lower lowest portion of the single family homes on Prince Robert Drive.

This is evidenced in the image on the screen.

Roughly uh eight meters uh in this instance the building is uh shown as uh uh uh six stories um and that is like i said consistent with the rezoning application uh to dougford's point uh that was just talked about in the uh uh participation period um staff did want to make note that in review of the uh dbp application the building height was calculated incorrectly um uh between now and the the rezoning the correct height is 20.7 meters and the uh the height shown in the rezoning application was 17.7 meters.

However, height, uh, the reason the height was calculated differently was in how the uh how the height was uh uh interpreted.

So staff clarified with the applicant that height is taken between top of roof and grade, and there was a difference in how grade was uh determined.

Um it doesn't change anything to do with the application.

The drawings are all the same, um, the height is the same, and um it's just a matter of uh clarifying clarifying the um the the actual height of the building.

Um so staff are going to uh recommend that the report dated uh May 22nd, 2024, uh title development Variance permit 2024-01 339-341-345 Island Highway prepared by the senior planner be received.

And that uh that concludes the presentation.

Thanks, Sterling.

Um, before I go to my colleagues' questions, just to um just to get this right, the reason why we're just going to receive and not uh anything further this evening is because of where we're at with the rezoning.

Is that it?

Or is this just to receive and then approval later?

Leah.

Thank you, the mayor.

Uh the re uh because this is a development variance permit, there is a requirement for a hearing.

And so council, we're introducing the variance application this evening, and then we will be well provided that council um accepts the staff report, then staff will advance it to an opportunity for public comment later in June.

Thank that was really, really clear.

Okay, thank you.

Um so questions first, please, no comments.

We'll go with counselor Lemon and Brown first.

Thank you.

Um Sterling, the this DVP, this this variance um would be registered within the OCP, correct?

Through the mayor, there's there's two variances.

The the first variance is to the maximum permitted height.

Um that's within the Latin use designation, so mixed res mixed residential.

Um that uh says maximum of four four stories.

And the the second variance is strictly within the zoning bylaw.

Okay, so so my question is would this is this, as I believe it is, site specific, or would it apply to future future to RM3 zoning throughout the municipality?

Through the mayor, this uh DVP is strictly for this application.

Thank you.

We'll keep it to a question.

Um the staff recognition is to receive, which is fine.

Um how soon would it be brought back to us to to actually make a decision on it?

I think Leanne said June, but I can answer the question.

So the timeline provided that council receives this report today, then we would uh mail out notices tomorrow in order to meet the the requirements for notification and uh for a opportunity for public comment on the next council meeting on June 18th.

Any other questions only at this point?

Uh council McKenzie.

So during the um uh the public hearing on the on the this application, we heard from some neighbors and which was really reassuring.

So would they have been commenting on the sixth story plan um i'm gonna uh jump in um sterling um any aspects associated with the rezoning we cannot discuss this evening because the public hearing has closed i think uh not don't want to put words in your uh mouth uh counselor McKenzie but was this plan the same plan as the initial um uh public engagement uh or sorry the the hearing on there's no deviation to this plan it's the same plan however, in anticipation of the variance, the plans and the diagrams incorporated what we're seeing here today.

There's no change in that, correct through the marrow um that is absolutely correct.

Any other questions?

Yes, uh, thank you.

Um, so indeed there's no new information um what from uh the public hearing December the fifth, and and I do note that um you know staff had had uh prepared a public hearing report and and specifically noted that it was give the public an opportunity then to um um you know the application to increase the density and permit a six-story building.

So, you know, that was what uh this the public hearing was about, correct?

As per as per the staff's uh report on December the 5th, you know.

I think the public hearing was about the rezoning application and by our own procedures that we voted on, this is the variance.

But as staff saying there's no difference in the information.

Yeah, yeah.

In fact, I I imagine that in figure one that we're looking at the staff are showing us tonight.

I think you're getting it.

It's more than a question right now.

I mean figure one that you're showing tonight is exactly uh that was shown previously, because there's no new information, correct?

Correct.

There was no new information.

Great.

Thank you.

Are are we skirting the whole issue about bringing up issues that shouldn't be?

Please um councilor Mattson, wait your turn and get my attention and we can have you.

So I've got a question.

I've got a question first.

Um and that uh question is with this new bylaw when passed to align with the provincial bylaw, is there a requirement to have a public hearing on this through the mayor because we're dealing with a variance.

Um uh we council can still require hearings or opportunity for public comments comment associated with variances that has not been taken away from municipalities.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yeah, Councilor Matson.

Yeah, I was just you know, is is the conversation stretching too far into an area that we shouldn't be dealing with since we've already had the public hearing and shouldn't be talking about things that haven't got to do.

We shouldn't be talking about anything with the rezoning, which we've just were doing.

Move staff recommendation.

Second.

I just have comments.

Any other comments, questions?

Councillor Matson?

I don't have questions.

I mean, I didn't like this project before.

I don't like it now.

You walk past the uh four-story building that they're just putting up in Beaumont and Island Highway, and that looks plenty big to me.

And so adding another two stories on top of that would be hideous.

And that's just what we're gonna see at the at the end of the block.

So I I can't support this now, and I I didn't support it then, I don't support this now.

So I will be voting against the motion.

Thank you, Councilor Matson.

Councillor Brown.

Yeah, quick comment.

I mean, this has come up to us so many times now.

Uh it's a health and safety issue to me.

Uh, the the situation the way the Cambridge Motel is now.

Um, I'd like to see shovels in the ground, so I'm happy to hear that you'd be starting working on it tomorrow.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Any other comments?

Um, I'll make one comment, and it was Council's will to approve this, and and I'm certainly not going to get in in uh the the what what council has already um discussed about this.

And if we've already approved it, then uh from my perspective, looking at it and reducing red tape is the way to go.

So I support um I support the concept behind um um approving staff's recommendation.

A couple of comments I'm gonna make.

Uh one is uh Sterling and Leanne, you showed us one perspective um as far as massing intensity goes, kind of a cross section to the neighboring property, but that's not a massing intensity from the street perspective, um, to Counselor Mattson's point, or from the neighbors that have a view.

So, in the future, could we get kind of a perspective that's more 360 and less kind of um it's great that the the neighbor in behind a bunch of trees can't see the building?

That's wonderful, but I'd love to get uh a more of a 360 appreciation for massing and intensity.

The other point I'll just to say is that I think we use the terms and the staff report consistency with the OCP, and I would just I'm having difficulty now that something that requires rezoning and two variances is consistent with the OCP.

It's not true.

Right and and now we're down to a point that we've got we've rezoned View Royal by the end of June and council really needs to be consistent with the OCP if we're going to meet our objectives for housing as well as our own objectives that we set for the uh character of the town.

So all I'd ask is that we'll we we really be um vigilant about something.

If something requires rezoning, it's not consistent.

If something requires two variances, then it's not consistent.

So I'm just looking for uh uh a better recommendation for staff.

It's okay if it's not consistent, because that's what rezoning means, right?

We're we're thinking about something new here.

But uh but I just want to say that the two things that I'd be looking for in a report is that what do we plan?

What do we spend our time engaging the community for if we're not going to follow our OCP?

The second part of that is that it's the only time to really in the future uh really get public input on what the future town's gonna look like every five years and and no opportunity to have a public hearing.

And so I think council owes it to the public that elected us to look at the plan and know how it deviates kind of from that OCP.

That probably also goes with our housing needs analysis, too.

If something, if housing needs analysis says that we need X number of apartments or low-income or uh rental homes, uh then you know we need to see that on a rezoning application.

How far are we deviating from a plan and a commitment we made to the public?

And if we are make that decision, that's fine as long as we're going into it with eyes wide open.

Counselor Mattson.

Yeah, just in clarification, one of the things you said that the height was already dealt with by by council, the height wasn't dealt with by council, and the zoning has, as staff pointed out a number of times, has nothing to do with height.

And although the pictures had height, again, we never council never approved the height.

And so this is the first time height is coming to us.

So from my perspective, it's certainly fair game to vote against this motion because it has to do with height, which we haven't dealt with previously.

Thank you.

Councillor Matson.

Councillor Rogers, please.

Yes.

I think as staff pointed out though, is if we choose not to receive it, um then then the project, then we aren't allowing the the variance.

Is that correct, staff i uh council would have to make another motion with that in with that respect i think there'll be an opportunity the next opportunity would it be after the hearing on the variance where council makes a decision amount correctly and that is correct seeing no other comments we got a motion on the floor to receive all those in favor of receiving the variance permit application all those opposed noting uh counselor Mattson opposes um thank you.

Thank you uh sterling uh thank you, Sterling.

And the next one, I think, on our list is item B, and that's diversity, equity, and inclusion.

I think this goes to you, Scott.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Before you this evening is a draft diversity, equity, and inclusion policy.

This is in response to a notice of motion brought forward by Councillor Kualowich.

It sat on the books for a little while and it was passed at the end of May.

So I felt that the best way to incorporate this into our common work practices and day to day and preserve it for the future was to put it in the form of a policy.

We already had some of that language in our job postings.

That's common practice here.

However, it's not really contained within the strategic plan.

So there's some draft language that could be added to our next iteration of the strategic plan, as well as some language for our website.

So fairly bare bones.

Councillor Matson, please.

Just for clarification, this won't have any impact on our hiring policies or selection procedures, or so it everything will continue to be done by merit.

We're not going to be using DEI in terms of who gets hired and who gets promoted.

I would say that um we're already incorporating into our practice uh but we we hire the best candidate uh sometimes that candidate's a a diverse candidate and uh we we just try to make people feel welcome to apply for the job in the first place.

Okay so basically you're saying we're hiring on on the basis of merit and we aren't discriminating against anybody.

Yeah I I feel like uh staff were um we we feel that we have an inclusive workplace and so uh as far as the hiring practices go, it's business as usual.

Um, but the the other language for the strategic plan for the website, uh, we certainly felt should go before council.

Other questions?

Council Rogers.

Yes, uh, thank you and um nice quick job in in getting draft policy together.

Um I I guess the alignment with the strategic plan.

Um, and if we don't have it in our strategic plan now, maybe as we um we have this, we hold a mirror and reflect it back because we note that there's uh respect and inclusiveness, but um now we can include uh diversity and equality, you know, those two components.

So this can be a mirror back in that regard.

Um and it's it is interesting.

I the um because I do anticipate there's there is going to be an uh an effort, a workload, more policy, more definition.

Um, and um and I'd also will be interested to see how the town strives to encourage a diverse group of candidates for the local elections.

You know, some parties like to be diverse, and once there's too many white guys, that's it.

They're cut off.

So it's um it's it's an interesting thing, and I hope that um you know we we can have that uh that diversity.

And I really like the idea that um we can have the diverse representation of um uh committees.

And when we talk about the training in relation to the points raised here, uh similarly, um we're gonna have the training and education, not only in diversity and equality and inclusion, but training as well in terms of uh knowledge base on OCPs, on master plans and so forth, so that our candidates are fully uh capable and and aware and and ability to participate and provide uh empowered as the word is.

So I look forward to seeing that broad uh improvement across the board.

Thank you.

Uh I've got one question.

I think this kind of speaks to um Council McKenzie, your concern about diversity, particularly in um in committees.

Um could we amend it and add committees unless you s have buried it in there, Scott, that I can't see.

I don't think it mentions committees.

Uh we can certainly add that.

It was in there at one point, but I think I pared it down and uh may have uh missed some of the intent behind the policy.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Is that a friendly amendment or do you need a motion to uh stick that in?

So what's the friendly amendment?

Uh it's just to add committees.

We don't specifically say committees anywhere it does.

Where?

Uh on uh sorry, I don't know what page it is.

Uh um the front page under a statement uh on the website, the town values, and the town strives to encourage a diverse group of candidates for local elections, a diverse representation of residents is community committee appointees.

So I I think that the staff have already nailed it.

Perfect.

No change needed then.

Uh councilor McKenzie.

I was just gonna move staff's recommendation to adopt this draft.

Sure.

Second.

There's no other comments or questions or you're motivating.

Go ahead.

Uh I'll motivate.

Um yeah I'm very happy to see this.

Uh obviously it is uh baby steps towards hopefully uh more action in in the future these are words so I hope to continue to work and I'm sure counselor Kwalwich will also continue to work to uh incrementally improve our our actions as well through increased because just having a statement doesn't necessarily mean it will be implemented.

Um, but yeah, this is a good starting point.

Thank you, Council McKenzie.

Anyone else motivate to speak in?

Okay.

Uh we've got a mover and a second or all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

And we have no committee the whole resolutions or other reports.

Um we have two for action, I believe, and four for receipt.

Um and they're all uh staff uh recommendations in your other sheet to receive.

Is there anybody that wants to pull one out?

Councillor uh McKenzie first.

Oh for under and for information, I'd like to just pull out the crossing guard.

So A.

A and uh Counselor Rogers.

Yes, please A for action.

It'd be in action.

Okay, so uh so we're going to pull out A, which is Vancouver Island National Champions, and uh A for 9 2.

So what we're moving is uh 9 1B and 9 2B to Delta.

Can I get a motion to see?

Uh move the second?

Second.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Being none opposed, motion carries.

Let's go with uh Alpha first.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes, thanks.

This is the respect to um uh the request for uh some support for the um uh Vancouver Island National Championships of Victoria BMX.

Um I'm happy to receive right now, but if if um I'll contact um the writer um Hillary and and find out what municipalities um are involved um in the region and and how much uh folks are contributing, and if it's not too much, and if it is many municipalities they're chipping in, then I think it'd be great if we could um have some nominal amount.

So uh I can follow that up it's not until September but receiving now and follow up um if that's uh okay with council chair's good council Lemon yeah my take on this is that gift bags might be all they're looking for just some swag from the town.

Yeah I don't think they're looking for money.

Yeah they're looking for swag well I guess it depends on how much swag and and what kind of swag we don't have a lot of swag do we?

No, we don't no councillor McKenzie?

Yeah, my thoughts were that as this is, I believe it's taking place solely in Colwood, um, it would make most sense if they haven't already approached Colwood.

I think they're the ones to um be able to provide that kind of support, especially since local businesses will probably benefit from having uh the event take place there.

And really, other than you know, town of View Royal merchandise, which people might not particularly want, um, it would be more appropriate, I guess, to also maybe solicit nearby businesses, but so I didn't think it was appropriate for us to support.

Okay.

Um so the action that you're advocating for is that counselor rogers, you want to reach out to uh them to figure or to find out what what View Royal could do and what who else is actually picking in.

And yeah, and indeed, if we have any members that are competing in the uh the event as well.

To find that to for impact.

Do you have a seconder?

Seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Counselor McKenzie is opposed.

So at this point, there's no commitment.

We're just seeking extra information.

And we wanted uh 92A pulled uh as well.

Counselor McKenzie, please.

Yeah, I just wanted to pull this one to make a comment.

Uh I particularly was disappointed in in the letter.

Um, especially the line that said the responsibility for road safety rests with municipalities.

I think we already do a lot to make sure our roads are safe around the whole town, but in particular near the schools through our infrastructure, our you know we have road painted and signs and and traffic calming.

And if the school wasn't there, you know, we wouldn't need to do those as as much as we currently do.

So I think the school board needs to meet us halfway part of the way because ultimately they also have a responsibility to make sure that children have a safe um journey to school.

So I I know there was no action on this, but I just needed to to comment on their letter.

Let's go to Councillor Brown and then Councillor Lemon and Yes.

Under the School Act, the uh school uh districts responsible for the students going and coming from school.

So to abdicate their responsibility and just to put it on to us is totally irresponsible.

Although Victoria, excuse me, Victoria and Sanders have already put it into their budget to pay for it.

I'm not saying that we should not pay for the school crossing curves.

I think they're very essential, not only to get the kids across the street safely, but for a number of other reasons.

Their eyes eyes and ears in the community.

But for the school board, uh they have problems with budgets, but that's not our problem.

Um I'm very disappointed, but I'm not saying we should withdraw our funding.

I think we should continue to support it.

But I'm very disappointed as again as a as a former traffic officer and a school trustee.

I'm very disappointed.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Councillor Lemon.

Wow.

I think from a school board that is denying police liaison officers in the school to say that they are not responsible for safety.

We are this is rich.

Uh I I I just don't think I just feel angry now.

Um I I would just encourage staff to consider can continue to um continue the negotiations towards cost sharing.

We're saying we're not we're not suggesting we pull out, we're saying they meet us halfway.

And uh yeah, I I just it's I just consider it rich.

Council Rogers.

Um well I understand staff for uh as the letter says, um uh we're working on the draft memorandum and and um um I agree with um with the chair that we should work closely in finalizing that draft.

The um and when um staff do bring that back, I would um um invite and ask that we invite um uh chair um Nicole Duncan, as well as the two PAC presidents of View Elementary and the eagle View, um, since um uh I think they represent and have a stake also in in the children's um uh safety.

And we can discuss um uh road safety and and the the ability to cross those roads.

We do have safe roads.

It's crossing the roads that's the problem.

It's the speeding drivers that we can't do anything about unless we do hire the police to stand be there morning and afternoon and do the enforcement, or we do like the old days, and we hire um volunteers and get volunteers.

Um, and maybe we will have a diverse uh group of uh volunteers that would be willing to do this.

Um, because the school board is going to, if we um want to do cost share, then I guess we can discuss which days we'll do and which days they'll do.

Maybe we'll do the morning, maybe they'll do the afternoon.

Anyway, it's uh all part of the memorandum, and I look forward to uh having uh Ms.

Duncan and uh the two PAC presidents um here on that discussion.

Thank you.

So I'd like to move that uh the mayor write to the school board to express the displeasure of council with the letter and the fact that we find it insulting.

I I would I will second that uh councillor Matson.

Just a question for you, Scott.

How active has the school board been in to you know uh making time and making this as a priority to actually have a good memorandum because I think you briefed us before that you had reached out to them.

I I would say that they were fairly proactive in uh letting us know a cost estimate um slash invoice for the service, and then things got quiet when I asked about the cost sharing.

It took a little while to get this letter back.

Uh I do have a draft memorandum of agreement uh that uh I I'll bring back to a future meeting after some more negotiation, but um this was a a fairly clear response to my request for cost sharing.

Okay, thank you.

And thanks for sharing it with uh with uh council.

Councilor Mattson, you had a motion.

Can you say that one again, please?

That the mayor write to the school board to advise of them of the displacedure council has with their letter.

And yeah, that's basically it.

Seconded by counselor brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Counselor um is opposed.

Um I think that covers everything on the correspondence list, and that brings us down to bylaws and official community plan, amendment bylaw, development permit areas, uh uh area amendments, form and character for this new development and new development permit area for intensive residential gardens suite.

Is that you, Leanne, that are gonna lead that charge?

Or Sterling again?

Sterling, you're on all the time tonight.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Um yeah, purpose of the uh the report and presentation tonight is to introduce um two amendments, uh both of which are to the official community plan.

The first is to uh schedule P, which is the form and character development permit areas map, and the second is to uh introduce a new development permit area, which is intensive residential garden suite.

Um the proposed amendments are being done uh concurrently with the amendments to the zoning bylaw.

Uh this is uh in respect to the housing legislation that has been passed, so Bill 44.

And as a quick reminder, um this is uh purpose of which is to uh uh provide additional uh housing opportunities and uh housing tenures and types in the community, and uh permit uh either or both uh secondary suites, garden suites, and um units uh or three to four, three, four, and six units on uh properties within the community uh sorry Leanne can you just uh click on the the screen thank you um up on screen right now is uh an image from the existing official community plan so this is the 2011 uh official community plan this is schedule P this is the uh form and character development permit areas map this map is used by staff to inform what uh lands are subject to development permit uh where there is a color showing uh there are different uh different development permit uh types the most common in the community is mixed residential uh and that would be for things like apartment buildings uh townhouses uh there are also the commercial development permit area and intensive mixed use uh development permit area um what staff are proposing is to amend this uh this map with the following and what you'll see here is that the areas previously uncolored are now being proposed to be colored to mixed residential and the purpose of that is to capture those lands that are not already captured and uh the reason that staff are doing uh or proposing this change is to capture lands that would be subject to uh SMA.

If uh if council's not going to consider uh this uh this change, there's really no um uh negative in doing so, other than that uh any SMA application coming forward or any develop uh development that would be subject to SMA, it would straight it would go straight to uh building permits, so they wouldn't be subject to a development permit.

Um, with a building permit, staff would still look for things like variances.

Um, so they would still have to meet uh all uh aspects of the zoning bylaw.

But um if there were no variances for the uh the proposed development, um staff would take in a building permit application and uh the application would would proceed.

The development permits um guidelines under under mixed uh residential um are things that council are probably fairly familiar with at this point, but as a reminder, they they address things like uh form and character of the building, so massing, uh the materials of the building, landscaping, uh site design, uh, site access.

They also uh address other things like uh um uh lighting and uh um you know waste waste management.

Um so that's that's the the first uh proposed uh amendment.

The second proposed amendment is to add a new development permit area, and as I said, that that's for an intensive uh residential garden suite.

And up on screen is kind of a summary of what that looks like.

So the justification for this is to provide a range of housing types in the community uh that would meet both the needs of current and future residents.

Uh the objective of this is to uh provide rental housing uh suitable for a diversity of housing uh or households, including families with children.

And with respect to the actual guidelines, um we are looking at a kind of a high level uh five uh five kind of uh topics here.

So design guidelines, which uh include site design and layout, building design, uh windows.

There are uh uh design guidelines for landscaping and outdoor amenity space.

This is outdoor amenity space, I should be clear for the uh the tenant in the garden suite.

Um sustainability, parking and access, and waste and compost.

These uh these design guidelines are uh attached to the staff report and um they go into uh a bit more detail, but at a high level they are to ensure that the uh the garden suite that would be uh be built would be consistent with the neighborhood.

And um uh similarly to what staff are proposing with the uh development permit area uh change for mixed residential.

This would be applicable uh for garden suites in that if uh council does not consider the garden suite development permit area, uh there would be no development permit regulating uh this type of uh development.

Uh so it would be potentially just go to uh building permit if there were no variances.

Staff are uh recommending two uh two motions for tonight.

So the first is that staff prepare the necessary notification requirements for public hearing.

Uh, because we are amending the official community plan, uh their public hearing does have to take place.

And second, that the uh staff repair newspaper advertisement in addition to the public notification requirements in the public notification by law number 1106.

Staff are recommending this uh as an addition to what is required in our notification bylaw, just given the uh importance of uh public consultation on the OCP and uh staff's uh acknowledgement that um there's an interest in the ongoing amendments that have taken place and will continue to take place for the uh the Bill 44 housing legislation, and um that concludes my presentation.

Thanks, Charlie.

Now, Daisy got a mover for staff recommendation.

Um secondary second um for discussion.

Um I I've got a couple of questions and encourage my colleagues to follow along.

Um one of which says this is specifically just focused on garden suites, correct?

To the mayor, the uh the garden suite development permit area would be specifically for garden suites.

The I'll go back the map showing the uh proposed OCP amendment.

Uh this is applicable to SMA.

Uh I one point of clarity is the the garden suite uh development permit area, there's not going to be any changes to the map because the way that the development permit is uh area is drafted is that it would be applicable to uh the town.

So staff are not proposing any amendments to the map uh as it's not necessary.

And for timing, uh, did was there a timeline to be compliant for bill 44 for June for Garden suites?

Was there a timeline attached to this?

That was an expectation of uh of the provincial government?

To the mayor, uh there is no uh hard and fast timeline for this, but staff are recommending to follow the uh the concurrent uh rezoning uh amendments or the zoning amendments.

Um should council wish to move forward with this, uh staff would uh prepare uh or finalize the uh the notice uh for tomorrow and uh expect that this would be uh uh come back for a public hearing on I believe the the 18th of June.

So you're asking really for council, can we get on with this and prepare um the notification requirements, but also um uh hearing from the public some of their concerns to be incorporated into what this might look like, um specifically around um and I know it's still a topic for all of the SMU, but what about parking?

What about setbacks?

All of those things.

Is that the body of work that that you're also going to be seeking uh engagement feedback for Liam?

Um through the through the mayor, no.

The the zoning bylaw amendments as most associated with small-scale multi-unit housing um will not form part of the public hearing.

The provincial legislation prohibit prohibits municipalities from holding a public hearing on the zoning bylaw amendments.

So the public hearing uh for the OCP is strictly on the development permit.

So establishing a new development permit area for garden suites so the town has some control over the form and character of these garden suites.

And then secondly, adding those parcels that are currently not in a development permit area into the mixed residential so that if we receive an application for houseplex or a duplex or a townhouse, it would still be subject to a form and character DP and we'd have some control over that form and character.

Thank you.

That makes it clear.

Any other questions?

Council McKenzie.

Thank you.

I have a few questions.

So to be clear, is this map, the second map you've shown, is this just a placeholder, or will there be engagement through the OCP on this?

Because we know these maps were the topic of hot debate.

So for us to just go in and say, okay, now all these ones that didn't have color, the green um mixed residential before are now this.

I just want to make sure that people will still have an opportunity to uh comment on that.

Sure, the mayor, that would be the um the purpose of the public hearing.

So that will invite um members of the public to come out and speak to it.

And that is why staff is recommending uh ad in the newspaper.

Our public notification bylaw doesn't require ads, newspaper ads anymore and however we're recommending that we do do that just to get the word out and uh this is just this is just so that uh this doesn't change zoning this doesn't change anything to do with zoning uh this is strictly to give uh the town some control over the form and character the design the look of these buildings similarly if we receive uh a development permit for an apartment building uh a development permit area is required a development permit is required um because we have control and design guidelines.

Okay, thank you.

And so the previous the well, the map that's in the OCP now, it only had a few that were the uh mixed residential.

So will this add to staff's workload by any chance because now you'll have to do a development permit for all those additional green spaces?

Through the mayor, uh the answer would is is yes.

Uh however, as part of the work plan that staff brought forward to council in January, also included a task to look at um delegated authority.

So staff will be bringing forward a report very soon on looking at um perhaps the delegated authority uh delegation of of certain types of development permits to help streamline that development approval process as well as improve operational efficiencies and things like that.

And that will be coming forward um soon.

Thank you.

And I can I ask my last one.

Um so what I was just curious why previously we didn't designate the other spaces that were blank, like just in case I've missed a potential other consequence of doing this.

Through the mayor, my understanding that this has actually been on the books for a while, however, it just hasn't happened.

That is my understanding.

And just with all the SMA, all the legislation that's come forward, staff feel this is an appropriate time to to bring it to council and the public's attention.

Yeah, just to uh reiterate in Sterling Leanne, correct me if I'm wrong.

So what we're doing with the OCP amendment, which is required for Bill 44 at some point, is that garden suites are allowed on just about everywhere that has an R1 lot.

Um, or there's some factors.

You can have a suite, a house, uh a um a garden suite or four units.

Uh there, there's different combinations of this.

So, what this would do would be to um create the plan to integrate them uh where everybody would be able to um uh necessarily apply.

So it could be as easy as applying for a building permit once we're done.

It wouldn't see council essentially.

That would that would be the end state that we're looking for if somebody just wanted to put in a garden suite that met all of the conditions that staff outlays as as uh conditions for that garden suite, correct?

Sure, the mayor, that's a good question.

So yes, so the if we receive an application for a development permit application for a garden suite, we would check it against the the zoning and making sure there's no variances.

If there's a variance, it would come to council for approval.

Then we would uh evaluate the application, the development permit application against the design guideline.

So making sure that it you know fits with the context.

It's uh it it it has um it integrates some of the architectural features of the existing house, making sure that there's you know appropriate outdoor amenity space, um, ensuring that uh they're working around some mature trees on the property, things like that.

So the development permit would would evaluate those those aspects of the design.

And uh and then if the DP is approved, then the application would move on to a building permit.

And what I and just to reiterate my my answer earlier to Councilor McKenzie's question is that the next step to this is because we have heard this around the council table and it's also in the work plan is bringing forward some considerations for delegating delegating some of these approvals to staff to speed things up to streamline the application and also to improve some of the operational efficiencies in terms of staff time.

Thank you good explanation council lemon yeah to to staff.

Public hearings are not allowed, but there is once once the public sees an ad in the paper, an information in the paper, there's nothing preventing them from coming to a council meeting and asking questions during question period.

Correct?

If there's a development variance permit application, even if there's a rezoning uh that doesn't require public hearing, members of the public can still submit correspondence and can still speak during public participation or ask questions during question period.

Right.

Thank you.

Council Rupert.

Yes, uh, thank you.

And I um I certainly support and and thank staff for for doing this work.

It's quality control.

And um I I think it's uh it's it's really necessary when you consider the amount of green and how many properties are are going to be impacted on this.

You know we just had a a um um policy on inclusive equality and respect.

That's what we are intending to do I hope uh for the neighbors of these these properties that will be developed.

We want to give them respect we want them to feel included and participating and ensuring that there is quality control there is uh and a consideration to the environment to the streets and to the comfort and safety of of their neighborhoods so um I I I applaud staff and in in having this done.

When we do the public hearing, I hope there will be a frequently asked questions.

You might want to anticipate that.

And you know, because this is nobody knows about this.

Right?

We've we've been lucky you know in hearing this, but we've also been swamped and overwhelmed with the implications that it's going to affect every single door practically in this community.

And um and when we go to a public hearing, it's not just, hey guys, come on, this is what we're doing, we're gonna have discussion.

Well if we book the whole day it might be okay.

But unless we explain what what this is about and what the implications are and how they can be knowledgeable and so they can see maps and they can see an understanding that that garden suite is only going to be 1.5 meters from their their property line, and what's those implications of that.

So it's um, and that's what the province dictates, but you know, this is what we're we're trying to inform.

So please, if we're going to do a public hearing, you know, we're not going to rubber stamp, we're not going to do a sales job, we're going to inform and uh let people know fully what's going on so they can feel knowledgeable and and you know and respected.

So I hope that that's what we're going to achieve in this uh public hearing.

Thank you.

Okay, so I just uh one last question before we go to a vote if there's no other comments.

We've got lots in here that that house apartment buildings right now or large condos that are painted green.

So who would be allowed to put a garden suite on those areas?

Through the mayor, um again, uh this is not this is not zoning zoning.

So this is just strictly like the form and character development permit area, so controls over the the uh the design of a building.

So the mixed residential development permit area takes into consideration um different forms of multi unit housing.

So like apartments, uh townhouses, I believe duplexes.

Um in our case, we're gonna be adding houseplexes.

And and so there's different forms of housing that would fit into the form and character development permit area.

So it has nothing to do with zoning, and then the for the garden suite development permit area, if someone were to build a garden suite on their property, and um you can only have a garden suite with a house, so you can't have it with an apartment or a duplex or anything like that.

So uh that that should not be an issue.

Um but if should someone with a house want to build a garden suite, then uh if council approves a develop the garden suite development permit area, then they would be subject to certain design guidelines.

Can we see in your work that will be forthcoming, a map that just shows those areas where garden suites would go into and subtract the areas that already have uh I know you've got one here, but it's for form and character development permit areas and I think what the public and what council would like to see at least I'll speak for myself is what are those areas that uh would be used for garden suites uh and which areas because they've got an apartment building or condo would not be um I think the public will want to see themselves is that my neighborhood is that where I live kind of approach as opposed to the everything would that be possible to be able to present certain we could certainly we can um prepare just a map for information.

It would basically be all the lots that are zoned pretty much zoned R1 or R1A in the town.

So we can easily put that together.

It will not form part of the OCP.

Um but just for information purposes, we can we can do that.

We're just strictly talking about establishing a development permit area so we have design control over the garden suite.

But again, we're not talking about zoning of garden suites.

Perfect.

Thank you.

So the motion on the table, there's no other comments or questions.

Uh to just go ahead.

I didn't have a question before now.

Yeah, uh so two things.

First off, I'm still really unhappy with the problems that they're forcing us down our throats.

Be that as it may, I'd like to compliment staff on the job they've done in terms of uh putting down criteria for the garden suites.

Um that you know, you know, we may change over time, but I think it's a really good first start in terms of uh ensuring that they're sort of fits in as well with the you know with the community as it can at you know at at this point in time.

Um so compliments to staff and it's we really would need some the fact that we do should have these all should be development primary areas, otherwise we would lose total control.

And so I certainly support the motion in the direction we're going.

And again, I thank staff for the work they've done.

So I will be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Council Mattson.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed motion carries.

Thank you, Sterling.

And I think that brings us down to uh community bylaw 811 uh 2011 amendment.

And that's a form and character and permitting.

So first and second reading.

Leanne, gonna speak to that or is it Sterling again?

Council, you wish to vote.

I'll move first and second.

Okay, that's what we just did.

Okay.

Uh moved first to the second question for counselor.

Let's just get a seconder on that.

Um, so you're seconding it for discussion?

Sure.

Uh Councilor Rogers, go ahead, please.

Yeah, thank you, staff.

The um by doing first and second now, if we have any questions or uh you know suggested changes is it too late or it is too late yes if you if you're giving first and second reading of the bylaw it is is too late to make any changes so we're doing a public hearing just for show uh the should council hear from the public and then want to make any changes then we would rescind first and second reading and give new readings to that bylaw my neighbor will be happy to yeah, I think that's the same procedure we use anyway to get it to um uh public uh or or a hearing we need first and second.

So it's first and second.

Thank you.

Councillor Batson, please.

Yeah, and just in terms of what my my colleagues' concerns are, I mean we have a tight time frame to actually get something done.

And like all of our bylaws, all of the OCPs, we can make changes at any time.

It does it's just a process.

So my recommendation is let's get this in, we'll meet the deadlines, and over a period of time we're gonna find out that there's some things we don't like and we think we need changes, and there's a process for doing that.

I couldn't let the what is it, the perfect stand in the way of the good.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

Any other questions or comments?

Uh all those in favors of first and second reading for um physical community plan bylaw 811 uh 2011.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

That brings us down to a noise bylaw.

Scott, are you gonna handle this one?

I'm happy to handle this one, Mayor Tobias.

Uh however, we are at fourth reading, so I I don't have too much to say about it.

Uh the intent was to bring the bylaw into synchronicity with Calwood and Langford, as we're all covered by the West Shore RCMP.

Uh most of the noise complaints we get are after hours, evenings, and weekends.

And so we wanted to make it easy for our brothers and sisters in the RCMP to help the town of Veroy enforce noise bylaw.

So the change was to put some time constraints in, 11 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

is consistent with what Calwood and Langford are doing.

And we would then call on the RCMP to assist at their own discretion based on prioritizing their resources and what's going on.

It gives a greater chance that they would come and enforce the bylaw.

Typically, what happens with noise complaints is they happen on evenings and weekends, and if they're egregious enough, the RCMP will contact bylaw uh on our next day that we're open and ask us to write the ticket.

Um, and they'll be willing to go to court to back us up.

Move adoption.

Thank you, Scott.

Um, do we have a seconder?

Um, I'm going to speak out against this.

And I was initially in favor of it.

Here's why.

You've got pretty much an active investigation of a repeat offender that is really raising the decibel level with um with uh amplified music.

Um and and it sometimes starts at nine o'clock, sometimes finishes at 11.

Uh I think it's too late to actually do that.

And Machosen's bylaw for noise is not consistent.

Uh, neither's the Highlands.

And is there consistency between uh Victorian Sandage?

There isn't.

I even looked at Sydney's, which is comparable size to us.

And they um do have a time, they also have a decibel level.

My my question is if we say this, there is nothing anybody can do to complain about any noise before 11 p.m.

at night.

There is no amount of reasonability there.

And and with younger families, we're getting more densified.

What this is saying is that don't call anybody before 11 because it's not going to be enforced.

And and I just don't think that's right for young families.

I think we we need to step back and take a look at this and and actually put some controls around it that are going to work for View Royal.

And I really don't care if they work for Callwitter or or Langford, but I think in in 99% of the cases um you know it's respectful residents.

The sound is emanating in most of these cases by from non residents that with amplified music.

And it's happened um you know uh on on places that aren't being taxed we'll put it that way and putting the community uh uh around them under uh a constant rapid fire music that sometimes starts at eight o'clock uh or so and will run until midnight um I don't think there's answers in this bylaw by changing the um the the date so what i'd suggest to to council is that i don't think we're in a hurry for this bylaw I think we can get a better uh bylaw put together out there that is reflective of our need and the um the other thing that we're looking at is um you know when it talks to radio tape recorder audio playback machines uh stereophonic equipment or any other equipment I think we could just say amplified um uh we can just do better and simplifying it for uh our bylaw and the public, but I think this is just too late to make it um to make it work for what we're used to in View Royal.

Counselor Brent.

Yeah, I did 18 years uh doing bylaw enforcement after my policing career, and I've written a lot of bylaws.

And you have to be very uh concerned about putting specific, too many specifics in your schedule or too many um exemptions.

If you do that, you you you put yourself in a box.

I'm trying to think of some examples.

Like we we talked last meeting about getting rid of the uh the the paper boy and the huckster and the peddler and cries.

It could just be cries which disturbs because if you have a couple badass kids and the mother keeps yelling and screaming at them, that's not on there.

So they say, Why are you giving me a ticket here?

It's not listed.

So and as far as you're concerned about the noise you can put a very generic section there just noise which disturbs put a fine on it and if you if they're continually doing that you use the BC offense act which has a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and a mandatory court appearance that we have that tool yes there's expense to that because you usually have to have use a lawyer you have to go fill an information for them and do it but that the people that are are are you know continually um violate a bit usually like a section two or something in the general section.

But again, there's too many specifics in the uh in the schedule.

So um I'm quite willing to to work with with Paul if necessary to help out because I I've written a lot of bylaws.

So yeah just a suggestion.

And I and I agree there should be a generic section in there uh just noise which disturbs period.

I it's too wordy.

Thank you, Counselor Brown.

And and you'll note on the next agenda item you do still have uh Hawker and Huckster in there for the noise control bylaw.

Yeah to meet one of those.

Um let's go to Councillor McKenzie and then Matt Simply.

Yeah I'm I'm happy with the hours as is.

I don't think we should be overly prescriptive of how residents use their homes um or they should have some flexibility to enjoy uh their homes.

And I don't think we should base it on one particular case.

It's you know, there's many other situations where it might uh exceed nine o'clock and be okay.

So for that reason, I'm supportive of staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

Council Metzger.

Yeah, I mean, given we're already at final, I mean if if we were early on on the process, we might want to fine-tune and make it better.

But at this point, all we have to do is approve it tonight.

And should we want to make changes, you know, we'd still have to go back through a process.

So I'm I'm for just approving this.

It works for it'll stop people may from making noise after 11 o'clock.

I mean, we allow the RCMP to do what they need to do.

And should you know, should we want, should we find out that if it's not working or if we need some changes, and we do what we do with all other bylaws, make changes later on.

Uh, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

Uh go to Councillor Lemon and then Councillor Rodney.

Yeah, I'm I'm just pleased that we're putting some parameters around this so it's not so um nebulous, you know, uh uh as it was before.

Um people once publicized, and I hope we'll publicize this, people know a time when they have to, you know, turn down the music.

Um, I do, however, think in the we we don't have the full bylaw here.

Um, so the schedule of um of fines, I'm thinking must be representative of the full bylaw.

Therefore, I think it needs to be updated so that it's it's current, you know, so we don't have silly things like peddlers, hox hawkers, and hucksters in there and that so that it it makes sense to people.

And and as my colleague said, that you know, noise noises that are problematic.

Um it should be it it there should be a a term or a phrase that just sums it up.

But I'll be supporting this simply because we've got some parameters around it.

Thank you, Count Councillor Lemon, and you're gonna see the hucksters in the next uh agenda.

I saw that.

Yeah, so that's directly related to this bylaw.

Uh which I I just think it needs more work.

We need to get rid of, we we need to simplify it.

We need to take out um things that um I've not heard of, perhaps uh Hawker cries which disturb, huckster cries which disturb, peddler cries which disturb, news vendor cries which disturb, and cries which disturb.

I'm not sure the differentiation between that, but uh uh there you have it.

Counselor uh Rogers.

Yes.

Um yeah, I think the uh the idea is you know, let's say it's past this.

Certainly the mayor has the ability to call it uh back for reconsideration in uh in 30 days.

Um I would be interested, uh and I know that um um uh staff Paul had uh contacted, I think Langford and Colwood, but maybe um if we find the the norm of the the region uh is for um at 10 o'clock uh hour as opposed to 11.

It uh and I think it's you know I was just thinking you know of adults but you know there are adults that uh do go to bed early and certainly there's a lot of children that go to bed early and now that we are uh the province has uh uh required every municipality in the region to densify and so we're gonna be much tighter closer noisier um it may be um uh maybe that 11 p.m is um was good in the old days not in the not in the con densified new days.

Um so uh um let's uh pass it, but um I think further research, as is the mayor you're saying, uh is warranted and and uh I'd be happy to hear more information.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Councilor Brown.

I if I can just make a suggestion that uh uh director hearst look into the C or D bylaw, uh written by an infamous writer.

Um the C or D bylaw for noise complaints is quite quite good, I think.

And might uh give you that generic section I mentioned earlier, uh, that would be helpful.

I'm gonna vote against it because I'd like to see it um either tabled or sent back to staff.

Thank you, Councilor Brant.

Yeah, I won't be supporting it either for those same reasons.

And and currently the bylaw does not have a time limit on it.

There is no bylaw.

Um, and that means that you're gonna have to you there you will be calling nobody before 11 o'clock.

It doesn't matter how loud it is, because there's no provision for you to complain.

So that's the implications of this bylaw.

Um just spelling that out.

So we've got a motion on what's that?

Yes.

So uh so we got a motion on the table.

Uh gotta uh it's seconded.

So all those in favor of the noise control bylaw as written.

Uh all those opposed.

And note that the mayor and councillor Brown were opposed.

That brings in the motion carries.

And so we're down to municipal ticket information by law with the hucksters.

Uh and uh there's your fees.

And they're all $100.

Council Lemon.

It needs to be updated.

It really needs to be updated.

And so I I I'm going to move that it go back to staff for to be brought into even the 20th century.

So we got a mover and a second or to send it back to staff um uh as it as it is.

Does anybody have any questions or comments about it?

Uh councilor Rod.

Staff correct me.

Uh I think we were discussing this with um uh during the committee of the whole.

And I think um if I didn't if I heard uh uh chief correctly that um even though it's a hundred dollars uh it there is a frequency uh uh almost a limitless frequency that we could uh be imposing these fines, so it would actually add up to a significant amount.

Am I understanding that?

Uh you're correct, Councilor Rogers.

We do have the ability to write a new ticket each and every hour.

That's considered a separate offense.

I just wanted to remind council that uh we had done three readings uh before the old timey language of hucksters, peddlers, hawkers, um, newspaper boys, those those old-timey things.

Um that was not considered prior to the passing of the first three readings.

And uh you know as counselor mattson stated, let's not let perfect get in the way of better.

We we can come back and amend the bylaw to deal with um some of the outdated language in the bylaw.

But uh without without an MTI bylaw attached to the the bylaw which we just passed, uh we would uh have some complexities in writing tickets.

You wish a move it to the mover in second or um uh it's not that the amount is too low, because we do have um, as we just heard, a frequency that would uh yeah uh impose a significant uh and I would say deterrence if you like uh to the noisemaker.

So I I think um and as it's a staff thing, we've passed the bylaw, we don't pass the fines that you know the first is useless.

Before I go to you, Counselor Brown, just Councillor Madsen made a point that you know don't get in the way of perfect.

I've I've got a line, right?

And that is 18th century language in a bill that we're passing now, right?

And and I I think we can do better.

And I think the public deserves us to do a little bit better than hocksters and hucksters.

And this is yeah, it's gonna affect us.

So what so what's the cost of getting this right?

We keep things the way that they are until staff comes back with something that we can that that brings it up to date.

And and I don't think that's uh you know um uh uh a argument to um get in the way of perfection.

If this council sees something wrong or needs updating, this is what we're here for.

That's my perspective.

Counselor Brown and then Councillor Matzo, please.

Yeah, uh other bylaws have second offense, third offense increased fines.

Um dog at large is a good example, which is enforced in View Royal.

Second or third time, it's the the fee go five fine goes up.

Also, I'd like to see something in there uh referring to the BC Offense Act so that uh people are aware that there is consequences to uh disobeying the bylaw multiple times and not paying attention.

So I think that should be uh encompassed into the bylaw.

Although we've already passed that, but we'll have to discuss that at a later time.

That's about okay.

I mean stop, we're really clear.

You know, we've just approved a bylaw, but the bylaw's got no teeth because we can't find anybody for for making excessive noise.

Um so if we approve this bylaw, we can still then go by, ask staff to remove hucksters, etc., and they can go through and it'll take a few weeks, etc.

But in the meantime, we'll be protected and we will be able to find people who are breaking the bylaw.

If we don't do this, um, I mean, we got a bylaw without any teeth, and we won't that and we won't be able to find people.

So, you know, my recommendation is vote down this motion and then make a motion to approve the bylaw as as written, and then staff can take some time, chat with people, do whatever they need to do to go for the perfect rather than just the good.

So I'm can't support the motion that was just made.

Uh and I will be voting against that motion and recommending we approve the bylaw.

Thank you.

Councilman Kenzie.

Yeah, I agree.

I think the the benefits of passing the bylaw now with the hours is provides more advantage than taking the time to clarify this information, this wording that people it really has no impact in terms of uh actually implementing the policy.

So uh and I do also agree with uh Council Rogers, I think we are going to need to revise it.

I believe uh the Chief Hearst said as well they were considering doing a percentage um for those large, let's say construction sites where $100 is nothing to them.

So I think there's going to be uh further improvements.

So we should approve this, pass it, and then in the future make some changes.

Thank you.

Council Lemon.

Sorry.

Uh to staff.

My opposition is to the schedule of fees and the language within it.

So you're saying that if we were to vote against this, there is absolutely no fine in the standing schedule of fees that would apply to noise under the U byla?

Through the mayor, uh we would still be able to enforce other sections of the bylaw, but the section of the bylaw that we just amended, which is section 3 2, would be unenforceable through the municipal ticketing system.

Staff heard loud and clear um from uh one of the speakers after we'd done the three readings um that some of the language was outdated and that would be that would form part of a future amendment but we we don't always uh repeal bylaws and write completely new bylaws and modernize them uh so i would suggest uh or recommend either um passing this and encouraging staff to go back and uh modernize and change some of the fees uh or the mayor does have the right to reconsider uh the bylaw which was just passed, and you could take another vote on that and leave the bylaw the way it currently is.

Okay, thank you.

Comments, questions?

So what's the motion on the table?

So the the motion on the table is uh is actually to not approve this uh to bylaw and rescind.

All those in favor of rescinding the bylaw for uh amendment bylaw for 1137 that deals with noise control.

Oh, those in rescinding.

I don't think I don't think there was a seconder apologies.

Yeah.

And it's the to reject this.

I'm reading enough.

Municipal ticket information bylaw 643 2007 amendment bylaw number 1137 2004.

The actual bylaw is 1136.

So all those in favor of rescinding.

All those opposed.

Hi.

Okay.

I see this going the other way too.

Uh so all those in uh we need a motion on the floor to uh approve the bylaw.

I move every table.

You know, it's if we're gonna go nowhere and we're gonna be in a problem.

Okay.

Uh second late table.

You want to motivate?

Well, you know, if we defeat this, then then um we're in a worst case scenario, right?

Uh yeah, just uh a uh point of clarity here.

Uh motion to defer our table is is not debatable.

Yeah, so you just uh you call the question on that.

Yeah.

So you got a mover and a seconder.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

So uh two opposed.

So I'll put this back to you, staff.

We don't have a schedule to support the original bylaw.

Your recommendation, then uh we've already voted on the first bylaw without a schedule of fees to enforce the bylaw.

Uh it in this case, uh Councillor Mattson is correct.

We we are unable to write municipal tickets for section three two at the moment.

So as per the community charter, the mayor has the right to reconsider uh motion at the meeting.

It doesn't or within 30 days.

Uh so you would you would have the ability to ask for reconsideration and possibly potentially revert the bylaw back to the way it was before we started all of this this evening.

Well I think Councilor Rogers, your your I think your thought, not putting words in your head, but your thought to table it would be to amend the the table or what was your expectations to table?

Yeah, um because uh we're we're in a in a 3 3 situation, uh a no-win situation, um, then um it would be defeated in in either way, which means that the mayor would have two bylaws to reconsider, not just the one.

Uh and I if I'm hearing that staff, um, at this point, your worship, you have the ability to to reconsider the original bylaw so that we can turn that back uh to the old bylaw.

And so at least we have the old bylaw with the old uh fees that could still enforce.

If am I reading that correctly, yeah, staff?

Uh through the mayor, that's correct, Councilor Rogers.

Uh it's it's not a good situation to have a bylaw that does not match the municipal ticketing bylaw exactly.

They're usually done in conjunction.

And uh sadly that does not look to be the to be the possible outcome tonight.

Understood.

Councilor Brown.

Yeah, this bylaw and and any bylaw that is doesn't have a schedule can be enforced under the BC Offense Act.

So uh if there's a really bad situation, there is still that to fall back on.

And the judge may say $100 fine, but that we still have that to fall back on.

Uh on any of our bylaws.

There's lots of bylaws that have no schedules.

I don't know.

I I can't reconsider the same meeting though, Scott, can I?

Uh yes you can.

So what would that sorry uh through the mayor you can reconsider the uh previous reading of of the bylaw well you can reconsider anything really um that's happened tonight or within the last thirty days but I don't know I I'll put this uh to my colleagues right now we've got a schedule and even though you can enforce it it's a little bit convoluted to in order to do that um yeah and what I was trying to do is not say that there's um the only challenge I really had with the initial bylaw aside from the hucksters uh was the fact that um I I I think of the the date of 11 o'clock was arbitrary um uh and but that led us down to a part that more people felt concerned with and that was 1137 the schedule that still contained hucksters and other forms of eastern Canadians that migrate out to Victoria and settle uh myself being one of them um yeah uh so would there be uh I I I guess we could uh uh ask a question to counsel, would there be support in tabling both items because we've already voted on one of them.

I could bring it back, but I'm not gonna waste anybody's time.

That would keep us with the current bylaw until it gets brought back.

Go ahead, Council Rogers.

Unfortunately, we I don't think uh staff uh look through their expert advice, but I don't think tabling is gonna help be a remedy.

Um, you know, we've got um uh a bylaw in place and and no ticketing.

So therefore, if uh it seems to me that if we are still on the old ticketing, then we then your your worship if you were to call a reconsideration of bylaw one one three six, uh the um so that you know we could defeat that for the time being and go back to the old so that the old the two olds are now consistent but we got one new one old and we're going nowhere except for the old uh hard hard to do offense act so um that's what I think that's what staff are suggesting.

Councilor I agree with what I think you said um that we that we go back to what we had and ask that we be brought back a updated version of the whole package largely what you know what I don't know about the the but the the the um the bylaw itself so much as the schedule of fees but if we were brought a brought back a total package that was um that we could live with for a long time I think that would be certainly more um appealing to me council sir I can't help myself on this but you know we spent all this time talking about not wasting staff's time on things and putting roadblocks up that just make things more difficult.

I mean, tonight's a perfect example of what we shouldn't be doing.

This, you know, why why we just didn't approve the amended bylaw and then amended fee bylaw and then go back and get it perfect.

Uh and so instead we have to go through all this rigament role.

So it this just makes no sense to me at all.

Thank you.

Other thoughts, comments, questions.

Let's get it right.

Just can we bring it back as soon as possible?

Summer's coming and people are going to be cranking and staring up at midnight.

So if we could bring it back as soon as possible, we got another meeting next week.

We've got two more meetings this month.

So that would be my preference.

Let's get it right.

It's it's kind of embarrassing, actually.

We for me, it is anyway.

Reading the schedule, put that wording in that, and uh and and you could really enhance the other bylaw as well with the inclusion of the BC Offense Act, um, you know, with a very generic section for noise that's that disturbs.

Uh so just to summarize, help me out here, staff.

So, what we've done right now is uh our current state is we passed um 1136.

We have tabled 1137.

That's correct.

And so what we need to be able to do if there is an intent to make changes to 1136 and 37, they could be brought back by staff, but we would not have to have a reconsideration for 1136 to rescind it.

Staff make the changes and bring it back before council.

Correct?

That's correct.

I would just recommend if if council's not pleased with the direction this bylaw's going, uh I'll just state that the time to mention that would have been before we did the first three readings.

Uh the reason staff didn't correct the outdated language is because the first three readings had been done, and that wasn't brought up until the end of the meeting by a member of the public that was embarrassed at the antiquity of the language.

Um so we the the direction this is headed is that it should all be reconsidered and all readings should be rescinded and staff will go back to the drawing board, bring it back to a future meeting.

Thank you.

And I I think uh I was I thought we were just going to receive that night so I had made some comments and I think I recall Chief Hearst actually saying he would incorporate those.

I was unclear at the time whether um you know he was going to change them on the fly.

And a lot of it was to do with the language.

But obviously if it had received first and second he can't change it.

It's got to be passed as it uh technically it's third reading that locks it in and then it comes to a future meeting for adoption.

So uh I'll just say we weren't anticipating uh much debate at that final adoption this evening, but uh it's at council council's wishes.

Okay, uh and we don't need a vote to reconsider 1136 right now, do we?

I can just call it back, put it on the agenda.

Uh no, you should have a vote on that.

Bring it you you bring it back, um, and and just call for another vote on it.

Okay, uh, so um I will pull item B of bylaw eleven thirty-six back for reconsideration.

Um and uh I guess put the motion on the floor to rescind first, second, and third.

Uh, so staff can update the language in 1136 and 1137.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Councilor Brown.

Uh all those in favor.

All those opposed.

Noting Councilor McKenzie and Counselor Matson are opposed.

So that motion carries.

So both 1136 and 1137.

Uh well, 1137 was tabled.

So do we want to rescind 1137 to allow staff to do the same work?

Yeah, you want to reconsider the motion to table and then uh put forward rescinding three readings on that as well.

Okay.

Uh somebody want to make that motion.

Someone moved by counselor Rogers.

Seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

Noting Councillor McKenzie and Councillor Mattson are opposed.

So that brings us back to 1136 and 1137 now being rescinded.

And I think there's um encouragement to um see it back with updated language at a time that staff can have it written.

We will amend the section of uh he who cries or she who cries and simplify that.

Uh we'll have a look at adding in the offense act for larger things and anything else we can find.

I mean, I think this bylaw is really in fitting with uh the uh the two pubs we have in town.

I'm surprised this bylaw was even written in the 80s because I don't remember there being hucksters peddlers then either.

But uh I think it was a trend in local government to uh use archaic language.

I I looked at Oak Bay's, and I think what we did was we actually copied it from Oak Bay's bylaw for noise.

Yeah.

So if you look at it, it's almost exactly the same.

The only difference between View Royal and and um and Oak Bay is we don't have hucksters anymore here, but they still do.

Um the uh don't you laugh, Councillor Lemon.

Uh I think that brings us to question period.

Is there anybody in the room with a question for counsel?

Please uh approach the podium and just uh turn it on and please form it into a question or questions, and you'll see a light come on and a big cane comes out and grabs you if you're still talking when the red light comes on.

So can you start with your name and your street name?

Yes, I'm Melanie Austin from Riverside Drive.

Uh so thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

My question tonight is in regard to the bearproof bin pilot program.

My house falls within the priority area for the pilot project.

And counsel will likely recall that I gave a presentation in September, along with Andrea Miller requesting the provision of bear proof bins and a food attract and bylaw.

I'd first like to thank council and staff for implementing the pilot project.

My concern, however, is that the project has been rolled out in a way that it's sure to fail, most notably due to the required $170 participation fee.

The $5,000 budget that was granted to this pilot, along with existing tax funded budget for replacement garbage bins to which residents are entitled, should be more than adequate to cover the costs for provision of the bins for the pilot.

Andrea Miller has detailed this to staff in an email correspondence.

There should not be a need for residents to pay this fee for a pilot study, and the fee is certain to limit participation.

We've spoken with many of our neighbors, and so far not one has said that they plan to apply for a bin, with all stating the cost as the reason.

We've checked, and many other municipalities do not charge residents an extra fee for bearproof bins, with Port Albernie and Port Coquitlam as examples.

I want nothing more for than to see this program be a success.

I'd like to see it rolled out more fully in future within priority areas, but I'm disheartened in feeling that council does not truly support this initiative.

My question to council is Will Council ensure the success of this project through asking staff to consider reducing the cost barrier to participation?

And will council revisit the conditions of the pilot program if there's insufficient enrollment.

Great questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Scott, did you want to have anything to say?

Because I know you had talked to Ivan afterwards and done some math.

And thank you and Andrea for your continued advocacy.

Thank you.

In 16 years of working in uh communities, plentiful in bears, uh, I've I've witnessed a lot of uh bear attractance, and I think uh the issue is that the folks who would be willing to spend $170 uh for a bearproof pin are likely the ones that are already taking good care of their attractants.

And the folks that aren't taking care of their attractants don't care enough about the bears to actually spend the money.

So um the point of a pilot project is to learn and fine-tune.

Uh we only really had $5,000 to work with, and I think uh the director of engineering was trying to stretch that out and get as many cans as he could by cost sharing with the residents.

Uh we've received the feedback.

Uh Ivan is back from holidays.

We had a chat about it Monday morning, and I think we'll be changing how we do that um based on on the feedback from the residents.

Likely means we'll give out half as many cans.

I've contacted the conservation office to try to determine um with the limited number of bear proof cans we have which properties need them the most based on um negative interactions with the bears and uh I expect you'll be hearing from us very soon with some some pivots on this program but that is the point of a pilot program is to learn um reach out to the residents um sometimes swallow your pride and uh and uh realize if you've headed in the wrong direction and course correct as soon as you can so I appreciate the feedback.

Thank you.

Thank you for your question.

And I think uh um hidden between the lines of Scott's fulsome response was the fact that we're learning.

And uh and and perhaps uh you know the the my big concern right now is like uh not and the bear proof brand bins don't make sense just for bears.

I wanna make that clear for everybody too, is that there's hungry dogs, smart crows, um, anything.

And then once it gets out, then it's not just a bear attractant, it's a everything attractant, including rats.

So, you know, th there's sense uh uh uh around doing these.

Um uh just continue monitoring us, continue checking in, making sure we're doing the right thing, but please continue to point out our mistakes as well as we fumble along this uh this process.

Um and uh and and we're we're kind of learning from it.

Uh but uh to Scott's point, the the purpose of a pilot is to learn from um from the public as much as we do bears about you know uh where where those tolerance levels are and and sometimes attractance, even if it's a bearproof bin and people are leaving their garbage out and sweltering summer heat, it's still gonna attract the bears.

They might kick that you know compost bin down the road a couple of times, not being able to get it open, but it's still gonna attract them, right?

So so how does that link up with our education and policy and and all the rest of it?

So um thank you for your question.

Appreciate it.

I think you're over the two minutes.

I got in trouble last time because I went to 10.

So uh thank you for your continued advocacy, but somebody else can ask a question for two minutes.

That is permitted.

And you better repeat this verbatim exactly uh Jeff Miller, Parkridge Drive.

Um I guess our question is why is the town reluctant to participate with the residents, say in the form of uh an advisory committee of residents?

This program is being rolled out, it was a single-page uh letter to residents with no understanding, explanation.

How is it going to be monitored?

What are the metrics?

And there was no discussions with the two primary people who are trying to get this program going.

So I'm not quite sure why that's the attitude, but it is what it is.

Um I would hope that you would look at this, and as you say, you're learning as you go, and we could make this pilot project more workable and a success.

Great question.

And um, it was a topic of conversation between Scott and I today, actually, about um involving uh a greater um delegation for the community in our planning.

Because really it's it's not about bears, it's about humans, right?

This is what it's all about.

And so we need to include humans like you guys that are already motivated to help shape and guide um, you know, that not only the policy, the rollout of the bins, the education.

So yeah, there needs to be some space around there.

Um I I will say in View Royal, we do some awesome jobs on engagement.

There's one going on in my community right now for replacement of playground equipment in Chancellor Park.

Um I think really it's that that's kind of a low feedback.

Everybody's very much in support of where I would have loved to see the same level of engagement probably go to the issue.

So we're learning from it.

We'll get better.

Um but uh but I I I I think that, you know, yeah, we will have to involve um the community because that's uh what's eventually going to come with the behavioral change of reducing attractance out there.

So thank you for your question.

Any other folks with questions in the audience tonight?

Nada.

Carl on the phone.

Tell me we've got 10 people with questions.

Mayor Tobias, we had one earlier, but I think they were just listening, so no callers right now.

Thank you very much.

Okay then.

Uh can I get a motion to terminate?

Uh moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by everybody.

All those in favor.

Motion carried.

Uh we'll see you next week.