Council Meeting

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

We'll call the council meeting to order at 7 o'clock.

We have four members of council here in chambers tonight, and councillor John Rogers is joining us via Microsoft Teams.

So I just will begin the meeting by acknowledging our friends and neighbors, the Songhees and the Esquimalt Nation.

This meeting is being held under the auspices of Ministerial Order M192 due to the COVID 19 pandemic and the public health officers' orders.

This evening we will hear from the public during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, the number is on your screen.

You dial 778 402 9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID number 318 013 59 pound.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will ask you to announce the last four digits of your phone number.

To please mute your live webcast to avoid feedback, to not use speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

You'll be able to give us the name your name and address for the record and then give us the benefit of your views.

If you're providing comments through the chat feature, that feature is open also during public participation and question period.

And again, we would ask you to provide your name and address.

This meeting will be recorded.

By participating in this webcast, you are consenting to being recorded, and this recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

On the public participation tonight, I gather that we may have had some communications regarding 298 Island Highway.

And council is not in a position to receive those communications, so staff will hold those until after this meeting.

And also under public participation on both the telephone and the chat feature, we are unable to take any further communication on the 298 Island Highway issue because the public hearing for that has passed.

I had a couple of emails this last week from people who who seemed upset that they were unable to get through last week, but it it seemed like what was happening was that they were trying to call in at the time that their issue on the agenda was discussed.

And that's just not the way it works.

Even if the public was here in person, you would not be able to speak to your issue when it's on the agenda.

The public participation is right up front on the agenda, and that is the public's opportunity.

So please make sure you phone in at that time or use the chat feature at that time to get your comments through to us.

Having said that, tonight on the development permit for West Park Lane, there is a section directly under that where the public is invited to speak.

Second.

And so with all that, I'm going to ask for a motion to approve the agenda, please.

So moved.

Thank you.

So moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And public participation is going to come up very fast here for anyone who's thinking of calling in.

Now would be a good time.

And then we have minutes from April the 6th.

Approvals moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

Any comments, corrections?

No.

All in favor?

Opposed?

That's carried.

I have no mayor's report.

There's no petitions and delegations.

So we are at public participation.

Staff, are there any callers on the line?

Your worship, we have Lee calling in with the last four digits 7712.

Okay, thank you.

So caller with the last four digits 7712.

This is your opportunity to speak.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, and staff.

Lee Critchley here.

Um we would like to ask for review for adjusted application for 335 Stewart.

That's the address I'm calling with pertaining.

Uh we've adjusted our application to address many of the concerns that were expressed by council at our last meeting.

We've removed the bus stop lounge from the application completely.

We've adjusted the storage unit plans to reflect what we'd like to build and adjusted the size, the semi-enclosed size to 13 square meters.

And we had some of the council and staff over to visibly see it.

And I we believe it would be viewed in a more favorable light at this point in time.

Clear anyhow.

So we're we're motioning to ask, or we're asking if it could be motioned to be to be reviewed or application.

Okay, thank you.

Seeing as you won't be able to join us later, I'm just gonna ask members of council if they have any questions while we have you on the phone.

Okay, why this how is this coming up?

No, it's not on the agenda anymore.

It is, there's a letter from them on the agenda.

Under but it's it's not up for discussion in terms of it.

It's not up for discussion now.

I'm just inviting them because in in case there's any questions that they you know, because they can't chime in later, but it is on the agenda under 9.2a.

Yeah, I know.

Okay.

Okay, Councillor Lemmon?

Yeah, quick.

Um just a question, Lee.

Thank you for calling in.

Um I went be for the first iteration of your proposal.

And how how I'm I'm I'm trying to um visualize how the dock and storage area would be different.

Is is it noticeably smaller?

Is that what you're yes?

Hello?

Oh yeah I'm still here sorry I just I your screen just got large and I could see you're still talking so I stopped I'm not talking about lag okay sorry I'm seeing a lag in the video it's throwing me off my bad um yes it is smaller we've adjusted the plans, the drawing plans to reflect the fact that we uh we're trying to enclose a much smaller area than the foot, uh the semi-enclosed area for security, as mentioned before.

A smaller area than was the um this the actual roof line.

Um so that is what we've adjusted on it.

Uh also we've taken the up since it was the application was combined with another building, we've removed that building right off uh the application form.

And we've explored different options for as mentioned, I believe, by yourself with regards to the birds.

Uh we explored two different options, one with the film and one with uh retractable uh darkened shade on the front, which I think is probably the the course that we're thinking would be the wisest with regards for the the birds.

Okay, good.

Thank you very much.

No problem.

I apologize for that.

Yeah, so I think everybody else is good.

So thank you for calling in, and we will be discussing it later in the agenda.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Staff, are there any other callers on the line?

We do have another caller, not sure if it's related to the same topic with the last four digits five four nine three.

Caller with the last four digits five four nine three.

This is your opportunity to speak if you would like to comment.

Did you say no comments?

No comments at this time.

Okay, thank you very much.

No, your worship, not at this time.

Are there any other caller stuff?

Okay, thank you.

And are there any people on the chat feature, Jennifer?

Thank you, Mayor Screech.

There are no chat comments this evening.

Okay, thank you very much.

So I'm gonna close public participation.

And we are going to move right into 8.1A, which is the West Park Lane Development Permit.

Staff.

Hello.

Is anybody out there?

Hi, sorry, this is a Jeff Chow Senior Planner.

I just turned my camera and microphone on here.

So I'm going to share the presentation right now.

This is the uh development permit application for 1950 West Park Lane.

This is phase three of the uh of the uh the uh development for uh comprehensive development for this property.

It's composed of 15 units of duplexes and triplexes.

One variance is requested.

So the background is this property was rezoned to permit a total of 350 units, including the CRD housing project at 1910, 1920 West Park Lane, and access for this site to West Park Lane is through an easement over that over that property.

The proposal is for 15 residential units in six buildings.

And the buildings would be uh be residential in character, uh very similar to the uh previous phases, uh, with the difference of this one that uh that um uh cultured stone uh facing will be provided, which provides a it's a higher uh higher quality material, provides variation as well.

Uh this is the landscape plan for the site.

Uh basically, this also shows that there are some um additional parking spaces that uh that exceed the parking uh requirements because there is no uh parking on north park lane or on this uh private driveway to follow up comments from the uh March coming to the hall meeting uh building and the building in the corner uh was cited to maintain a separation from the Fetus Lake Regional Park because that's where the uh the main walkway and and kind of driveway to the uh to the beach area is and this provides extra separation.

Uh there's no there's a pad mounted transformer located at uh near building Q no rooftop mechanical equipment is proposed uh units will have individual solid waste and recycling bins rather than a centralized um solid waste station uh there was a question about whether there could be access to the um green space from this um from this site but uh it's it's sort of quite too steep for stairs and there may be a possibility of some informal access along the rear of building O, but uh it will depend on how the final uh cut works.

Um all surface space parking spaces are at least 5.5 meters as required by the zoning bylaw and whilst some headlights as far as exiting development uh will likely shine into towards the the building in 1910 West Park Lane the uh there are trees adjacent to the building that will provide some screening at this point they're quite small but in time they will grow up to to uh 20 30 feet high uh consideration of this application is based on how it meets the development permit guidelines the zoning requirements and meeting online on the on-site servicing requirements.

The proposal generally meets the uh performing character guidelines west coast treatment west coast uh style, cementitious materials.

It's got mullioned windows so they're broken up into smaller panes, but to sort of break up the size of the windows and provide more kind of definition and detail at at the street level.

There are extensively glazed entry doors and windowed garage doors that create a more kind of an open look to the to the buildings.

The buildings follow the central driveway and that's the site's basically been is working on a process of terraforming the site and the driveway um is kind of the main kind of access to all these all these buildings so so the buildings are aligned along that driveway as it goes up the slope.

Lighting will be dark skies friendly LED which provides good directed illumination and in this case would be located on the inside of the driveway that's furthest away from Fetus Lake Park.

The site is also within the sensitive terrestrial ecosystems development permit area and a lot of items have already been addressed in sort of larger scale development permits that that address uh environmental impact and sort of uh minimizing impact on natural vegetation in the area, uh mitigation measures for steep slopes because some cutting into the uh and a lot of blasting and grading has been uh necessary to make that driveway work, and also to uh address interface fire hazard management so that uh so that buildings, for example, need to be kept kept have a 10-meter radius clear of uh of uh of potential fire fuel, and there would be uh fire resistant kind of um cladding and roofing as well as enclosed metal soffits and interiors of the buildings, they would also be sprinklered.

Uh the proposal meets the uh zoning requirements, except in one uh one respect, and that is how height is measured.

In this case, the proposal is to measure the height from the finished grade as designated on the plans rather than natural grade.

And that is a result of the extent of work that has been done to make this a buildable site.

This site section here, the first site section shows building the along the driveway O, N, and M, how the in some places there are filling, in some places there's cutting.

But the intent here is to create some level building sites and you sort of see them step up along the hill, which is what the what the uh development generally supports.

And they and most of the buildings will be fairly level uh with the driveway so that all the driveway, all the surface driveway parking spaces will meet the six percent grade required in the zoning bylaws you'll get no issues with either um you know cars uh nice high century I think it's called or or doors swinging open this is another section that was provided after the coming to the whole meeting that shows this um so it's a section from building N across the driveway and this one shows how the um some of the retaining walls uh are terraced, so they meet height requirements.

Also, you don't so that you don't end up with uh many steep retaining walls.

In terms of surfacing, uh surfacing the the main connection for the for the site was approved as part of the master development permit.

Uh this further work has been done to confirm that this phase will be consistent with the uh loads for stormwater and sewer.

Um what they found in this case that there will be additional storm scepter added at this phase so that uh to deal with stormwater management for this and and the future fight uh future phases four, five, and six.

The recommendation is to approve the development permit and to approve the variants to measure uh building height from finished grade uh rather than existing grade and uh that a number of the development permit conditions also be approved and those are to um to clarify that that environmental impacts and slope impacts and interface fire have its rollover from previous development permits that security deposits from the uh from the overall uh development permit apply to the site as well um that landscaping will comply with uh with with the BCSLA BC NTA standards.

And finally, to clarify that because there are some steep rock cuts, uh there are uh there may be a need to sort of do some retention that you don't never know until you start the work.

But this development does not authorize any retaining walls over 1.2 meters in height.

If there are, they'll they'll have to come back to council, in which case typically you would look at covenants to ensure they're engineered and that there's a schedule for um for maintenance and safety inspection.

That concludes the report.

Okay, thank you, Jeff.

Counselor Matson.

Yes, thank you.

Um so did I hear you say that the driveways will be 5.5 meters long at a minimum?

Um for you, your mayor, that's correct.

So a number of them act have driveways that are quite longer than that, uh, but 5.5 is the minimum.

So my question is, is 5.5 meters long enough to deal with like a Dameon truck?

In most cases, 5.5 meters is 18 feet, and that accommodates the vast majority of vehicles.

There are some trucks that are longer than that, like a long bed truck with a but uh with hope that the property owner would sort of look at that as part of uh before they purchase that vehicle or purchasing to this site.

In this case, the driveway is uh is a private driveway, so ultimately it would be up to the strata corporation to enforce if there is a instance where where driveway spaces are uh blocking sort of uh sidewalk access along the driveway the side sidewalk's only on one side of the street um and it's certainly something that uh it's it's really obvious that somebody has an oversized vehicle okay so basically like the way it's set up is we'd require or this it'd be up to the strata what they allow or don't allow the driveway spaces yeah actually comply with the parking spaces we have throughout the town so the five point five meters is the standard.

Okay.

Thank you staff anymore that's good on my left.

Questions?

No, I don't think i have questions of staff.

Thank you.

Counselor Rogers uh yes, please um a few.

Your mayor.

The zoning bylaw doesn't prohibit them other than they have to meet setback requirements.

In this case, all the buildings are set quite well back from the property line.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Another question.

You mentioned the um unit or section block N and uh the terraced walls.

Um now those terrace walls I assume are going to be along the property line of uh of the park and could be um if I'm if I recall I remember seeing something at these blocks and uh they seem to be quite incongruent and inconsistent with the the park naturescape.

Is there any um efforts the town requires or maybe the applicant intends to uh beautify or screen those um blocks industrial blocks uh through you your mayor those uh those would be um those would be boulder stacked uh walls and they would be screened from the park by the by the landscape plan which calls for uh vegetative screening along the property line shared with the park.

Okay, thank you.

Uh you listed uh some good uh fire management, risk management uh hazards.

Um uh I'm wondering are it does the building code allow the applicant to also include the roof sprinklers as well as fire resistant materials.

Um through uh through you through you, um streamer.

Um I'm actually I I can't quite I don't know the answer to uh to whether it would comply with the building code, but uh whatever is built, there would have to comply with the code.

So yeah, and and uh you remember, of course, we had the uh nasty Mill Hill fire that um that fortunately view all in the other fire departments managed to contain, uh, but being right adjacent to Thetis Lake and and just across the road from Mill Hill.

Um it um maybe I could pose the question to the applicant, uh, but it seems like that would be a good idea.

Um thank you for uh the information and uh details about providing screening for 1910 um the CRD housing.

Hopefully uh the CRD would chip in and um purchase larger trees so that that uh visual impact of headlights at nighttime coming down the hill would be uh minimized, and hopefully they'll work with the applicant too, or in that regard.

Thank you, worship.

That's all the questions.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Mattson.

Yes, thank you, Staff.

You just mentioned didn't mentioning sprinklers, I'm just curious as to when does our sprinkler bylaw kick in?

What size of building and does that does it cover stratas?

It has to have internal sprinklers.

Yeah.

So just I was talking about rooftop sprinklers.

Oh okay.

Yeah.

Which I'm I'm that's correct, Staff, right?

I mean obviously this will be internally string splinker, sprinklered.

But Counselor Rogers is referring to a rooftop sprinkling.

Yeah, through you um through you, your worship.

Uh there is a uh there was a fire safe study done for the for the site and it didn't require them as as part of the uh what they felt was appropriate to this site, but uh it's certainly something that can always be looked into, but uh was not stated as a requirement as part of um interface fire management for this site.

But but all multifamily have uh a sprinkler requirements, yeah.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay.

Yeah, and I I'm presuming our fire chief has seen this and signed off on it as well, as as with any other application process.

Um so moving on, we have um comments from the applicant if they would like to.

Is is the applicant on the line?

Your worship.

Uh yes, your worship.

Sorry.

If you can hear me, uh it's Mike Breyer.

I am on the line.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you, Mike.

Hello.

Hi.

Okay, great.

Uh no, we we s we stand by uh staff and and uh Jeff Chow's comments.

Um uh we've worked you know long and hard as usual with uh with staff on on the application and uh um I really um I'm here for questions I suppose, but uh no particular comments at this point.

Okay, thank you.

So I think Councillor Lemon.

Hi, Mike.

The strata aspect.

Just a couple of questions.

Will this be a distinct strata or will it be part of a larger strata?

This will be part uh the all the townhomes in the town uh and the condos will be part of one strata that would stand on its loan.

So they'll all be uh working hands together.

So it's one strata at at uh at this point.

Okay, so future future townhomes will be joined with these ones uh in in a strata, correct?

That's correct, yeah good um second question uh um space it does does each unit and and i think it does but i'm just trying to visualize each unit has its own um green space yes yeah well in in the front yard and also in the backyard yes there'll be uh that will be their own green space that uh and they're they're quite substantial backyards because well if you look at block in, it's it's it's very very significant, but um all the other ones are a minimum of 10 meters, which is um significantly larger than what we had at uh Petiscale.

Yes.

Great, thank you.

Oh, and and just one one more.

Um the future that phase six is to be more townhomes.

Will that be more or less that that will be is more like these, correct?

More like why, I'm sorry.

Um when phase six is to be more more of the same, am I right?

Yeah, phase six will be more of the same.

Just to let you know, um the idea here is to get phase three, you know, along the way, and we should be in relatively soon with phase four, which would be the condo development.

It sits over top of the little play park with homewood construction as we're kind of holding hands together on that, and they'll be our builders.

So we'd like to get going on those particular that that that condo development.

And phase six, those townhomes will in fact be the last buildings to get developed because we need to provide parking for all the trades.

We don't want them parking down in Venus Lake and causing havoc with everybody.

So we're going to create a big parking lot up there for um for all the trades for uh construction of phase four and also of phase six I'm sorry phase five so phase six will those townhomes will be contiguous with the rest of the townhome developments but they'll be at the very end of the project so it's it's something we can provide parking for those trades up there.

Okay got it thank you counselor rogers did you have any questions for the applicant?

Yes please uh hi Mike um the uh you mentioned the the parking.

It sounds like a good idea to have a phase six is the parking for tradespeople of five and four.

Um and as you know when when we had in the Choco phases uh five and six, maybe seven, uh you know, the residents, existing residents had expressed concerns of of speeding and and uh keeping the speed down for the tradespeople.

Um I'm assuming you'll apply the same logic and and request of these people for existing homeowners as they move in.

Yes, that's exactly right.

Yes.

Yeah, great.

Um and uh I I'm also hoping that maybe you could reach out to the CRD nineteen ten and encourage the CRD to help you uh fund the significant trees to help the uh screening of of car lights as they come down the hill.

Yes.

Uh uh Council Roger, that's been a a a a a relatively lengthy discussion with myself and uh Stephen Henderson at CRD and and with Seymour and my understanding um the seeing that we stepped out of that project and you know at a certain point was that Seymour was to provide adequate screening coming down the hill for um um for those residents that that that face that.

I it was concerned.

We talked at at length several times.

Um so I you know, I I uh I really I'm not sure if it's adequate today.

Hopefully it will be adequate, you know, soon when these, you know, the trees and vegetation grows up, but it's kinda out of my hands.

Um and it was in the hands of CRD and Seymour and also staff, I suppose, to a point, but um there there was supposed to be some plantings in there to help alleviate alleviate that concern.

Yeah, thank you for the explanation.

I appreciate your help on it.

Okay.

Okay, so I'm gonna close off uh that portion and it's excuse me.

It's now time for comments from the public.

Um, so if there's any public that would like to comment, this is your opportunity, either through the chat feature or through the telephone.

Do we have any callers on the line, staff?

And do we have anyone on the chat feature?

Uh, your worship, we do not have any new callers, no.

Okay, thank you.

We have no chat comments uh right now, Mayor Squeech.

Thank you.

And there's no correspondence.

So if someone's prepared to move staff's recommendation.

Okay, so Councillor Mattson has moved staff's recommendation.

Councillor Lemmon has seconded it.

Comments, thoughts?

Mike owes me for being so gracious on this one.

Yeah, I'm sure he'll yeah, anyhow.

So moved, yeah.

Seconded.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

Thank you, staff.

Thank you, Mr.

Beyer.

So moving on to committee of the whole recommendations, we have I'll move one to five.

You're gonna do them as a block.

Okay, sure.

Thank you.

So one to five would be moved by Councillor Matson.

Seconded by second counselor koalowich.

Okay, any comments?

No.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

We have minutes from West Shore, March the 11th.

Motion to receive.

I'll I'll make that motion.

Moved by Councillor Kowalowicz.

I'll second.

Seconded by Councillor Lemon.

Any questions?

I do have a question.

Just uh in terms of the uh skateboard park.

Now I read this one and I thought they received a the large grant of 100%, but and there was another grant, but maybe you could just clarify what exactly they're getting and and confirm that they're never coming back to us for more money.

Uh through the chair.

We were unsuccessful in receiving the grant that was applied for.

And my understanding is that the West Shore Parks and Rec staff are currently seeking uh an alternate grant right now.

Um so that's that's where we're at.

We're waiting on that second application.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, no confirmation on the other part.

Well, certainly I've expressed the views of our council that you know we're um probably at a at a good sum already and that we we there may not be much more interest in contributing more money yeah thank you everybody else is good uh just a question your worship go ahead yes um uh maybe a question to uh uh Damien the is the swim classes that they're offering do we know that if they're providing uh safe boating, uh swimming, so that if individuals, particularly children, are on boats that they will know how to swim to survive.

I I don't know that answer, Counselor rogers.

I know i can i can tell you that I had a conversation with the aquatics director on Monday.

Uh they're offering more lessons to children.

Uh they're um trying to accommodate as many as they can.

There's very long wait lists.

Uh they're offering some socially distanced group classes and then also one-on-one individual classes.

Speaking from experience with my own children, uh, from perusing the uh catalog, I didn't notice any specific courses relating to boats.

Um I can find out and get back to you.

Okay, that would be great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, I'm gonna call the question.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

So next we have 9.1A, which is the letter from the View Royal Elementary PAC president regarding the town potentially contributing towards their shortfall on their new playground.

I'll move one half of the remaining amount.

So councillor Matson is moving 50% of their remaining amount, which is seven thousand dollars basically.

Okay.

Um go ahead, Ron.

Um I would just remind you, anyways, it's I don't want to pay the particularly pay the whole thing.

I think over the years, I think we've contributed to the playground a number of times, unless I'm I I'm mistaken.

And uh with the 15,286 or whatever it is, I think by us contributing half of that shows that the you know to the community that we're we're happy to participate because it's a great playground used by not only our kids but private school kids but also other kids and still gives them a an incentive to work towards um the other seven thousand and something dollars.

So I yeah, I have because I just said seven thousand when you made that motion, but I guess the shortfall is actually fifteen thousand two hundred.

So it'd be what about half of six hundred, yeah.

Okay, Damien.

I was just gonna ask, you know, I recall providing funding to V Royal for the Nature Playground, and then didn't we also just provide some funding to Eagle View for their playground as well?

Yeah.

I was wondering what the totals were on that if we have it, and just to make sure that we're uh I mean we don't need to get specific.

I just uh I worry that I mean it's seems like it's becoming a reoccurring thing here.

Um and it didn't come in the other grants and aid requests.

I don't know if staff would have the eagle view quickly.

I mean, we did the same thing with them.

They wrote and we we actually uh they had considerable amount of funding from the province or the school board or something, and we actually topped up what was left, the whole amount.

Is my recollection.

And I think that was quite a bit more than this.

Okay.

Okay.

Don, do you have any recollection of that?

I'm sorry, your worship, I wouldn't be able to confirm that with any fair any uh level of of a hundred percent accuracy or even close.

Yeah by memory.

Fair enough.

Nonetheless I'm comfortable with half as well.

Councillor Lemmon?

Yeah I just to comment and and uh you know this school is in my neighborhood and I you know, been to that playground often and suddenly it was gone.

And I think it's a real shame that um such an important amenity for children just to play um disappeared without any plans any plans in place to um replace it and this pack in the school and the school community have worked very hard um through bottle drives and various other initiatives to raise the money so I'm I'm happy to support um half of what they need councillor Rogers uh yes I certainly in support of the motion and perhaps um the playground particularly swings could be done in a modular way that um one half the the traditional swings could be installed, and the other portion, the um what's the word um complete access swing set, whatever you want to call it, uh might be a second portion.

They could do all the framing and uh then put that in, pie for that later.

Um I'm also not clear of whether they had uh done much canvassing with the local businesses, and maybe with uh the monies that the council puts in, the other local businesses would be happy to uh help out some more.

Yeah, they've they've certainly done very well on their fundraising, I think, so far, and they have chosen their design.

Um so I mean I have no problem with supporting it, but I do think it should be contingent on us knowing that the playground is proceeding.

That would be my only comment that we but that we know that the playground is being installed, um, or that they have the the everything in place before we release the money.

I I think it's a I find it kind of amazing that the school board mandates that these old playgrounds has have to be ripped out and doesn't offer any, from what I can see, any funding to replace them, um, which seems like a real shame, and puts it all on the pack to go forward.

And and that's not always the case because in the Eagle View case, these the province actually contributed a large sum of money.

Um, so I don't completely understand how they work, but yeah, if I may, your worship.

My um my understanding of that, you're right.

I'm not sure how it worked that um they uh removed the uh the swing sets.

Maybe it was such a uh hazard or a safety issue.

But my understanding with School District One is that they would um uh this would all be part of a five-year capital plan uh for replacement, but I don't think the school district knows where uh V Well sits on the list, and and they're under great duress at this point for um meeting their budget as it is.

Right.

Well, hopefully the PAC can um fundraise for the rest of the funds.

So okay, so I'm gonna call the question.

Just wonder if we could give them Ryan's number.

All in favor.

Opposed, carried.

So the next one, I think is likely for receipt.

I think we should write a letter.

I think so too.

I think so too.

It's because there's a lot of wolves in here.

But but the this is going to A V I C C right?

So it I mean, if you read the letter with respect.

So who are we writing to?

Well, the letter there was written to the province saying that they would like them to stop the the wolf, the needless wolf kill until uh a study could be undertaken.

But the District of ZooC has provided a sub a letter of support to this motion.

Yeah.

Okay.

But I to me it's just redundant, right?

If the motion's at A V I C C, then all the politicians are going to get the opportunity to vote on the motion that A V I C C I think they also wrote to the province here somewhere along the line I read too.

Yeah.

I'm quite happy to make that motion.

Okay.

So Councillor Mattson has moved that we write a letter to the province asking to abandon wolf hunting.

I'll second it.

Councillor Lemon has seconded it.

Recreational support of wolf hunting.

Okay, and anybody else have any comments?

So I'm gonna vote against it just purely on the basis that you know the same of Sanich and Victoria constantly telling the province how to run their business.

Um and and I think when a motion's coming to AVICC, then that's our body and our voice, and and everybody can vote on it.

But I don't I don't have any problem with the general philosophy of your motion.

So all those in favor opposed.

So Mayor's Greach is opposed.

Thank you.

So next we have so we need to look at obviously 9.2A separately rather than just receive it, I think, because I think we need to give the resident an idea of whether council is prepared to look at that.

Just just for clarification on that one, doesn't he just have the opportunity to reapply?

Well, I think before he just simply spends another $500 on an application process, um, because when he applied last time, he had hoped, and it was actually a staff recommendation that or an alternate recommendation that we could look at this separately.

Um and in that meeting, I'm not sure how well you remember, but you know, it it's um arguably there probably wasn't the best due consideration given to the options that were ahead of us.

Well, but I don't think there was um personally.

Just different perceptions on the same perspective.

Well, I mean, did we consider it that meeting looking at this completely separately, which was in the report?

And that's what he's asking for now.

Some of us considered and decided we didn't want it, which is why we voted against the motion.

Okay, well, I think you're not you're not getting my point, Counselor Mattson.

The when they first applied, their desire was so remember that the whole superstructure of this is already approved, right?

The the floor, everything there is already approved.

And basically, he wanted to build a storage area.

So it got rolled into a bigger application with the what was also on the foreshore, and we rejected everything.

He was hoping that we would have considered this separately, is what I'm saying.

And I think from a resident who owns property in the town, that is a perfectly reasonable request.

And if you choose not to reconsider it, that is certainly your prerogative, but I'm never going to tell the resident the council is not open to looking at something coming from me.

Your worship.

Yes, I'm I'm certainly happy for the appellant uh to bring the matter back.

Uh uh it seems like he's already making changes, uh, and I looked at the entire package, um uh both portions that he was asking for, and it seemed like it was a full meal deal that he wanted both.

And um, but at any rate, if he wants to come back with the uh some significant changes uh for consideration, I'm certainly happy to consider those points.

I think the one thing that I would want uh staff to to clarify for me was uh in the initial build, uh my understanding it was just the platform and not any of the sides of roof structure.

So uh when the matter comes back, and and I'm sure the applicant will bring uh lots of additional photos because the ones that he included uh with this letter was uh not entirely clear to me.

So uh a full and comprehensive uh report back would uh from the applicant and staff uh would be most welcome.

So you're you're certainly absolutely right that the what is new is is the walls right to build the storage area if that's what you're saying well actually i'm I'm one yeah because when the initial application this is where we need to go back and staff can assist but my understanding of the very initial application it was just the floor space just the floor no sides no roof so um if and staff can help us when they bring back uh this and and give us the the floor was approved over ten years ago councillor rogers so I don't see that the initial application has anything to do with now.

What he's looking for now is to permission to enclose a small portion.

Right.

So then yeah.

So the new port, the new portion being the walls, yeah, the timbers, the structures, and the roof.

And that's yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, I'm I'm happy to have him bring it back and and see what he's um changing for us.

On my left.

I didn't have the problem with the first application.

Um, so I'm very happy to see what what's what's next.

So sure.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Daming the same thing.

Uh thank you, your worship.

Uh, visited the site and uh look forward to reviewing uh the next phase.

Okay, thank you.

Um I don't have any problem with reviewing the next phase.

I just don't want uh yeah.

Okay, thank you.

The only question is whether we he has a new application, or is it what you're saying is he is just gonna be extension to the old one.

I I don't think his new application is gonna be.

I I think we're really getting confused when we talk about from 10 years ago when the original dock and everything was approved.

Yeah, it's not that different from that.

And and I don't know why.

I mean, I'm prepared to apologize as the chair of that meeting for the process, because I don't think we did follow good process.

I don't think that we separated them out and looked at each one separately.

We just turned it all down, and I actually apologize to the proponent on the whatever my part was in doing that, because I think I could have handled it better.

Um, and I'm certainly prepared to look at this and and see if we can find a way to to come up with something that works for the applicant.

So I think you have there the opinions that um council's prepared to look at it, and you should work with staff to submit the necessary application and everything.

And I know staff will ensure that it gets on an agenda as quickly as we possibly can.

So with that, then we could move receipt of A through H if everyone's comfortable with that.

Your worship?

Yes.

Sorry, a question, your worship.

Um G.

I'm wondering if we want to do a letter of support for G.

Well, I I've been wrong already once tonight, but don't want to wade into this one.

Um, knowing a lot of the background and why Mr.

E.

B has chosen to overrule Penticton Council.

Um, I actually agree with him.

Okay.

With sorry, we agree with who?

Do you just want another motion you can vote against?

I agree with the province using paramount C in this case.

Because otherwise you would have seen 40 people out on the streets in Penticton again.

Mm-hmm.

I guess it was something similar though to um V Royal and they're overriding V Royal's um uh powers and and OCP.

Yeah, I I don't have any problem with the overall concept that, but I think to be writing a letter specifically in support of Penticton on this one is not a good move and not something we need to get involved with.

Maybe we can depend another later, another letter, another time.

Maybe we can just receive A through H if someone would make the motion.

Okay, so it's moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

I think I did.

But for discussion?

Sure.

I just wanted to point out people, number H and remind you, there's many, many more of those to come, considering what may happen.

Yeah, it's very interesting how your your street seems to feel that a daycare is going to turn um Palliser into a not the daycare one that they referring to an issue.

So I'm gonna call the question on the seat.

All in favor.

Posed.

That's carried.

Um so now we are to a whole lot of bylaws.

So for any member of the public who is wanting to call in a question period, that will come up right after these bylaws, which we will get through fairly quickly.

So just for clarification, we've already gone through third on all of these, and we can't.

Do we have public hearings on all of these?

No, not all of these.

No, not on the only one that we've had the public hearing on is 298 island highway, which is the last one.

So the first one is the garbage user fees.

I'll move staff recommendation.

I'll second that.

Okay, so that's just receiving the report.

Is there any questions on the report?

No.

No.

Okay.

All in favor, opposed.

Pose, that's carried.

So then we need first, second, and third of 107.0.

Seconded by Councilor Lemon.

Thank you.

Second.

And just for clarification, that works out to a two-dollar increase per resident per year.

Just in case anyone's listening.

The garbage.

The garbage on garbage.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Everyone's good on that.

All in favor?

Pose?

That's carried.

And then we need, we don't really need to receive the well, I guess we can.

So may a motion to receive the staff report.

So move.

Okay.

Move by Councillor Mattson.

Seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

What did Damien second it?

Damien doesn't.

Well I has to speak up.

Well I was gonna smile at you.

So are we at C and D?

So no.

So now we need to do the first, second, and third of bylaw one zero seven one.

So moved.

Okay, so moved by Councillor Mattson.

Second.

Seconded by Council Rogers.

Just for a change.

Yeah.

All in favor, posed, that's carried.

So now we're at C and D.

So I should recuse myself.

Sure.

Oh yeah.

You'll be quick, right?

We'll be very quick, I think.

Just cover your ears.

Go and done this.

Excuse me.

Councillor Lemmon is recusing herself for the 298 Island Highway.

Did this many years ago when Bill Camden left out in when we had reporters, and the reporter thought he was off to the washing excuse myself.

So next we have adoption of bylaw 1060.

Move adoption.

Okay, adoptions moved by Councillor Mattson.

Seconded.

Seconded by Councillor Kualovich.

And just for clarification, that's just specifically to 298.

Yeah.

I know.

Okay.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

So moved.

And then we have the OCP one as well.

So bylaw number 1061 for adoption.

Yeah, thank you.

Moved by Councillor Mattson.

Seconded by second.

Rogers.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

Could just get counselor lemon.

Please.

So now we are at question period.

If any members of the public have questions about anything, either on the agenda or off the agenda, this is your opportunity.

So we'll give you just a few seconds to phone in.

Your worship, we do have one caller with the last four digits zero eight four nine.

Okay, thank you.

Caller with with the last four digits zero eight four nine.

This is your opportunity to ask a question.

Are you there?

Caller with the last four digits zero eight four nine.

You may need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Okay, one last try.

Caller with the last four digits 0849.

Yeah, I'm sorry, can you hear me?

Yeah, we sure can.

There you go.

It's uh it's just Ryan Painter, one two zone court.

Uh, I am listening, but I I don't have any questions.

Thank you, Your Worship.

Okay, thank you very much.

Are there any other callers on the line, Steph?

No, your worship, no new callers at this time.

Okay, and anyone on the chat feature?

No, Mayor Screet.

We do not have any questions this evening.

Okay.

Thank you, Steph.

And so next up we have motions and notices of motions.

Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you very much.

Um as you can see, you've got the uh the motion before you.

And this is um, I guess, in a way to augment uh the motion that the committee of the whole had uh discussed and and put forward and approved uh this evening.

And uh I just want to clarify that the motion is not about knock and hill or just knock and hill acts.

It's not about just Choco.

It's it's about the inconsistencies that uh in reviewing the the bylaws and and the brochures and so forth, this um over the years that developed with respect to signage maps and and that brochure.

It's also about um uh the increase of uh dogs that we've seen in our community.

Um Erskine Lane is uh going to be another area of of I think inad inadequacy.

Um uh looking at number nine, uh, their their dog run is just I mean I'm gonna look for a second or in a moment, but I know Councillor Matson's gonna second it because he's already informed me of that.

But I I will ask you how you don't feel this is covered in the motion earlier this evening that refers the whole issue of on-leash, off-leash to staff, and how you feel that this motion, which in my mind is very narrowly focusing what staff should or should not look at in their report, is helpful to that rather than waiting to see what staff comes up with.

I I think um with that I'm gonna ask for a seconder on the motion.

So counselor Matson has seconded it.

Since Councilor Rogers has spoken once, do I get to speak second?

Just got basically have a question.

Sure, go ahead.

So given that this motion has been discussed or is proposed to be discussed tonight, couldn't we just add this on to what this you know the broader process that staff is going to be involved in in looking at this?

Because you know, just some more specific questions into the more general issue of off-leash dogs.

But why does that need a notice of motion on a council agenda to have this on our record?

I mean, I I know what you're saying, and I agree completely.

And if Councillor Rogers had simply sent an email to staff saying, could we consider these concepts?

I'm just trying to make everyone's life easier.

I have well, I mean, to me, I think it makes council look foolish with respect to have a motion like this on our task list.

It's it's do you remember years ago at AVICC, we were told how motions could win gold stars, silver stars, bronze stars for their clarity.

And so, in all honesty, when you look at this, it's not clear to me exactly what it's asking staff to do.

And so we have to take responsibility for that.

Um may I speak to it, your worship.

Go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Uh I think my my concern, your worship, is that um we had um we've been focusing on that letter with res with respect to Naukin Hill.

And yes, um I think there was uh some directions to to uh staff to look at the on leash off leash but um I I think further clarification was necessary to also address the inconsistencies inconsistencies and the confusion and uh the need to improve the signage um uh that we have today um the there is, like I say, inconsistency with bylaws and and uh the parks and trails maps.

Um, so that is something also that um I I think we should be asking uh staff to to work on um my my concern is that the parks master plan, uh, and and I really feel bad about this, but it it's was quite short-sighted and silent on this um as a community need to stay current.

Um and I certainly had not anticipated uh the increase in populations and and the inadequate we think of playgrounds all the time, but the off-leash aspects is something that uh does completely need review, particularly since five years ago View O Park was easy to go and park at.

Now it's it's very challenging and and uh right getting a lot of complaints um you know in that vicinity.

So it yes, I agree with Councillor Mattson.

Um if um if council wishes to simply pass this on to staff as as points um of consideration to ensure that they'll cover these.

Um I'd be more than happy with that.

So then why don't you withdraw the motion and allow staff to take it?

Staff have seen it.

Um it's it's a withdrawal.

Excuse me, Councilor Rogers, but I actually have the floor right at the moment.

Earlier this evening, we passed a motion which reads as such that the committee recommend to council that the email dated February 9th, 2021, from S.

Johnstone, read dogs off-leash in parks, be referred to staff to prepare a report on the on-leash and off-leash areas in town parks.

It doesn't specifically say anything about Nock and Hill.

It's asking for a report.

And I have confidence that in writing that report, the staff is more than likely to take into account a lot of the things that you're concerned about.

And I'm not going to support personally, and I'm only one member of council, council passing a motion like this because I think it's redundant and I think it's unnecessary.

I respectfully disagree, your worship, it's um because it goes beyond um the uh the motion uh to also address um the inconsistencies that uh currently exist um and because it's not just in the parks, it's also within our our bylaws and so forth.

Um so that needs clarifying clarification and and um uh you know it may be that we identify other areas of uh that that need um and that are not within our our town parks.

I I think we have a solution looking for a problem, frankly.

I I guess my other point, your worship, residents, um other than in the Chilco area.

That's the only complaints I've heard.

I think ours can lean Lane too.

You think?

Yes.

Okay.

On my left or we can just vote i have nothing to say.

Um, you know, uh uh Counselor Rogers is right, everybody has a dog everybody has a dog now um and uh it's it's uh it's it's a growth demographic but i but i also was comfortable with the original motion which we which we which um came out of the last committee of the whole meeting and i i saw that as all-encompassing um and i do think that stock probably heard the interests and concerns tonight so i'm yeah, I'm um i'm weak on this one that's not what to say I hear what Councilor Rogers is communicating.

Uh I'm acknowledging it.

Uh I think it's important.

Uh although uh I think in an effort to streamline staff's uh endeavors into this particular topic that the motion earlier would be sufficient.

It's clear to say that uh staff has listened very intently during this debate and will take uh Councilor Rogers' uh extraordinary motion at the end into consideration when they're preparing their report.

Okay.

So just for me to wrap up, John, I don't, you know, I mean, I think everyone agrees with you.

I don't think everyone agrees with you that this is a burning issue.

Um staff is going to, in very early May, send a survey out to the Chilco area to try and get an idea of how many people actually own dogs out there, how many people it's an issue for, etc.

The difficulty I have with your motion here is that so you're directing staff, we're directing staff immediately to address inconsistencies and confusion.

I don't know what that means, so I can't support it right there.

I haven't heard from any residents that they're feeling confused about our rules.

And we're also directing staff to improve signage, and then we're asking them to report back on other things.

So this to me is just not a concise, clear motion, and I think it honestly just leads to confusion.

But I think as Councillor Kualowicz just said, your interests and your wishes are clear.

You send a very long email as well to our CAO with much more information into it, which I'm sure he will forward to other members of staff.

So I'm going to call the question on the motion.

All those in favor.

Okay.

All those opposed.

So councillors Kualovich, Councillors Lemon, and Mayor Screech are opposed.

So a motion fails.

And with that, we need a motion to terminate.

Thank you.

And don't forget, everyone, that we have our CAO meeting next Tuesday, which is important.

Exactly.

That's why I'm bringing it up.

It should be in all of your calendars.

Thank you for telling us.

It should be in your calendars.

Okay.

So okay.

Thanks everyone.

Thank you, Stephanie.

Thank you.