Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal.

I'll call the council meeting for Tuesday, September 16th, 2025, to order, and uh we'll begin with a territorial acknowledgement that we rec recognize the Quangguin speaking people known today as the Esquimol or Kosapsin Nation and Songhees Nation and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

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

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

You will provide your name and just your street name without your host name or apartment number on the form if you are uh or if you're speaking in council chambers.

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

Questions, however, uh during question period is open to any question and is limited to two minutes each.

You will be timed.

The 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.

Before we move for the approval of the agenda, there is one late item and just a reminder for council that would be a vote to include or not include uh the late item uh because the council of the agenda had been approved.

So uh I'll put forth who wants to move the approval of the agenda with the late item.

I wanted 9.1 rezoning of five or two five eight Helmakin taken out of the consent agenda.

Okay, can you remind me when we get there?

So it'll still be on the agenda.

We're just gonna move it to 11.

So when we get to the consent agenda, if you could remind me, Councilor Mattson, I'll just move it.

That'll be 11a if there's no other ones that come before you.

Um, so we got a mover and a seconder for the approval of the agenda, including the late item.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

And uh I think that brings us down to our public participation period.

So here's your only chance that you get to ask uh or make a comment for five minutes on any item on the agenda.

Would anybody like to address council?

Doug, go ahead.

Good evening, Doug Wilson, View Royal Avenue.

Thanks for this opportunity.

I submitted a letter to the agenda for this meeting regarding the construction project at 315 Stewart Avenue.

I hope you've had a chance to read it.

My letter and my statements here are reliant on documents supplied by the Town of Uroyal in response to a freedom of information request.

I must assume that the response from the town was complete in accordance with FOIPA.

A different construction project was discussed at the council meeting on March 4th this year.

At that meeting, Council listened to information regarding some challenges that have arisen with that construction project.

During the meeting, council and the building inspector discussed the need to mitigate risk on behalf of the town and to apply due process on a consistent basis, a consistent basis.

This is reflected in the March 4th minutes.

During that meeting, the building inspector made a presentation that included the statement, the town is obligated to enforce compliance with town bylaws and uphold public safety and building standards in accordance with the BC Building Code.

The building inspector also stated that it is his job to mitigate liability on behalf of the town.

Regarding the expired building and occupancy permits at 315 Seward Avenue, it seems clear that the town approach to the matters of bylaw enforcement has taken a very different approach than the one discussed at the March 4th meeting.

In that case, the town asserts that it is obligated to enforce compliance with town bylaws.

At 315 Stewart Avenue, a complaint that alleges long running building occupancy of two years without a permit resulted in the town hurriedly providing a conditional occupancy permit in five short days.

Based on documentation, that really challenges my trust in the documentation and use by the town.

A comparison of the approach to enforcement at the two projects contradicts the concept of applying due process on a consistent basis and completely refutes any notion that the town has an obligation to enforce compliance with the bylaws.

All that the neighbors and homeowners near 315 Stewart, and my property is 25 meters away, all that people want and deserve is to see this project successfully concluded.

The community charter empowers council to impose remedial action, including setting a time limit for compliance.

A new building permit that could extend for an additional four years is ridiculous to contemplate.

On March 4th, the View Royal Building Inspector made this clean completely clear when he stated it does not take six years to build a house.

Thanks.

Wilson.

Thank you, Mr.

Anyone else in the chamber want to address counsel on any topic related to the agenda?

Go ahead, sir.

Come on.

I think uh just make sure the microphone's activated.

There's a little button there to uh speak.

There you go.

And just start with your name and your street name.

Do I get to start the timer again?

Sure.

I don't know how that works, but okay.

My name is Mike Manhass.

Uh I live on Neild Road and I'm here for a building on Spencer Road in Lankford.

Um, I'm just gonna read you a little something and then I'll share with why I'm here.

It's about agenda uh number nine A.

Um every day the people in BC's trade show up with boots lace, tools in hand with a determination to build the world around us.

They construct our homes, pave our roads, wire our cities, and keep our province running.

Yet while they build the towers, the tunnels, the bridges, and the homes, we've yet to build something equally essential.

A dedicated place for tradespeople to turn to when life becomes overwhelming, when pain is too quiet to be noticed or too loud to face alone.

Too many in the trades are struggling in silence, and too many have been lost.

And it doesn't have to be this way.

Uh 53% of the opioid deaths today are happening in the trades.

Um, 85% of people in the trades identify with the mental that they're struggling with mental health and addictions, and nothing's really being done about it.

We've got lots of um harm reduction sites in downtown Victoria.

Majority of our people in the trades don't go down there and use it.

There's too much shame around it, there's too much guilt, there's too much I could get fired, etc.

Um if you have no money, treatments available.

If you have money, treatments available, but if you're that missing middle, if you're stuck in the middle, you have a job and you have a home, the government says we don't have a bed for you.

Um the cost of a bed is between 25 and 50,000.

That's an enormous amount.

Most people struggling don't have that capacity.

Addiction's not a moral failing, it is a disease.

I I myself am in long-term recovery.

I've got 12 years clean.

Um, the reason I'm here today, I'm here on behalf of the Construction Foundation of BC, where I registered charity.

Um, we're turning it into a recovery hub.

We are we bought the old Hells Angels Savages Clubhouse.

You get free access to treatment, two years of free counseling, free aftercare, free recovery coaching, and we're adding a sober bar, sober social club where people can learn to live life again.

The biggest gap we have in our in our communities right now is people do get sent to treatment and then they get brought back out and they say, go home and go live your life again.

And most people end up at the same place.

They end up with the same people, the same place, the same habits, and then we're shocked that they relapse.

The reality is, and it was true for me, is when I got clean, I was left with all I was left with was my feelings, my thoughts, and my addiction.

My addiction was never the drugs.

The addiction was the stuff that goes on inside here and in here.

And I had to learn to live life again.

I was, I'm very fortunate.

I had a lot of opportunities.

Most people aren't.

My goal is to build the programming so that people can come to this place, connect to like-minded people, connect to lived experience, and get a chance to practice living life again.

The clubhouse will provide safety.

The clubhouse will also provide a place where you can go watch the playoffs or the Grammys or a live comedy show or a music show while not drinking or drugging.

And it's a chance, it's a chance for us to step up and and do for people that do for do what we need to do for the people that build our communities.

And so I'm here today hoping that you guys will consider so far, Oak Bay Souk Callwood Langford have all come forward and contributed 5,000.

You have a letter from Mayor Goodmanson who's challenged all the municipalities to step forward.

This isn't a them problem or their problem or this problem it's not it we're not looking for handouts we're looking to connect together as a community to provide something for folks.

We have this we bought the building outright with our reserve fund.

Now we need 5000 to to do the construction and to add double the footprint so that the space is there and we have provincial and federal funding, I believe, coming to do all the programming as well.

And we have partnerships with five different organizations to provide the counseling, the treatment, the recovery coaching, et cetera.

And we've got a peer support app we've built.

So we have all that is it's this building that we need to make happen.

Although it's located in Lankford, it's a it's meant for all 12 municipalities.

People in the trades don't just live in Lankford, they live everywhere.

And our goal is to create the Southern Vancouver Island to create a model that's not being seen before.

It's a place to no one's doing this.

It and it it's a it's to establish something to become the capital of recovery.

I I I believe in harm reduction, but that's not what we're doing.

We believe in that people we want to meet people where they're at, but we don't want to leave them there.

And that's the big thing that we're doing today.

And I hope I can I hope you all vote to give me five thousand bucks.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mike.

Thanks for uh thanks for your work on the the file as well.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else want to address council on any topic related to the agenda?

Going once, twice, three times.

Nobody Carl, we got anybody that has sent in a form.

Mayor Tobias, we have no messages on the form system.

Thank you, Carl.

Uh okay, so I think we dig into the agenda right away.

And uh first up is for a parks and public places by law number nine eight six.

Mr.

Chief.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council.

Before you report uh titled Amendment to the Parks and Public Spaces bylaw 986 and an amendment to bylaw 1095.

The recommendation tonight is that uh, as you can see, the third reading of the Parks and Public Spaces bylaw 986 2018 be rescinded, and that parks and public spaces bylaw number 986 2018 amendment bylaw 1095 2022 be amended and further that parks and public spaces by law 986 2018 amendment bylaw be given third reading as amended.

Uh as usual, you do have alternatives uh to my recommendation.

They include um approving the alignment of the municipal ticket with the bylaw, but excluding the camping section, or option three, maintaining the current status quo for the bylaw and MTI remain misaligned.

The purpose of the report is to formally adopt amendments to the parks and public spaces by law within the town of U-Royal with an aim to limit the areas for people experiencing homelessness and creating encampments.

The bylaw department will be seeking adoption of the correspondence MTI amendment bylaw at the meeting when the parks and public spaces bylaw comes forward for adoption.

As you know, uh Royal is not exempt or immune to the issue of people who are unhoused, and we are seeing quite a significant uptick in the town of Uroyal.

This bylaw will align us with our neighboring municipalities and it'll give our law enforcement uh with the West Shore RCMP a consistent platform that matches with Culwood and Langford.

The bylaw has been back and forth with previous councils and others tweaked and aligned.

And I think we've come up with something that is consistent with the area, and it gives us an opportunity to not only uh enforce our parks bylaw, but it also gives us an opportunity to work with our unhoused and support them in getting them the location they need to be in and the help they need.

I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you, Chief.

And uh I'll lead with a question, and that our current state is we have no active bylaw to address the matter.

Is that correct?

That is correct, Mayor.

Okay.

Questions start with, and then we'll move into comments once we're done.

Questions.

Any questions for the chief?

No, I was just gonna say that I I certainly agree with the changes and wanted to move staff recommendation.

Okay, uh just to confirm no questions.

We've got a mover and uh seconder.

Any discussion motivation?

Okay.

Okay, then if there's no other comments, all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council.

Uh now we have to, Elna, we've got to rescind, don't we?

So we need a motion to rescind the previous third reading.

Move and move rescinding uh third reading.

All those in favor.

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

And so I think we did that in reverse, but does that cover everything?

So I would move that.

Um I would I would move third reading of the amended version.

And the seconder?

Seconded.

Seconded by councillor McKenzie, moved by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

So that will be on our next council meeting for adoption.

Correct, Elna?

Okay.

Correct.

Uh okay, do we do number one and two merge there or is this a separate one?

We did we did merge them, didn't we?

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh tax exemption bylaw item B.

I'm not sure who's going to speak to that.

Stephen.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh members of council.

Uh for those folks online.

I'm Stephen Vella, Director of Finance here at the town.

Community Charter Section 224 allows permissive exemptions for properties owned by charitable, philanthropic or nonprofit organizations.

Properties that council considers are used for a purpose that is directly related to the purposes of the corporation.

Permissive exemptions under section 224 are at the discretion of council, so there's no obligation to provide the exemption.

And bylaws must be adopted by October 31st to be in effect the following year.

This item is to consider tax exemption bylaw 1157 relating to the Island Corridor Foundation's application for permissive tax exemption for years 2026 to 2035.

This is a renewal of bylaw 935, which council adopted in 2015 to exempt the same properties along the EN Rail Trail.

As indicated in the report, the 10-year duration of the permissive exemption provides financial predictability to the town while giving the exempt organization a level of financial certainty and stability over the coming years.

With that, I'm happy to take any questions.

Corridor foundation is recent or has been established.

And so is this just a renewal of that or is this a new application?

I haven't dug into the history of how long they've been nonprofit.

They currently are.

This is a renewal, and that being the the nonprofit status would have been part of their application uh 10 years ago.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and uh just a reminder for council that the Island Corridor Foundation is something that we essentially we hold shares in.

We co-own with the rest of the First Nations and municipalities along the way.

Um so we have not been collecting tax on this for at least the past 10 years, anyway, correct?

Correct.

Uh councilor Mattson.

Yeah, just a couple questions.

First, um, so this bylaw, the new bylaw will only impact the rail uh Corridor Friend Foundation?

That is correct.

Okay.

The other question I had, and this it's just a more general question about uh tax exemptions.

Normally, if you look at your taxes, there's three or four different things that money goes to, goes to us, goes to CRD, goes to hospital.

So when we give someone a tax exemption, um they just don't have they don't have to pay anything and nobody takes over those additional costs.

How does that work?

A permissive exemption will uh decrease the tax base in View Royal.

So the taxes that the organization would have otherwise otherwise paid uh would be borne by the the rest of the taxpayers in the town.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but there's also the school tax, for example.

So similarly to school tax, they would just leave receive less money.

So we don't have the town doesn't have to compensate the school tax portion.

The school tax is calculated on our our tax base, our role totals, of which these properties are not a part.

So the province would still collect the same amount of school tax that they'd require.

It would just change the rate based on the the lower tax base.

Sure.

No, yeah, that I understand.

I just wanted clarification that there's no extra amount that the town pays on any of our uh tax exemptions, but thank you.

Councilor McKenzie.

Yeah, uh thank you.

So I wasn't I just wasn't 100% clear if there are actual buildings on these lots and if so what the purpose like what the use of those are well not that we're paying taxes on around of uh I think the only building uh councillor McKenzie is the very small uh train station um gazebo that's near um um Fort Victoria.

That's the only structure.

The rest of it's just the land of the rail itself.

Some sometimes it's wider, sometimes it's smaller.

But Steven, uh maybe I'm wrong.

Well, there are two folios that do have improvements, minor improvements out of out of the three.

Um and and judging by the dollar value, yeah, they're very I don't want to say insignificant improvements, but quite low, low value on the two.

Yeah.

Move staff recommendation.

Second.

Um moved uh and seconded that and that is just uh that is the recommendation and not option uh two um move on to option two and you say uh there any motivation um uh this is a repeat um I and the as to my knowledge um the Island Corridor Foundation has been nonprofit since its inception and uh we'd like to train to run and maybe one day we could collect some taxes from the businesses get established along there, but for now I'm I'm I just keep doing what we're doing.

Further, your worship um uh this is a consistent with all the other municipalities, and um so um we're just supporting a uh an on in resource.

Okay, uh there's no further comments.

Uh all those in favor of uh staff recommendation?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you.

And I would move um uh first through third.

Second uh uh number one one five seven.

Thank you.

Uh if anybody willing to give some motivation or for the same reasons.

Okay.

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, uh motion carries.

Mayor's report.

Uh had the privilege with council to meet with our volunteers this Saturday.

And instead of the normal thing, we did a big award ceremony last year, but I asked the volunteers um a couple of questions.

One is what made you volunteer in the first place?

What keeps you going as a volunteer?

Um, and what do we need to do to attract more volunteers?

Because lots of folks have been volunteering for a very long time, and uh it was great to see some younger folks there too.

Um, so we got some really good feedback uh from them, and I think they enjoyed the ability to share um their experiences with us.

Uh I will say that one young gentleman came up to me uh afterwards uh on the topic of youth uh engagement for volunteering.

He said, uh, Mr.

Mayor, you gotta get them before grade 10.

By grade 10s, all of their habits have been formed.

So you gotta reach out no later than grade nine to talk to them about volunteering and give them an experience.

So I thought it was very well put together.

Um so uh I will look forward to uh hopefully with the support of council, maybe reaching out to at least some grade nine students to encourage them to uh help us pulling weeds and establishing radios and ESS and uh giving a little bit of a tour.

Uh so I've got a report that'll come before council hopefully at the next meeting uh with some recommendations for council to consider on uh improving some models on how we keep it going and how maybe we do better.

Um that's about it for my report I think we moved to petitions and delegations and we'll move to Ms.

Cormier for the South Island Community Council Community Living BC and promoting inclusive housing in View Royal.

Hi, we do have a presentation if it can get shared.

Excellent.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight about the importance of inclusive housing for people with developmental disabilities in the town of View Royal.

I'd like to acknowledge with gratitude that we are presenting tonight on the traditional and ancestral land of the Lakwangan speaking people, the home of the Songhees and the Esquamo First Nations.

Next slide.

So who are we?

My name is Jessica, and I'm here to support and introduce the South Island Community Council.

Katrina and Nathan are presenting with me tonight, and Caroline and Lynn Marie are in the audience with us.

This is a council of volunteer members that work in partnership with Community Living BC, or CLBC for short.

CLBC is a crown corporation that receives funding from the BC government to support adults with developmental disabilities.

The South Island Community Council would like to recognize View Royal's commitment to increasing the range of accessible and affordable housing for diverse populations, including people with disabilities.

CLBC serves over 30,000 people across BC, and that number grows by 4.5% every year.

We're comforted knowing that our local government are prioritizing our most vulnerable citizens.

Next slide, please.

So why are we here?

We're here because housing for people with developmental disabilities is in crisis.

Across BC, more than 5,000 individuals supported by COBC are looking for homes of their own.

Many are living with their aging parents, some are unhoused.

Most are among BC's lowest income residents, living on persons with disabilities assistance.

People with developmental disabilities make up about 23% of all people relieving receiving people with disabilities assistance.

Yet we're not typically included in dedicated housing strategies.

But we believe that can change.

And tonight we'd like to bring you the voices of people with lived experience who live in the town of View Royal, who are seeking a future home in their community.

Next slide.

Oh boy, I gotta get that photo changed.

My name is Nathan, and I live in View Royal Power Place.

I'm here as a self advocate, which means I'm someone who speaks up for the rights, for their rights and the rights of others with the first with myself getting my tongue out of here with developmental disabilities?

Not long ago, people like me were walked away from the community, placed in institutions, and simply because we are seen as different.

BC's last institution closed in 1996, but the attitudes have not fully changed.

A lot of people still think that we are being looked walked after somewhere else.

We are not, and we don't want to be.

We I don't want to be segregated.

I want to live independently in my own homes, my own home, on my own terms, in my community, just like you do.

Inclusive housing means we belong in the same community and in the same housing developments as everyone else.

It means I can go to the same stores, walk the same streets, and with the same wife at everybody else.

And that means having a place to come in View Royal.

Next wife.

Hi, my name is Katrina Johnson and I'm also a resident of View Royal.

This is a picture, these are pictures of my son Asher, who has given me permission to talk about him and his housing situation.

Some of you might actually know Asher.

Asher works at the Eagle Creek Cascadia Liquor Store.

And if you've picked up ice from there, it was probably bagged by Asher.

So very proud that he has a job in an inclusive employment situation.

He also takes the bus throughout Raw.

So if any of you take the bus, you may have seen Asher on that bus.

He's really built a life here.

And the people in View Royal know him and he knows this community really well.

But Asher is still at home with us.

He's 33 years old, and there's really nowhere else for him at the moment.

I am turning 62 in this year and looking at retirement and thinking about his future in the long term.

My husband and I are both aging, and we won't be here forever.

So we need a plan.

We want a home for him in this community where he's been living for the last almost 15 years.

Because it's not really just about the housing, it's about belonging, it's about safety, and it's about a future for people like my son.

Next slide.

Next slide.

So unfortunately, we we did bring a video that we wanted to show about a successful inclusive housing development and partnership that happened in Surrey BC, but we can't show the film tonight.

So I just wanted to just uh let folks know that that this is possible and that there's some innovative models happening around our province right now.

And Chorus Apartments is is one of those examples.

It was a pioneer project that started in 2016, and it was really a dedicated and targeted approach to independent living for people with developmental disabilities within a larger development.

So the whole development is about 71 units and is home to South Surrey families, seniors, people with developmental disabilities, essential workers, and students.

20 of those units are dedicated to people supported by CLBC, helping them to stay in their communities close to their family and friends, like Nathan and Katrina have talked about.

So the inclusive nature, when we talk about inclusive housing for chorus and what we're here to promote tonight, means that tenant mix that reflects the community and those are that are probably priced out of their neighborhood and who have historically not been included, like Nathan has described tonight.

So Krista is the picture of Krista on the screen tonight.

She says this has changed my life in ways that I I could not have imagined.

She's gained a new sense of independence.

Chris has done a couple of videos about how this model has changed her life.

I've put up two websites on the slide there.

One is Key to Home and one is with Unity, which is one of the our service providers that helped to advance this inclusive housing model in the town of Surrey.

Next slide.

So, as you can see, success is possible.

There's examples around the pro around the province of situations where local governments, developers, and community have come together to create inclusive housing.

And the great thing is CLBC provides the funding for the services that people need to be to get, you know, in order to live in the community.

The province provides, of course, their disability, their housing there for that $500.

So it is very low income, low, very low, low income folks that have that allowance.

But what we need is the housing, affordable and inclusive housing.

We were really excited to see View Royal's commitment to pursue community and government partnerships to facilitate affordable and special needs housing in View Royal.

Your official community plan speaks to the need to maintain a range of housing choices for residents, including for families, seniors, people with disabilities and low income.

And of course, people with disability are seniors.

People with developmental disabilities are families, indigenous peoples, women fleeing violence.

All of those groups include people with developmental disabilities.

Right now, your official community plan and housing clients don't reflect the unique needs of people with developmental disabilities, but I think there's some partnerships and possibilities there.

And so we, the South Alley and Community Council as a group of volunteers, believe all of this can change and would like to partner with you uh on on that front and let next slide.

So we're going to leave you with this question.

How can we work together can the unique needs of the people of developmental disabilities be included in your housing plans zoning policies and partnerships with developers we'd love to have a follow-up with staff or counsel to begin that conversation thank you for your time have a great night thank you for your presentation uh thank you nathan and jessica and catherine um uh would I recommend do you mind uh if we share this with our official community plan committee, question one.

And question two is would you feel comfortable in also presenting to that committee?

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Councillor Matson, you had a question and counselor Rogers.

I do have a question.

Um I guess it's probably three or four years ago now.

Uh council approved uh I think about 160 units of housing that was uh put on by CRD housing.

And and I'm just wondering, do you have access to CRD housing?

Uh oops.

Got it.

Um people can apply through I I'm presuming that's through BC housing and through some of the nonprofit societies that uh uh manage the housing.

So people do have access to put in their applications.

I don't know if it's the same if that's this would be direct with uh applying for CRD housing.

So that's the construction that we have at uh Thetis Lake.

There's some read about it available there.

Yeah.

And if you're not familiar, I can probably find out uh application.

That would be great.

Thank you.

Council made a motion some time ago, but staff's coming back to the report to us that uh we're looking at require requiring a certain percentage of new construction and new multifamily construction to be uh low cost but I'm certainly sure that your group could be included in that sort of low cost component too.

That's brilliant and actually what we're actually looking to your leadership is that targeted approach to to actually intentionally name people you know with developmental disabilities intellectual disabilities that are supported by community living bc to be included in in in the in that plan because what we've learned is uh through you know other partnerships is without without that intentionality um they're they're left out that that there there isn't the opportunity and and um when when when we kind of do that strategic partnership uh in advance, it it leads to tremendous um outcomes for people.

But so that we're we're we're um yeah hopeful that the town of of uh V Royal will support uh your leadership in that regard.

Yes, I certainly support the mayor's uh suggestion that you present to the OCP Advisory Committee and and um and certainly one of the requirements um of staff in in this OCP process is um uh we identify um the number of units, the number of uh rental and um housing units and the different types.

Um I guess the the challenge is and the question is um um how does this um work for the development disabled?

And um I I'm wondering if you have any housing models in in the either the lower mainland or in Greater Victoria that um has been successful that you would uh ideally like to see um replicated here in in the town.

So so so there are a number around the province and the chorus apartments in in that one slide is is just is is is one example.

Um the the same sort of partnership that created chorus has been successful in a in an in a in another uh housing development, another model because it has been so successful, uh called Harmony.

Um again, those two websites on the on the on the slide deck can kind of bring you to those to those examples.

But um, yeah, there there are, you know, we're we're starting to now as we get out and and promote uh the need because what we what we believe is is that um community just doesn't know that this population is is is being um missed out on and there and like nathan said there is a uh uh an assumption potentially that that people are looked after in in other ways um and and uh institutionalization and you know facility type housing is a is is a thing of the past um and so we are looking to our communities to build that capacity so that people can live in the same places and spaces as everybody else council yeah thank you uh the chorus building in Surrey, the uh the building itself, how is it funded?

I can't speak to those the specifics, but but it it was a a a multi-partnered approach.

So so there was provincial, there was federal, there was um uh funding from from foundations that so it it was a very um yeah uh a partnered approach.

Again, that that um website can can give you more specifics on on how they went about that partnership.

Um I'm just not a an expert on on that particular piece.

When I, if I may, when I saw the image, I thought that looks a lot like a building at the top of Four Mile Hill that is for sale.

So anyway, thank you very much.

Yeah, I I have reached out to CMHC for co-ops and the province, and I'll continue discussion about that court-ordered sale for the apartment uh for because there's all kinds of good uses it can be put to.

Um, but uh our senior partners I don't think uh are uh ready with the checkbook at this point.

Uh thank you again for your petition.

Um and just for clarification, what would be the best way for us to um pursue the opportunity to present to uh I will get uh hold actually Jeff will probably pick up uh the ball and we'll just follow up with you by email and give you a date for our next meeting and schedule some time in there.

So it's uh those people like uh council or just members of the community, they just are focused solely on uh helping uh create the new uh official community plan.

So I don't see a lot of our commitments uh changing, but it might be um uh a good primer for them to uh understand um the housing situation for learning um challenge folks and and have uh have an opportunity to consider that when they do amendments to the next OCP.

Okay, cheers.

Thanks folks.

Uh I think that brings us down to item seven A and Ivan, uh pride colored uh crosswalk update.

Thank you.

Excuse me for a second, Ivan.

For you folks, you you feel free to leave.

You're just taking you know half of my chamber of ears away, but thank you.

Sorry, go ahead, Ivan.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

It's never good to have it for a comedian to see people leave when you present, but it's okay.

Um thank you, Mary Tobias.

Ivan the Young Director of Engineering uh report before you regarding a pride colored crosswalk update for Helmkin Road at Rideyard Road.

So we presented this to council uh this year and February 18th.

Um, council were committed to installing a pride colored crosswalk, and they directed staff to make sure that we uh obtain consultants to determine whether or not it's a safe place to put it.

And long story short, uh this location is safe to put in a private colored crosswalk, it already acts as a uh legal crosswalk under the BC Motor Rehical Act.

Um, and given that decorative side crosswalks is a political decision, um, we're here before you to uh determine next steps.

So um the recommendation before you is that council directs staff to include a private colored crosswalk project to be considered in the 2026-2030 financial plan deliberations.

At that time, we will um provide updates on um costs, so that'll be uh capital costs to build and as well as life cycle costs.

Um there is some new information out there with respect to the replacement costs for these decorative crosswalks.

And we recommend that council takes a look at that as part of budget deliberations.

Happy to take questions.

That's the end of the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Mattson.

Yeah, I'm just wondering what happened to the bright-colored benches, which don't need repair every few years.

Yes, thank you.

Mayor Tobias, that was the original um deliberation on the February 11th committee of the whole meeting.

And then when it came forward to council and the ensuing council meeting, uh that direction changed to staff.

It was to essentially go with the crosswalk instead of the benches.

Any other questions?

Uh uh Ivan, I've got a question in that.

Are we considering I see a lot of pride colors sidewalks defaced?

And of course, um redoing them is a significant amount of money.

Is there can we include in our estimate anything we can do for monitoring the crosswalk as well to recoup insurance?

Because this once it's defaced, then it's an eyesore.

And then there's complaints about it being defaced.

So could we include as an option in it any monitoring that we could do for it?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, that's a is a good question.

You know, news over the last few years has always indicated uh decorative crosswalks, regardless if it's pride or not, but directive crosswalks be defaced and and what happens afterwards.

And generally speaking, uh local governments they have to attack the problem right away and replace it and it's generally a replacement.

Replacing costs or fixing costs are quite literally the same price as installing a brand new one, which will be informed in in the in the project summary.

In terms of um monitoring, that's a the question I have is do we have the resources to do such monitoring or hire someone else to do it.

Um, so we can certainly think about that and incorporate as an option in the should council wish in the project summary.

I don't have an answer right now.

Uh, certainly an innovative question, and um probably we'll take a little bit more research.

Ivan, I was more thinking about the hundred dollar uh solar powered camera you get online that uh uh stores the files up and it records an event uh that you could go through.

That's what I was talking about at one.

Not not somebody standing by the sidewalk, but yeah, and and any um anything we can do because I think a council needs to also look at the total cost of ownership, and if it was defaced with sh uh in a short time afterward, it would certainly add to the cost.

And probably within that is uh yeah, it's usually incurred by the municipality, isn't it?

Is uh the insurance doesn't cover the paint on a crosswalk.

That would be uh ours again.

Yeah, no, it won't be covered.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and I think this was a receive or is there other recommendation?

Uh Councilor Rogers.

Uh uh Councilor Rogers moved, Councilor McKenzie seconded.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Oh well, we can have some discussion if you'd like to.

Yeah, I'll let you this is just gonna be an ongoing cost for us, and I think we can achieve what we want to achieve by having a couple of benches in there that are unlikely to be uh defaced the way the the roads would be.

So I'm not gonna support it on that on that basis.

I'd be quite happy to support the benches, but I I I've seen the crosswalks, they they all look like hell after a while, and you have to replace them so i i can't support this motion thank you councilor mattson councillor rogers yeah um moving stats recommendation is not necessarily an endorsement um you know i want to know how much there it is the maintenance and and indeed uh at the end of the day maybe uh the benches are going to be uh just as effective and and um maybe the same amount but um i'm interested in in hearing staff what the those costs of maintenance would be yeah and uh just to be clear uh counselor mattson that this is to uh for staff to get back to us during financial plan deliberations.

It's not not approval.

Um, so councilor brown.

Yeah, just uh there i there there is a motion coming up in a future meeting for a veterans crosswalk as well.

So maybe at the same time it could be uh I well I'm sort of jumping cart for the horse, but it's coming up to propose a veterans uh crosswalk similar to the one they have on Station Avenue in front of the Legion right now.

Okay, thanks.

And I think we started to vote but didn't finish a vote.

We got a mover in a second, or in this to move staff's recommendation to uh include the pride-colored sidewalk uh uh crosswalk project uh to be considered for the 2026-2030 financial plan deliberations.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

Noting councilor Mattson is opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Ivan.

Uh building permit updates for 315 and 331 Stuart Avenue.

Jeff.

Thank you, Mayor Jas.

Excuse me.

Um, so uh this is just to update uh council some questions that arose at the last council meeting.

Uh just to summarize, the uh the building uh building permit at 315 Stuart Avenue has been um renewed.

So a new new building permit has been uh submitted for, and that is to complete a number of things to um to get full occupancy.

So when you have conditional occupancy means a building is safe to occupy, but there's still a number of things to fully meet the building permit requirements so so they were given a checklist of things to do and and uh the building permit is to complete those items and the other the other item was for 331 Stewart Avenue when that building was constructed uh there was a pre existing uh accessory building at the front of the property that was unclear what the uh status of it was and uh several years later it's still there uh the the uh property owner has provided uh calculations and staff has reviewed it and the um so the building the accessory building at the front of the building is non conforming it's been there for decades uh but in terms of um meeting zoning requirements it's a non-conforming structure but in terms of uh the the all the floor space you can have on a property we've reviewed the uh plans and it complies with the uh with the permitted floor space on that property uh as a non-conforming structure you can maintain it but you cannot extend it you cannot alter it without uh further um uh without a variance yeah so the intent is when you have a non conforming structure you can keep it up but at a certain point um when it comes down you know not it's not structurally sound anymore um you cannot um cannot rebuild without without a variance uh just a question jeff on the the garage itself to start um it so that was there and part of the older property prior to a new construction am i saying that correctly that's correct yeah and and so it it was there and I think the the perception is by some of the folks that are concerned about it that they were under the understanding that its removal was conditional on building the new uh once the new building was put up and everything was put up that that would be you know brought down as part of the package was that a condition that the town communicated or was that something that was inferred um in the building from the plant it was shown as you know to be determined uh but you know again in terms of floor space it pre exists in the building even constructing the building uh you're not over the density of floor space permitted on the property uh it is a pre-existing building that will have a finite life I'll go to my colleagues for questions uh council lemon I'll go to you first then councilor Brown um start with 331 uh the garage TBD is that is that a common planning term uh is I I I don't I don't understand how TBD would would apply in this kind of permit and development and what does it mean?

Does it does it mean and and what do we ultimately have, Jeff?

Do we have it it's grandfathered?

Is is is that um it is um it's not conforming structure because of the where it's located.

The the in but in terms of in terms of zoning, in terms of floor space, in terms of density.

If they were building a a large building that um that needed if they were probably like an even larger building, that would have been a condition of its removal, but it complies with the zoning in terms of floor space.

Uh it's just an old building that's there.

Like a lot of it's not uncommon to have old garages sticking around.

Uh, but those old garages um can't be there forever.

So I g I I'm confused about what TBD meant though.

Uh it was to be determined.

Uh that did what what did that mean uh in terms of what until they had the measurements?

I think they might have been using it for storage during construction or whatever.

And um yeah, so uh but the short of it is is even applying for the building permit, um, there was no mechanism to require removal of the of the building unless they were old, you know, unless they had additional square footage that they needed to uh to use.

Okay.

All right.

Um and okay.

Well, what I'm asking questions, now I'm not gonna comment.

Um and 315.

A building permit has been issued.

I think we're gonna get everybody confused.

Can we can we just stick with the garage?

So can we just and then we'll add that?

I'm not I'm just trying to keep things really separate for us right now because there's two merged into one report, if that's okay.

Counselor Brown?

What's the accessory building being used for now?

I'm concerned about uh fire hazard as well.

Is it is it wired or what's what what's inside it?

It's just an empty group like what's it being used for?

What was it used for before and what's it being used for now?

I have no idea what it was used before.

Um it looks like a garage.

But it's probably just used for storage.

Is it sorry?

Uh just I I don't know what's in the building.

Oh, okay.

I've driven by it, but I I'm not gonna get out and look around.

So I'm I just wondered.

I'm always worried when they get these extra buildings.

Uh well, you got homeless people, right?

Um, you got squatters, you got people that are putting people in places that aren't uh appropriate to be living in.

So that would be a concern of mine.

And of course that even increases the fire hazard.

So um I guess I've driven by it, but I've never gotten out and walked.

That's more up to our bio officer to do, obviously.

But um it'd be it'd be interesting to know.

And we and what's stored in there.

You know, if they're storing inflammable uh, you know, paints and things like that, it's it becomes even more of a concern.

Agree, Councillor Brown, but I don't think that's our purview.

Uh Council Matson.

Yeah.

I mean, I was on council, John was on council when this came through, and there was lots of concern about the structure, the whole thing.

And the property had been subdivided, and we had this little crappy building right at the corner of the building.

And it was certainly my expectation, and probably Councilor Rogers and that and all residents that it was going to be removed.

And in fact, we went so far as to say we passed a motion for staff to ensure that a structure like that could never be built again.

That garage in the front with this breezeway over you know 30 feet of breezeway.

And so I don't know if staff ever did that, but that was certainly a motion by council that we never wanted to see one of these again.

So to add insult to injury, the TBD, I don't know who gets to determine.

I mean, if council got to determine, I'd be quite happy to vote now that we we have it torn down.

I just think it's incomprehensible to me that that was allowed to happen.

And we should have before any sort of building permit was provided, we as a requirement, it should have been to tear down.

So I'm really quite upset about that.

We've done the neighbor to the disservice and the service to the neighbor, to the whole community by allowing that building to be to remain.

You're talking about the existing grad.

So I've got a question for both of you, seeing how you were on council.

There seems to be a great deal of uh misunderstanding around the conditions whether the grad stays or whether it goes.

So was there a motion or an understanding by council that it was a condition of the development that that be removed?

So I don't want to besmirch any of our previous staff, but there are a lot of times when there was seemed to be an understanding, but not a specific motion that counts that staff understood where we were, and we trusted incorrectly rather than having a motion.

So from my point of view, something got lost there, but it certainly was an expectation by council.

Council Roger.

Lost in translation.

That was before councils and the whole debate and discussion.

But it was ultimately, if I recall, up to the approving officer.

And that was the problem.

Approving officer.

The agreement to, you know, and I I understand the calculations, but um the success we building is obviously not consistent, you know, with um in the the uh, you know, it's certainly non-conforming.

It's inconsistent.

So, you know, on um, and I I I think you know, it's all very well and good, but it would help be helpful for council, those that hadn't seen pictures.

Very good questions.

What's it used for?

What's inside it?

And uh Again, Councilor Rogers, it's not our purview as council to determine the appropriateness of a structure by what what it's what its use is for, as long as it's legal.

Yes, I understand.

Yes, quite so.

And um so what I guess the question is Steph, what could it be used for?

Could we trans transformed into a secondary suite?

Um to the mayor, uh no.

Yes.

The answer was no.

Oh, okay.

Oh, sorry, I didn't quite hear you.

So um the structure is non-conforming and it can't cannot be expanded, rebuilt, or replaced without a variance subject to uh council approval.

Well, you know, variance is not necessarily council approval.

It could be the board of variants, right?

The mayor, um, the board of variants does have an authority to allow um allow you know repairs or alterations to non-conforming structures, but they have to look to the purview of the intent of if this is non-conforming generative citing, the intent of the legislation is to allow those buildings to remain until they fall down.

So um so the point subject to council approval may not necessarily be so because if it goes to the board of Errants, um, you know, that uh from what I understand, that would be the end of it if they were to approve whatever the applicant uh had in mind.

So that's one exception I would take to uh the information here.

The other is what about um the um the maintenance and ensuring that this uh structure um does not become uh derelict and a um um you know a safety hazard.

You know, where what's the what's the authority of staff and and the town if it were to become you know so far in disrepair uh for the matter i'm not the expert on unsightly premises, but if there's a safety issue then um then the town can take certain actions that's the council has had similar situations in the past of buildings that are kind of not safe anymore um and those are there are kind of mechanisms to require removal and how would we determine if it's uh it becomes safety issue is that something that the um complaints in the neighborhood or staff would inspect or uh the uh homeowner must make uh annual statements how how do we determine that um i think ultimately uh ultimately it comes down to your recommendation from the building official uh if the the structure is considered unsafe council uh rogers councilor lemon um i i believe it is a safety issue there it is harboring rodents uh the neighbors um tell me they often see rodents coming and going and uh they also have a concern and you know i i don't know they don't know but they do have a concern about um asbestos whether how that came to be i don't know council lemon, is there any other questions for this particular property for Jack?

And I I appreciate the concern that was there.

I mean, this was, if I'm look reading this right, Jeff, this was a decision for zoning bylaw that went back to 2014 over a decade ago.

Is that correct?

Is that the when the the newer construction was built?

Yeah.

Um for the mayor.

Uh I believe the building was finished about 2020 or so of and uh but the um the building complied with the with the zoning regulations and we do not regulate the design and appearance and aesthetics of single-family dwellings in single-family zones.

But as we um understand it right now, the bottom line is that council did not put a condition for removal of the garage with the new construction of the house.

It was left to the discretion of the building official that was um issuing the permits and that the decision was made that it was not required for removal by staff, correct um yeah for the mayor um I think the original proposal they were seeking some sort of they might have been seeking some council approval for a building and they had to redesign to meet the building code requirement building uh zoning requirements so the design and the the it's a single family dwelling that met the height setback and density requirements and did not require a council council approval you you wish have been if if I can interject yeah um I don't think uh council really was involved you know it was the approving officer and when it's it's it's in that purview we have uh no jurisdiction to uh interfere with the approving officer if I'm correct or not so there there is nothing currently out of order with this garage um uh because it was uh and the lot coverage everything to do with it uh was kind of uh built before our variances now were there so there's nothing uh that is violating our current bylaws with an existing structure with this garage correct yes okay thank you councilor watson so in terms of an unsightly building those sorts of things if neighbors were to make a complaint then staff could review it and then make a determination on whether or not this building should be allowed to stay for that reason do we need to buy law enforcement here um for the chair for the mayor.

Um I'm not sure that a building that's been for there for decades um can be called in for as an unsightly premise unless it was not maintained.

Sorry, yeah, the only thing we can hope for is that the building is uh maintained in good repair.

That's all and and most of the buildings in the neighborhood that I live in, if we applied modern variances to them, they wouldn't match, right?

And uh so I I I get it that there was an expectation of the public at the time that this be taken down, but that wasn't the case, right?

It was an understanding or a misunderstanding that that be done.

But um, as long as this building is kept in good repair, it's not doing anything illegal.

I mean, the name may neighbors might not like it, but in fairness, we'd have to rip out most of my neighborhood for non-variance if uh there was complaints about it, right?

And that's the reality.

Um, so thank you, Jeff, for that report.

Can we turn now to unless there's other questions or comments on the garage issue?

And can we turn our attention now to the next property, which was, I believe, 315 Stewart Avenue.

Jeff, if you could lead in for that.

Yeah, did you want to say anything uh before or does the requirement?

I think I'd sort of explained basically they have a new building permit to continue the work that they've done.

Um when they were granted conditional occupancy, the building official will give them a checklist of things to do before they can sign the compl the whole thing off.

So now they have applied for the new building permit to complete that work.

Once that work is complete, they can close the uh close the building permit because they'll comply with the building building code at that time.

Otherwise, they have to keep paying for renewals.

Thank you.

Jeff, let's start uh down the end.

Council Brandon.

Yeah, I just I don't typically drive down Stewart Avenue, but I've been on there a few times the last couple days.

The house right beside is 317.

I don't even know who who owns that, but it it's almost almost a butts to 315.

I just wondered, um, in fact, when I first drove by, I thought maybe that was the accessory building we were talking about further down the road but it's not obviously but um I just wonder about the uh the uh the the distance between the two houses and it must be it must be uh I would say quite annoying to those people because they're the buildings going on I don't know if anyone from 317 I don't want to start naming properties and people's names but um I just wondered that that is a separate lot 317 um for the mayor uh yes yes, those lots there are quite narrow yeah thank you council lemon.

Jeff, the building permit has been issued?

Um yes.

So are there are there um restrictions on it?

Are there, you know, is it confined to um certain a a must-be complete date?

Uh through the mayor, building permits are valid valid for a period of time.

And if it's not done by a certain point, then you have to apply to renew it.

If you don't renew it, then you know the building's not in fully compliance with the with the building code requirements.

So okay.

It's on it's on the it's on the applicant schedule.

So is there a specific time frame in this?

Um uh other than whatever the term of the building permit is, I don't know the exact term of it.

Might be a one or two years.

And and um the neighbor, Mr.

McIntyre, who spoke a couple of weeks ago, he spoke of kind of the mess in the front yard where lumber was dropped there.

And and you know the the doorway was kind of um paneled uh paneled up.

Are are those issues being addressed in this next round with the homeowner?

I'm afraid I don't know don't know the specifics.

So that like in likelihood, it's basically a list of what is needed to make the building code build make the building meet fully meet the building code requirements.

So if there's a mess in the front yard, that kind of happens as part of construction, and sometimes people are kind of slow about it.

And and and the occupancy.

Has that been extended or or do they need to be out until the building is f completed.

Um the mayor, uh conditional occupancy means that it's um safe for somebody to live in, and that continues with this uh with this building through this building permit.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions?

Counselor Matson So from what I've heard is if you have a building permit, your yard you can leave your yard a total shambles and the town can't do anything about it.

Because if there ever was a yard that sort of fits the category of uh that that it shouldn't be allowed.

What what's the word uh under our bylaw, you aren't allowed to have junk and mess.

And so why can't we get that stuff removed?

Because there's lots of stuff in that yard that has nothing to do with the construction.

I mean, it the owners brought stuff onto the property that has nothing to do with the development of that property.

And so when can we get that junk removed?

Because what I've heard is it could take another two years, and the neighbors are going to be stuck with that same mess to look at for the next two years.

So is there a way we can get them to clean that up?

If nothing else, put it in the backyard so the neighbors can't see it.

But as right now it's in the front and it shouldn't be allowed.

And I I mean, old beat up two by fours, etc., that have nothing to do with the construction of that current building because it's already all the the buildings already built.

What can we do about that?

Um true.

So the mayor, um, things that are not related to the construction process.

Um uh residents have the opportunity to uh submit reform to the bylaw enforcement division and they would consider um consider under those under the appropriate bylaws if any action is required don't you have lots of letters already complaining about the unsightly premises on file uh through the mayor i'm not familiar with uh of the uh bylaw history on this site anything else, Councilor Matson?

Satisfactory for that to be allowed.

And so we need to change our bylaws if somebody can't leave, do a for five years, have a yard full of garbage and stuff, um, and keep getting additional building permits.

If not there's my biggest complaint is the current owner has done nothing to mitigate the ISOR of that front property.

And it could have been mitigated by simply removing everything in the back.

If somebody wishes to renew a building permit?

Um I don't know the specific term of how long a building permit is issued for, but it's at least a year.

Scott, do you know?

Two years.

Two years for a building permit.

Do we know how many times this particular property has been renewed?

Um it's been renewed once since the new bylaw came into effect in November of 2023.

So they had their initial building permit and they're on their second building permit now, and uh it's about to expire.

They're on their first building permit under the 2023 bylaw.

Okay, so that's a two-year permit that's about to expire and they're applying for another one.

It has expired.

Is there a statute uh limitations on how many times we extend the building permit?

I believe they're allowed to apply once to have it extended.

Once of the new bylaw.

Okay.

And uh okay, I and I get it because sometimes family circumstances and financing and everything gets uh it.

Um, but has Scott, has the uh construction debris problem been reported to bylaw, or is that just going to permitting right now and building inspection?

I don't know if it's been reported to bylaw.

Okay, because I I think, you know, given the fact that somebody you and I talked earlier about and coming from Nova Scotia, your house wasn't considered complete unless it had the front steps on, and you weren't taxed that year.

So for the first three years, you were able to have no front steps.

No house that was a new construction had front steps ever.

And those were a separate business that came on three years afterwards.

However, I think really the issue is um is probably with the unsightliness of this property.

Um uh building permits, the stuff aside, is there a way to separate the unsightliness with dealing with a construction yard that seems to be perpetual?

Are they two mutually exclusive things, or does all of a sudden have a building permit?

I can put whatever I want in my yard.

You can have construction going on and have a messy property.

Well, your worship, two things can be true at once.

So we could deal with those issues independently.

Okay, thank you.

Um Councilor Brown.

I'd like to make a motion that we refer this to bylaw staff to check to make sure that they're in compliance with the unsightly premises bylaw, and it'd be up to them to uh check.

And perhaps even just the visit of the bylaw officer may encourage the owner to clean some of it up.

So I think that's the step to go.

That's my motion.

Uh uh, we got um mover and a seconder noted that I just we've got another question, we weren't quite done yet.

Go ahead, Council McKetse.

No, it relates to the motion that was just raised uh maybe for staff is it not uh the policy that by law visits are complaint driven from the public rather than referred to by council i think that's ideal counselor McKenzie for council to separate itself from the bylaw complainant um certainly we have received complaints about the property i'm just not familiar with whether they were specific to the unsightliness or or the uh conditional occupancy.

Council rogers.

Uh yeah, well, uh, you know, it may be a um uh an academic but correct point.

Um but i'm sure the you know we have members in the audience that are gonna be more than happy tonight to write uh complaints to the bylaw more than one.

So um we'll see how many, maybe even a petition.

So um yeah, that I think that's gonna be taken care of, and you know, we'll I'm sure the neighbors will keep us up to date on this.

Um my questions are are to this.

Um I really appreciate Mr.

Wilson's letter because that sure put uh a lot of context to this.

FOI is so helpful, and maybe um you know we should be doing more FOIs for council.

The um it the example that um uh Mr.

Wilson made reference to was March 31, um, where um there was concerns about the safety of the building and and so on.

The similarity between that one on in March 2023 and this one is it's owner-builder.

Owner-builder.

So we see that all the time.

You know, that owners are you know are are had their own way of doing things, their own timeline, and uh maybe their own perception of what's okay in the yard.

Um so I think a couple of things is that we need to have a a much better understanding, a much better level of accountability, and probably a better bylaw, better policies, so that um we just don't slam off another um uh voting permit with the same amount of period of time when the house is mostly done.

It's 90% done, I would imagine, but the looks of it.

So why two years?

Give them six months.

The neighbors, you know, let's be considerate of what the neighbors are are having to contend with here of the owner builder that's working on their their own universe.

So it's it's a um I I think we need to do a better job.

This is um not the first time won't be the last time so let's get smarter.

And if there's a motion, I would move that we uh uh well okay.

Uh are you you we still got your motion?

Okay, um I'll wait for the motion.

Jeff, a question that um people are applying for a set rate of time.

There's or is there a conditional time on a building permit, or is it two years and that's the standard.

Um it would be the it's the two-year period.

Stop so there's no conditions, it's a two-year building permit within that period of time, then they they are are able to construct the the uh the building uh any time within the two years as long as they're filling noise uh complaints and whatnot, but that is just standardized.

Now for I'm I'm just suggesting for council that if we bend the rule for this one, then we get into bending the rule for everybody.

And you know, for as far as this is only going to be six months or conditional or what have you.

Um I I think the issue is, yeah, it's ongoing for the the building permit, but the real issue uh is also the amount of debris and construction and mayhem that's going on with um with the the front yard, particularly.

And if this air photo from 2023 is any difference, I think it looks about the same now, if not a bit worse.

Um so I know the motion is to probably get into um bylaw, but I think uh rather than doing that according with counselor McKenzie, these are complaint driven things, right?

They're not council directed things, and there's a reason for that.

Um but I think, you know, to your point, Counselor Brown, there's been enough um in the complaints right now uh that that relate to bylaw that staff could could look at and and and work with, but they have gone more to the building inspection side than they have to bylaw and sightliness.

Council Brown.

And that would be part of my motion without saying it that all the the previous letters have already uh mentioned the debris and the unsightliness of it.

I've been by there myself, and I am a member of the public, although I know I wouldn't be making the complaint specifically, but that's the intent of my motion, is to to initiate that at least for the bio officer to make a trip by he he may say no, it doesn't fit into that uh uh category and it's not unsightly.

Um, but that's at least it's a step in the right direction.

Any other uh counselor rogers.

Thank you.

So um I wondered to move in the secretary if you can mend it that should there be complaints um coming forward, um, then that they buy law officer expediate the investigation and for quick action.

But there's already sorry, there's already been lots of complaints.

They haven't specifically pointed out our bylaw but they've been complaining about the I don't if I if I may your worship but no my other just my other comment is like this is I don't see us count members of council wandering around the community looking for issues.

This is something that's been brought to our attention many many times.

It hasn't and we've all of us who've sort of walked past it see it on a regular basis but we're just supposed to turn a total blind eye because somebody hasn't complained and there's all sorts of reasons people might not want to complain.

But this this one is an obvious one that should be dealt with now.

I'm just gonna refer this to Scott.

Scott, um, we've got a number of complaints.

They haven't gone to bylaw, they've gone to permitting.

Is there a way just to divert those complaints to bylaw without a council resolution?

Because I don't think that's appropriate to say as a priority or whatever, that's the digging too deep into the weeds, guys, for a council to um single out one property as opposed to another one for for bylaw.

Uh uh yes, without commenting on whether complaints have been received or not by the bylaw department, there is a whole system for making complaints to the bylaw department.

Yeah, the point is.

And so when when residents come and they ask counsel um about an administrative issue like bylaw enforcement, it's it's tough for council to answer.

It's tough for Jeff to answer, it's tough for me to answer but um there is there's a there's a system for making complaints uh regarding unsightly right and my question was that the the complaints have been submitted but they've been submitted either to council or to permitting vice bylaw can we divert those things that probably should have had bylaws attention as far as unsightliness goes to bylaw without waiting for a new complaint yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Could you review your motion again, Councillor Brown?

To refer to um just uh to say it again so that everybody understands it's been some to uh present refer to staff to follow up on prop that property 315 Stewart Avenue um to bylaw specifically to uh review it and determine whether it falls into the category of unsightly stop right there.

I seconded that and councillor Matson seconded.

Uh any other comments, Council McKenzie?

Yeah, so I'm I'm a really big proponent of consistency and using the policies and procedures that we have to make sure that we're being objective in everything that we do.

And um it's kind of a recurring theme that I've noticed that uh this council tends to have more interest and refer things to staff when it relates to issues in their own neighborhoods, um, which I find an unfortunate because um I believe it it it shows that we're not as objective as we should be.

So uh for that reason I will be voting against the motion as it is.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Uh so we've got a mover, we've got a seconder, we're ready to vote.

Yeah, I I can't let that go without saying okay.

This is not not the moment.

Uh, walk past it on a regular basis.

I see it.

I'm not sure.

Counselor Matson, that's enough.

Um let's not not get into an argument.

That's not what councils are about everybody's entitled to their opinion but it's not gonna circle down to an argument it's not why we're here um so we got a mover seconder um people had opportunities to comment all those in favor any opposed councillor McKenzie is opposed councillor Rogers were you opposed okay councilor McKenzie Councilor Rogers were opposed motion carries um and that specifically was to refer 315 to bylaw uh for action um now we're down to transportation master.

Thank you, Jeff.

Excuse me, so what what did we do with 331?

331?

I don't believe we did anything.

Yeah.

Nothing we can do.

Nothing, nothing there that we can do.

Just a few years.

I think we reviewed it, Councilor Lemon, but there was no action to be taken for decision making and made in the past on that.

It's non-compliant with today's variants, but um yeah, it's uh it wasn't a I think a what was thought to be an understanding that it would be removed because of the new building was not the case from what we understand right now.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you.

So with respect to uh 315, um this is the the issue for me is is um uh more in terms of process on building permits, renewable building permits.

And when we see the trends, I think we need to, I'm not quite sure how how to do this, but I would really hope the staff would have a really serious look at the building approval process, occupancy process, when we start seeing instances like this where everything's getting rejected, that the inspections are failing, and things are dragging out too long.

And there should be um a mechanism for staff to proactively address it.

And you know, you have some authority at this moment.

It seems like you have no authority and that you're you're powerless to to bring about effective change um other than waiting for these rejections and hoping that the uh the occup uh occupant will you know occupy build a homeowner builder will resolve these things and we certainly have seen instances um back in march where that really ran away to be a major problem so can we do something about regaining some power and res and um confidence of the community staff are acting and and are empowered by the building bylaw, which is completely within council's purview.

So we can we can tighten up the building bylaw.

Is that what you're saying?

You can tighten up any bylaw you wish.

Yeah.

So I I I think that's that's perfect.

I would move that um uh the staff bring back the building by law uh with the specific instances of um the one that we had, I can't remember the address back in March, uh, this particular instance, so that when um housing construction is exceeding a particular point in time that red flags are are happening that staff that we have the power you in the bylaw to bring it um you know to address the problem.

So um I move that step, bring back the building by law with recommendations that would get tightened up without these kind of situations happening again, my motion.

Okay, recommendation to councillor rog.

Just that at a future committee of the whole meeting we bring back the building permit for discussion.

Okay.

Um as councilman said, I move that uh the building permit process come back to uh council committee of the whole for review and consideration of uh these kind of in issues.

Bring them back for discussion.

Fair enough.

I would support that if you were open to a friendly amendment to include occupation permit.

Okay, so moved.

So again, second.

And I'll I'll motivate a little bit.

I think a lot of the challenges right now are people moving into places that are under construction or haven't completed construction.

And um that's where my real concern lies because now there's liabilities.

We're just reading that the city of Vancouver have uh several on the go.

Uh some of them were with new small-scale multi-unit housing, and they did the variances, but BC Hydro came along and said they're too close to the power lots, so they all have to be demolished.

Um and the other one uh was somebody who started out building a gazebo that turned into another house.

So again, it's this added on, added on thing that in today's real estate and uh expensive housing market, I guess uh we shouldn't be surprised with.

But I I'd be happy to support if we include both um building permit uh and uh occupancy.

Yeah uh so we need to vote on that.

All those in favor of that.

Any oppose, seeing that oppose motion carries.

Was that clear, Jeff?

That motion that we want to take a look at the next council of the whole or one in the in the near future that we could kind of have an overview from my perspective, maybe a jurisdictional scan.

Are we on the money with other municipalities in uh in the application of uh of our occupancy and and um and building permits?

But thank you chef um ivan i think it's back to you transportation master plan engagement primer thank you mayor to buyas ivan the young director of engineering uh yes this is an engagement primer and the reason why is because transportation is a topic that council will hear quite often this year um staff and council have heard that traffic congestion is a uh main uh priority and issue of concern to the public and that we didn't even hear that as part of our transstation master plan engagement yet that was done as part of the OCP.

So uh there is a little bit of intertwine intertwining between um our transstation master plan and the OCP, and what we want to do is to provide uh some basic ideas for council so that when uh they get when you get uh questions from your constituents about translation master planning, that uh you have uh a basic idea of what we're doing and how it's different from the OCP and how it's also uh cooperating with the OCP.

So council uh will recall that we have uh three phases of engagement based on the terms of reference.

Phase one being the community understanding issues and opportunities.

I like to call that the now, figuring out what's going on now.

Phase two is the key directions and plan framework.

Um, I like to call that the wow.

And phase three, which is the draft translation master plan, which discusses priorities, uh provides recommendations, and that I like to call it the how.

You'll hear me see here, you'll hear me say the now all high how quite often throughout this journey.

But in the meantime, we are embarking on phase one.

Uh so in the reports, it's the first table.

Uh, round one is the online survey and mapping tool, which is expected to take place from October to early November 2025.

And that's very, very strategic because uh development services is uh working on, I believe, the Western Gateway Corridor engagement right now, and then later on in the year they'll be working on transportation policy.

So Director Taylor and I have uh consulted upon each other to determine when we are expected to do engagement, and then we've we've made some slight adjustments to make sure that one uh that we leverage what's heard from each other as part of our projects.

And two, that we don't want to go through, or we don't want our constituents to have engagement fatigue, which is quite often can happen when there is a lot of engagement.

So what we're planning on doing is to uh take what we've heard so far uh from the OCP as part of transportation issues, and um the OCP may draw from our phase one engagement uh as part of their of their uh transportation policy uh to hear from what we what we've heard.

So um you'll see in the schedule that uh round one is a survey and mapping tool, which is predominantly virtual.

Round two is a combination of virtual and in person, and round three is uh we're looking at more an overarching um open house community pop-ups and a survey as well.

So again, uh the dates here uh for round two and round three, they are approximate.

And the reason why is because there's a chance that uh OCP and translation master planning um our schedules may change through time.

We do have set schedules and we are cognizant that it can change depending on what we hear from the public and you know what council may have to say.

Uh throughout the course of this project, we will present to council what we've heard from the community and to kind of hear from council uh whether we're on the right track or not, and what else they may um wish to hear in the future.

But essentially this that's the the the purpose of the primary is just to give you a basic idea of what we'll be doing for the next year um this recommendation is for the staff report to be received and we are you know we can entertain additional comments or ideas uh cognizant that sometimes it may cause a scope change and uh have budget implications but I'd said I'm happy to take questions or comments to uh bring forward to our consultant thank you uh question for me uh Ivan is uh I know it's was valuable for Leanne to have a second set of eyes that are focused on the issue in this case transportation, but for the OCP and particularly the OCP surveys, uh, just to have citizens look that over and litmus test is the and it's not just questions about content.

Is it too long?

Is it repetitive?

Is it you know what's what's the entire plan here?

Um, do you was there an intention to use the OCP committee for that role for uh because of the overlap uh for the transportation master plan?

Uh yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

That was a conversation that uh we've had with uh development services and director Taylor, and uh the decision was to not bring forward a survey to the OCP committee.

Uh the reason being is that um Transportation Master Planning is a very, very focused conversation.

Very it's a lot more in the detail.

And the fear is that by bringing it forward to that community, that that committee, um, it may detract from the OCP overall uh deliberations.

So we've decided to kind of have a step take a step back from that and um to essentially hear back from council as to uh taking the, you know, for example, uh you know, I I I took a lot of interest in the previous council and deliberating about the survey questions and you know the content and along how long things were.

And so that's we're certainly taking that and um and bringing those concerns forward to our consultants so that uh when we do the surveys that it uh kind of matches the the needs and values of council thanks uh we'll go with counselor rogers and counselor moxic please yeah yes thank you um you know it um i hearken back to um the uh terms of reference uh report that um uh staff had presented to council back in january 2021st uh this year and um then uh the terms of reference was very clear on on the um transportation objectives engage with the public establish visions supporting objectives create town wide traffic model um establish targets, uh a roadway cross section designs, infrastructure implementation, monitoring, and evaluation so um um there is a lot that we are trying to accomplish here concurrently with an OCP that we've now tailored dramatically since January.

So we we no longer are doing um at this point because the province has decreed that we had to get this done in too quick a time to get 44 and 47 done.

So the rest, all we're doing is is focusing in on the Western Gateway.

But we also have an OCP that predicts um six-story buildings with an FRS 2.5 uh all up and down the island highway.

So the I guess my question to staff is the modeling that we're going to have in a transportation master plan that's supposed to be out there for you know, is good for 10 10 years, how are we going to be able to create um a flexible modeling um prediction methodology that we can adapt to and and say okay we've got um 44 um buildings FSR 2.5, 2.

you know whatever, you know, that's basically going to create gridlock, going to change the signalization of this town along the island highway.

How are we going to build a system that says warning warning level of service F.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

It's a that's a $200,000 question.

If I do have the answer to that, I wouldn't have to hire a consultant to do it for me.

Also at the same time, though, uh decisions that council made early in the year actually benefited the transportation master plan in the sense that uh by um accelerating um the OCP to move forward to have other phases move faster than what was initially proposed, uh our model can be more predictive in the sense that we have more data at hand to create a model that is indicative of what we've heard not only from the public but also from um the um from the strategic direction that uh the drive and services will be um embarking as part of this phase two that they're doing.

So, long story short, uh in terms of flexibility of the model, um, the model uh can be flexible.

It does utilize other data, not just interview role, it's also extra uh from the region.

So, in terms of what happens within VROL, it only plays a small part compared to what else is going on around the region.

Um, so that and the fact that council has uh has agreed to make some pivots early on in the year has um significantly helped our uh transportation master plan journey.

Yeah.

If if I could just pick up another point, your worship.

Um and uh I I agree.

Um, one of the benefits that we've had this Saturday was meeting a whole bunch of um enthusiastic volunteers in a variety of capacities.

And um Council Match and I, actually, it was Council Mattson that introduced me to the Transportation Advisory Committee.

It was powerful, it was remarkable.

We had uh years of astonishing um uh individuals in the community who cared about the traffic, who cared about the neighborhood and cared about how they got around town.

And this is a perfect time to um uh for if we're not going to dovetail this with the OCP Advisory Committee, that there should be a mayor's task force um called the Transportation Master Plan Advisory Committee.

There should be a task force.

There should be a uh a group of individuals that are going to be working alongside for the community and helping to assess um uh community's input and and both in terms of the materials, the considerations, and bringing um information.

So I would move that uh the mayor consider creating a task force uh for the uh mass transportation master plan.

Uh I I would uh one of the things that the volunteers brought up that I think has relevance, Ivan uh because there's lots of experience out there, some of them retired transportation planners, um uh is the opportunity to do uh micro volunteering.

Like send me your documents, send me your survey, send me your chapter.

I'll review and get back to you.

No, I'm not going to a meeting at town hall, uh, but I'll provide you feedback in the in the in the workups.

Those those are the things that i think uh folks are looking at and i'm gonna have to take this yeah you wait some uh talking people yes yes so so we heard from the the the um the volunteers on saturday um there's a a variety of ways that we can resource those individuals and um so i'm hoping that the mayor will uh consider creating a task force that uh will assist the town um i gather the the dead this all ends in July 2026 uh it is whatever the um schedule was in the previous it is is there any problem, uh Steph, with um having a uh an advice advisory um committee to assist us.

Uh yeah, um acting chair.

I uh it's okay for me to call you that.

Um yeah, acting chair.

Uh there are um I could, you know, I'm hearing the benefits from council with respect to having members of the public uh who are passionate about transportation to take a look at some of our um engaged materials before going out to engagement.

And uh the top of my head, you know, there are risks.

Uh if I also look at scope schedule, budget, uh schedule and budget come to mind um with respect to uh the timing it takes to create a subcommittee.

Um the additional ideas while innovative, uh perhaps can be redundant in nature with the engagement that we're doing because there is a whole schedule of engagement that we're doing.

So, you know, uh one survey may be the uh forming and storming part of the like engagement process.

And then as we go further down into the uh engagement process to more focused um conversation with certain groups, um, you know, that could be at a time where some interested parties can be part of there.

But you know, that that will be like the norming performing part, right?

So uh if we were to look at the kind of the group dynamics, the question I'd have to ask council is um are there are we creating a redundant service?

So I do have uh a couple questions.

First, uh this is as we get more traffic coming onto the island highway or Helmlicken, uh, you know, with various developments, whether it be townhouses or three or four story condos, could we look at just having right in and right out because when we start allowing left in and left outs, it it's it's going to be a nightmare, especially the more and more um buildings we, you know, higher density we have on there, because as it is, I don't see how some of the new buildings we have or people are ever going to get be able to turn left onto island highway, for example uh so so that's one thing I don't know if if you'll be looking at the at that issue uh yeah um and it's a good question uh uh counselor master through through Mayor Tobias um no the details of what can happen in a specific area is it can typically be done um outside of a master plan the reason why I say that because is because a master plan provides a whole suite of ideas uh not necessarily one and so what the master plan can do is provide policy for us to administer right in right out in the future.

Um that said, as part of the engagement process, I'm sure that if we keep hearing this from the public that you know driveways in and out are very, very difficult.

I want to see more right in right out.

That is certainly something that will be that uh our team will listen to and and and uh include in our translation master plan from a policy perspective, maybe even for a design perspective.

Uh but we're trying to not get we're trying not to make assumptions right now as to what people think, and we really want to know what they what they know to be important.

As long as it gets looked at somewhere along, not only in my area, the mayor's area, but even Allison's area.

But my other question I have, and this is specific to the mayor's mayor's area.

I received some complaints from people, and they're already talking, they live near the Helmaken and Burnside area, and they say it takes half an hour to get around a corner.

And so for these people, and they think once the spire gets built, it it's gonna be much worse.

So these people, I'm wondering if there's an input opportunity.

What is the opportunity for them to provide first off input into their concerns and suggested recommendations into the process?

And so if you could let me know that I'd I'd be happy to provide that information back to them.

Absolutely.

I mean, this is the perfect avenue for doing this.

This is a good um primer is this document is kind of something where I kind of wish that council would say, Hey, here's a document.

It's like a one pager.

So it's it's only it's two pages, but so four in total, but only two are really relevant.

Um, so uh to answer your question to answer Councilor Masterson's question directly, the uh phase one community understanding issues and opportunities would be the perfect primer for residents to tell us what's important to them and where they see issues.

And so the online survey and mapping tool, the the the important thing being the mapping tool is going to be a tool that uh that residents can use to point this is where I see a concern.

And that would be a good early start to our journey through transportation management, understanding where the issues are.

Uh, and that again is in October, early November 2025.

So in the next month or so.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Ivan, the I I think our transportation master plan, you hinted on this at the beginning, that I I think in the past we've focused on View Royal's input into the traffic in View Royal.

And uh it's the traffic the we're we're building like crazy.

Um Callwood just doubled its numbers for occupancy.

Uh Saanich is doing the same, Langford's doing the same.

Um we don't necessarily have all the solutions here for everybody else's traffic.

So I think in in order to be real about this, we need to paint the concept uh, because I live right across from Aspire.

Will Aspire make the the traffic worse?

Absolutely.

So will every other apartment building along West Burnside uh for the next 10 years make it worse.

And I all I'm saying is that we need to communicate that to the public as well, is that this this is gonna create the or or contribute to the problem, but it's not the only contribution to the problem at all.

And uh we just need to be real with our population and they understand it right now, that um that it's it's uh most of traffic going through View Royal is not uh coming from or necessarily going to a destination in View Royal, it's going through View Royal.

Um, but but I just like to have that as part of our package too, that we understand.

I think Councilor Lemon and then Councillor Brown.

I was actually gonna make a motion that we um move staff's recommendation.

I think it looks good.

Okay.

Counselor Brown, did you have a point?

Well, no, you said it much better than me, Mayor Tobias.

Uh but your point was exactly what I was going to get at.

If we're not working with the other municipalities, what's the point?

Wait till that triangle property behind the casino gets built by by call of 31 multi-story buildings going in there.

Can you imagine the traffic going on to Whale Road from that?

It's going to be horrendous.

So unless we're working with the other municipalities, we can have the best traffic plan in the in the world.

And it's not going to help unless we's got a motion to approve um staff's recommendation.

We got a seconder.