This video demonstrates the formal governance process of a municipal council meeting, including the adoption of meeting minutes, strategic planning discussions, bylaw amendments (such as tree protection bylaw 2063), and development applications. The meeting showcases how local government deliberates on policy changes, balances community interests with development needs, and follows structured procedures for decision-making, including first, second, and third readings of bylaws, public engagement processes, and consideration of environmental and community impacts.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
May 20, 2026, Regular Council Meeting - Part 2Added:
Cammy will share the air with me.
the window.
>> We are going to return back to our meeting and we're now back on the live streaming. Thank you for your patience with that. So, we are on page 13, adoption of minutes. And the first uh set of meeting minutes to be adopted is public hearing meeting held on May 6th for adoption.
>> Second.
>> Any discussion?
All those in favor?
Opposed? And that passes unanimously. On page 17, we have the regular council meeting minutes held for May 6th for adoption.
>> Move.
>> Any discussion on May 6th council meeting?
All those in favor?
Opposed? And that passes unanimously.
Thank you. Page 23, we have adoption of minutes from the May 8th special council meeting for adoption.
>> Move.
>> Any discussion on the special meeting May 8th?
All those in favor?
Opposed?
And that passes unanimously. On page 25, we have adoption of the special council meeting minutes from May 13th for adoption.
>> Moved.
>> Second. moved and seconded and discussion.
All those in favor opposed and that passes. And lastly on page 27, we have the strategic planning committee meeting minutes for receipt for May 13th.
>> Move second.
>> And for discussion, all those in favor can do that one more time. All those in favor post opposed. And that passes. Thank you. From that strategic planning committee meeting on May 13th, we have the following changes be made to the proposed tree protection bylaw number 2063.
One, remove the sorry, remove the security deposit requirements. Two, apply landscape bonding to multif family development. Three, address bylaw infractions in accordance with the bylaw. And four, amend the diameter at breast height DB requirement of a protected tree from 60 cm to 50 cm.
>> Move. Second.
>> That has been moved and seconded as stated. Any discussion?
We had enough enough discussion at the meeting on that. All those in favor?
Opposed? And that passes. Thank you. So, tree protection bylaw number 2063 is now complete.
We are moving on to the consent agenda on page 29. If I can get a motion moved and seconded for receipt of 1 through five. All those in favor of receipt.
And that passes and items to be removed from the consent agenda.
Uh, council mayor, >> uh, I' I'd like to pull out number three, which is about, um, a saber crossing at Butchers and Lazo Interce.
>> Okay, that's been seconded. Go ahead.
>> Just a question to staff. Um, I if this is already kind of on the list of things to be addressed to, Director Ashfield. Thank you. Uh no it is not uh Lazo road is actually within the regional district. Um so we can defer that to the uh Ministry of Transportation to have a look at that crossing request.
>> Okay. Thanks. I thought it might have been part of the the new um the incredible pathway um plan that was in and I I just I agree. I use use that I I run around there a lot and it is it could use a little bit of a marking. So I'd appreciate the referral.
Uh is a motion required for referral or is that satisfactory? Thank you. Uh any more discussion for number three?
Okay, I'll pull out number five with a seconder.
>> Thank you. Uh there's a letter from Jamie Branch in regards to uh a soccer program that application that is out there and I believe it's been forwarded to the recreation department. Uh but just wanted to pull that out and see if there was any further discussion or if it may be reported back um if that could be an opportunity.
>> Yeah. No, we we really appreciate Jamie sending this in. It's not something that we are were aware of. Actually, I don't think anybody in the valley um in the recreation departments were aware of.
So, we've started the conversation with the regional district Cumberland and Courtney. Um taking a look at the grant requirements. It appears that there is going to be too many fields approved per region. Um it doesn't define what the regions are. So I'm I'm guessing Vancouver Island is going to be one region. And so the right now we are um as the Komox Valley taking a look at a uh a location where this could potentially be um housed and installed.
And uh the intention is for one of our municipalities to move forward with a grant application. We're just talking about what locations work and and where it makes sense.
>> Okay. Thank you. I don't think we want to dilute the youth recreation um programs that we're working on now, but it seems like it's a very hot topic. So, just want to keep track of the different grant opportunities we're seeing.
Are there any other items that council would like to pull one through five?
Okay. And just a note, uh, the Legion branch 160 is having a barbecue on July 19th, which we don't need to pull out, but the date is there and the letter is in the agenda package.
So, with no further items from consent agenda, we're moving on to unfinished business. We had the presentation from Inspector Scott Mercer from the RCMP in regards to our police priorities discussion and there was a funding request for their new uh mobile integrated crisis response car program.
Um, at this time we don't have any motions to put forward, but we are able to put it forward for budget 2027 for discussion at that time unless there's any further discussion council wants to make before budget 2027.
I think councelor uh Swift and then councelor Mayor.
>> Uh, thank you. I don't recall an uh what the number was uh that they were asking for.
Does anybody remember?
>> They're looking for two uh two resources regionally. So, it would be a discussion regionally about what Komox's share would be. Um but it's a pretty significant funding ask um if it's fully burdened by the municipalities. It's it's a large number.
Uh going to go to council may mayor and then councelor Hasllett.
I just wanted to make sure that we flag this as an a a regional um advocacy issue that we could take to UBCM um bring to the province and look at shared shared funding opportunities.
Yeah, I think that's probably a good idea and I believe we have a little bit more time before UBCM resolution. So that's when we could put forward uh go to CEO Wall for comment on UBCM advocacy.
>> Yeah. No, I think that's a good reminder. Council, your strategic planning meeting next month is going to be devoted to setting your um advocacy targets for UBC.
Okay, I'm going to send that back to councelor Mayor to maybe note and consider and the rest to council also.
Uh that's definitely one of the top priorities I would say we could look at for UBCM. Councelor Hlett and then councelor Kerr, please.
>> Thanks. Um definitely a really well-run program. Um I think that this is something as councelor Mayor said that we should take back to UBCM and really look to get some provincial funding for.
Um our MLA was a big um proponent of this as well. Um so I think it's probably a good idea to kind of loop him in with that as well as he's had quite a few of these conversations leading up to everything. But while it's a great program, it's one of those things that continually gets passed down to us to pay for. I think it's really important that we really lobby the provincial government for funding on this.
>> Thanks for those comments, councelor Kerr.
>> Yeah, I agree. I mean, tremendous program f focusing on mental health in our community and uh and also saving money. Uh that's a great win-win. So, as part of the UBCM um you know, ask, I think we need to get get some information to to have the best possible uh you know, ask. So specifically when we look at the Ministry of Health, if we could get some stats from VIHA on like number of emerge visits saved through this program, working with the RCMP stats and uh in the in the hospital, if we could do that, that'd be great because we know each emerge visit is at least $1,000, probably more for these complex cases that tie up a lot of uh hospital resources and security, etc. So, if we can get an idea of how many uh saved merge visits there are, do the math on that. I mean, that should pay for this in spades, and then if that money could be redirected from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Safety or directly to the RCMP, that would save our local taxpayers. Thanks.
>> Thanks for those comments. and being such a new program, we will have to figure out what we can get and just really stress that we want to see the resourcing for this um and not not just be a pilot council grant.
>> We can't let everybody else go and me not go. I I think that we need to look actually at the RCMP and talk to them about funding in general. I know they have problems with funding and not enough officers and we have problems with paying the amount of money that they want and I know Courtney has the same problem and I know Cumberland has the same problem and I think it's time that we sit down and get the province to actually listen a little bit to how much this is costing our taxpayers and so if we're going to go to UBCM I would want to add that to it as well.
>> Okay. So we'll deep dive into that in June. Um and that will be added to our UBCM advocacy list.
Other comments on that unfinished business delegation.
Okay. So there's no action there, but uh we will continue the discussion with the RCMP on the resource funding. We're now on page 39. We have the sale building utilization. Uh we requested for staff to go back and take a look at the Spker and Genanoa sale buildings bookings as we had a commercial request for a potential commercial use at one of them.
I say this is a good news story. For many years uh the buildings sat partially vacant and people thought they were not being utilized and now we have a situation where they're actually uh greatly being utilized and we have commercial requests coming in. So I think this is a good good discussion to be having. Um staff is recommending that with the uh re revenue generation and the program revenue that's coming in that we do maintain the spre and genoa sale buildings at Marina Park to be used for events recreation program uh and other facility rentals. That's the recommendation that came out of the report we've requested. Uh so for discussion around the table on the utilization of those two buildings, councelor Hlett and then councelor Blacklock.
>> Um when the option to put a commercial space into one of these buildings came up, I was pretty intrigued by it and I thought it would be a really strong idea. Um, after seeing all the numbers come back from staff, uh, it's great to see how much they're being used and I think that, uh, it would be doing a little bit of a disservice to our recck department as well as some of the offerings that the town has if we were to use it for a commercial space, especially as used as it is right now. Um, so I'm in favor of the recommendation.
>> Thanks for those comments. Uh, councelor Black. Well, I'm just when you're reading this report, make sure you understand that these these figures are are not, you know, the the the the dollar amounts are not the same as the actual dollars received in revenue to the town. We are, if you look at Genanoa 2025 and Spre 2025, Spre being the building closest to the to the ocean and Genanoa being the smaller one closest to the parking lot. Uh we're really only talking about uh 142 rentals in 2025 for Genanoa and 212 rentals for Spre in the year. Um, you know, utilization rates in terms of of revenue per booked hour is actually quite a bit lower. Uh, we're at about 14.1% utilization on Genanoa and 22.2% on Spre. Um, we also have an $800,000 grant in play here at the at the marina. And part of that is enhancing economic opportunities and creating stickiness of space. And I think a a a commercial coffee shop in one of those buildings, specifically the Spker building, could go a long way to having people really enjoy that area, especially when combined with some of the plans in our economic development um grant application. And I do have a uh I have reviewed some of the the the renderings and drawings with respect to adding some more seating in that plaza. So, for me, I uh I would support uh at least going out to explore a tender on the spreading and uh I I' I'd like to hear what the rest of you have to think about that.
>> Okay. So, not a motion, but discussion around the table. Uh we have councelor Kerr and then councelor Mayor, please.
>> Uh first, just a big congrats to staff for really just, you know, expanding the use of these uh two uh two rooms. uh having attended lots of you know kids birthday parties and other events there uh they're they're really great spaces.
Um I guess a question for staff um because there are two of them. If and and I can't remember too many times walking by noticing both being used at the same time. Uh if if say the middle one was um was converted into a uh a small like coffee shop, coffee bar, uh would that decrease overall usage and and rental? Like so I guess question roundabout way is how often are both used at once and how would the decrease in uh in one of them affect programming uh and rental opportunities? Thanks.
Yeah. So the the data that we can access I I would say colloially colloially um we see similar things that both buildings aren't used at the same time.
However, having said that um we don't have the data that can tell us how much overlap there is. All we can see is how much they're being used. Um, we also have the reality that we don't have cleaning services for the most part on the weekends. So, when they are getting used on the weekends and rented out, sometimes we'll just be using the other one. So, it's it's hard for us to say. What I will say if you is if you take a look at the usage of the buildings, it is going up pretty significantly every year. Um if you take a look at where we are in our revenue generation, so which is a good approximation for their use so far in 2026, it does look like we are we are going to significantly surpass 2025. Um we haven't gone into the summer yet and we're almost there. So it it's really hard for us to say for sure other than the use of it is continuing to grow and that represents both the good news and a bad news situation. And the good news is those buildings are being used. We've wanted them to be used for a very long time. The bad news is a lot of the use that we're getting is alternative programming space because our community center is full. Um, and we don't have community center expansion on the books for a number of years. I'm not sure it's in the 5-year capital plan right now.
So, if we move into a commercial venture, which usually you're looking at a three-year lease, uh, and it turns out that we do want that space or we run out of programming space, it it will be gone.
>> Uh, we're going to have a followup from councelor Kurt and then councelor Mayor.
>> That's super helpful. Se wall. Uh, and and again, thanks and congrats to director Ted and the recreation team for for making such good use of the space. I wonder if maybe like a hybrid uh thing we could do is um as a test of concept um you know there's coffee trailers small little coffee bars with some extra seating maybe run that for a season and see if that uh picks up while it's continued to you be used as a recreational space and we do the data on how often they're both used at the same time so we can see does a coffee bar down there work um And also it might mean amending our food truck policy because there might be an extra space and yada yada yada power etc. But do that proof of concept while also doing the analysis on uh utilization. Is it continuing to go up and are both spaces needed? Thanks.
>> Thanks. I had similar thoughts and CEO who wants to comment on that.
>> Yeah, we do have space for more mobile vendors down in the park. it would just be a change in um the policy. What is interesting is that there are no coffee vendors down there now because at the time that was specifically opposed by the BIA, um that has changed and so with the BIA no longer opposed to that and in fact in support um the next time we go out to an RFP. So Shelley, do you remember how far we just signed most of the food vendors this year? We the so next year we're going for tender and so there'll be an opportunity to open up to coffee vendors there. So again, if council wants to open it up to more vendors, that's fine. Um but there are no coffee vendors down there right now intentionally. So that can change if there's somebody that wants to come in.
Uh, okay. We have got councelor Mayor and then councelor Blacklock, councelor Swift.
I had some uh similar thoughts. Um, wondering if so given what um um CEO Wall just shared. I wonder if we might want to consider uh depending on how council votes of course on on the staff recommendation. I I think I also feel a bit protective of of the spaces uh for recreation given that they're increasing. So my my first question sorry for staff was um also checking in on summer months. Um so if summer months were slower as an example then as a timebound um kind of experiment that might be worth exploring. Um so maybe I'll pause and see if there's an answer.
>> Summer months are generally busier.
Yeah, the that's the the busy time for those buildings.
>> That is true. So, um given that, I actually wonder then, um depending on how how um council votes on this recommendation if if we might want to open it up, um for some kind of mobile unit, but with seating because I think that that that was the part um or part of it that is the point of like giving giving people that place making feel the place to gather. Um, so that could be a way to both protect the recreation and have coffee down in the marina.
>> Yeah, just to mention as part of the economic revitalization grant that we have down there, looking at some changes to the marina, both the boating space and the commercial space up top. We are working with the BIA to install aderond chairs.
When Robbie uh at this point likely mid June.
>> Mid June. Yeah. So, so not too long before we have some more seating options down there.
>> Thanks for that update. That's coming soon. Uh councelor Blacklock and then councelor Swift, please. You know, this was a um a hot topic last night at the business uh improvement association meeting and uh you know, the the advocacy position that they are taking is that the Spreer Building is the right location for a a fixed coffee shop that would provide year-round revenue and then have people um using that public's plaza along in combination with the aderondac chairs. Um it converts it's also has a possibility to convert marina visitation into into actual um well time and revenue for for a a coffee provider or coffee bar. Um so for me I think as as far as a policy bit uh we do have other spaces public spaces I'm thinking specifically um you know we have the space under the library the um the the formerly utilized by the lion's den that space we have other spaces we have space at the Philberg we have outdoor space um you know I think there's a way to make this work so that we could have uh the best of both worlds. But at this time, I'm not hearing an uh a lot of support for the alternative recommendation. So, I will move the um the staff recommendation for at this point.
>> That's been moved and seconded. And I'm just going to go over to Councelor Swift for comment.
>> Uh thank you. Um when when those buildings first went in, I thought, "Oh, they're just ideal for a little coffee place, and wouldn't that be great?" Um, and I still think that, but not in those buildings. I I really think we need to preserve it for our the use for the rec center and their programming. And I'm wondering if the same um effect could be achieved with a little coffee kiosk somewhere with the portable seating. and having just come back from Europe, uh, you know, the cafes put all their chairs out every morning and collect them up in the afternoon. So, you know, there's there's possibilities if there's a will to do it.
So, I'm in uh support of the recommendation.
>> Thank you. I think everyone's had a chance to speak on that. I'm very supportive of the recommendation. And I think it's uh I was really excited about the coffee shop when it came in cuz in past years we've had uh some program um gaps, but it sounds like we're really on the uphill for that. So I would be supportive of this and we can talk about what the mobile potential option looks like cuz there's quite a quite a bit of support for that. So on the motion at hand, which is that the sale buildings at Marina Park continue to be used for recreation programs, events, and other facility rentals. All those in favor?
Opposed?
And that passes unanimously. And then the second item would be whether we want to wait till the food vendor um contracts come up next year or if we want to uh bring that to a more recent council meeting in the spring.
>> Back off there.
>> You're good.
>> Council Grant.
>> Um I kind of like that idea actually and I don't think that we need to wait a year. I I would uh I would like to see us actually explore putting one down there sooner if we could and then seeing how it goes.
>> Okay. So, you're motioning for staff to bring back the policy.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Okay. So, that's been moved and seconded to have staff review looking at a mobile coffee option with seating uh in the near future. Councelor Blacklock.
>> Perhaps we could get one of our two ice cream vendors to consider selling coffee.
Mhm. I think we'll stay out of the business of it, but it's it's an option they can explore. Okay. So, on the table is looking at expanding the policy um and looking at seating, which sounds like is popular.
Any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed? Thank you. And just looking to staff, that's enough on that item to satisfy what we need so far. Thank you.
Okay, we are moving on to and councelor Blacklo, please do thank the BIA for uh giving us that updated um position.
We are on page 47. We have the tree protection bylaw update for first, second, and third reading for bylaw number 2063 number one.
>> Second.
>> Uh any discussion?
Councelor Kurt, >> ju just briefly just anyone that's just tuning in tonight wants to hear the whole discussion, please watch last week's uh vigorous debate discussion. Uh each of us at the table has came at it with different views and we're all kind of holding our nose and voting on a on a a bylaw that none of us loves but each of us can hopefully live with. And uh I just want to thank again all the public and staff and the consultants for helping us get to where we are.
>> Thanks for those comments. Yes, the May May 13th uh council meeting 2026.
And any further comments before voting on first, second, and third reading.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
And that passes unanimously.
Number two, that the town of Komox consider tree protection bylaw number 2063 when determining future tree covenant requirements and discharges.
And further, that administration be authorized to remove existing tree protection covenants when the situation arises on low density properties where community or neighborhood conditions do not support retaining the covenant.
>> Move.
>> That's moved and seconded. Any discussion on that item? Council mayor, >> I do have a question for staff on this.
I just I know that um a lot of thought and care has been put into covenant trees and um I'm wondering if there is some kind of decision criteria um that can be made uh a little bit more transparently available so that people can feel comfort about um how these decisions will be made. Could I go through the CEO wall?
>> What kind of information are you looking for? Like a policy for what? We could we could create a policy. Um and then that would provide council the ability to direct staff on how we we apply the covenant removals.
>> I'm I'm not sure that it you needs to come back to council necessarily. Like I wonder if um some of the criteria that you already have for the trees above um 50 um might might work. It's just um creating more of a transparent decision-m process for how these trees uh will be cared for.
>> Yeah. So I think it's important to remember that any tree any covenant protected tree is also protected by the bylaw. So if there is a trigger within the bylaw that um results in protection of a tree for in any of the classifications that we have that would apply to the covenant trees. And so what we have what has happened in the past prior to having a tree protection bylaw is during subdivisions um trees would be covenant protected and covenant protected you can't have them removed unless they are dead uh or or dying as determined by an arborist. And so we've already seen numerous people coming to council saying well this I want to move this tree I want to move that tree. And so the reason those covenant protected trees were put in there in the first place was because there was no tree protection bylaw. And so when staff is taking a look at what we would do to remove, it would be taking a look at the subdivision plan and and determining was there a reason that those covenant trees were protected other than the fact that there was no tree protection bylaw. So, for example, if the tree is there for screening, if it's a major asset, um if it's on the property line, if it was a shade tree on the uh in the front yard, for example, um meant for the public walking by, those we wouldn't discharge the covenants for. Um I think that's what you're looking for. And I'm just I'm going to have to go back and think about how we make that more transparent.
If it's going to sit in policy, it probably does need to come to council.
If it's going to sit within our best practices, I'm not sure that's actually an administrative practice that we would publish. We'd probably want to bring it to council.
So, I think if if that is something council wants, direction to bring a policy back on how we apply that um would probably be a good idea.
Any followup, council mayor?
>> Well, I guess uh I would put forward that motion.
>> We have a motion uh on the floor for number two. So, just looking to staff if that can be uh a friendly amendment.
>> Just one second. I'm ahead on the agenda here. We're on 47 bylaw update and part two.
Uh so the if council wants to move forward with this, you could make an amendment that strikes that staff be authorized to remove existing trees to that staff um develop a policy uh for removing tree or removing existing tree protection covenants.
And that's a friendly amendment requires unanimous consent of council. So, I would just suggest a regular amendment.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go over to councelor Grant, then we can always go back for >> Yeah. Thanks. So, >> so our tree protection bylaw actually covers all this, does it not? Like, why would we want to redo this when we've already got it covered by our tree protection bylaw?
>> Uh, I'll go through to it's it's a it's a process and wording difference. So the difference would be that there are likely trees in the community that would not get protect would not get the level of protection that council or the community might want underneath the tree protection bylaw. So for example, there could just be a normal tree or three trees sitting along the property line of along the property line between two properties. If somebody under the normal tree bylaw applied to have that tree removed, um it would trigger replanting at whatever ratio is determined within the bylaw. However, those trees may have been specifically um covenant protected in order to provide um view of sight, right? to to block or provide coverage or to ensure that their uh one neighbor couldn't see into the other neighbor's yard or it could have just been negotiated between the neighbors to say, "Hey, I really like those trees. I don't mind you subdividing your lot, but I want you to keep those there." Right? So, those covenant protections exist above and beyond what would be within the tree bylaw. So what staff is saying is that so long as there aren't any reasons why that covenant tree was protected such as screening such as shade um such as uh slope stability or something like that then it the normal tree bylaw would apply is that I'm not seeing a lot of clarity around here.
>> I'll try and >> I'll try and say it again. There may there are likely trees in the community that are covenant protected that without covenant protection would be removed when we don't want them to be removed.
And so that's why we wouldn't want to just blanket remove all of the covenants and have just the tree protection bylaw apply.
I say that we don't want to that's actually council decision. Council may just want to get rid of all the covenants. The staff recommendation is not to do that blanket removal in the event that there are trees out there that we want to continue to protect that would otherwise not be protected by the bylaw.
>> I'm going to go to sorry it's councelor Hlett first and then we'll go to councelor blacklo.
>> Would these covenants not come up when somebody comes in to get a permit? And like we're not just going to necessarily blanket every covenant. It's more along the lines of say councelor mayor and I shared a fence and we had these trees on here and there was a covenant from years and years and years ago and I came to remove a tree would it not be addressed at that time rather than just and that's where the tree bylaw would kick in not just blanket the whole town and repeal every covenant that we've got currently.
>> So the recommendation is to deal with it on a case-bycase basis. So there is no blanket removal but we are getting direction from council that if there is no reason for the tree to be protected within the covenant then the tree bylaw protections would apply. So it would keep trees protected that um have a function within the neighborhood and that would not be a consideration under the tree bylaw. So we are not recommending that we remove all of the covenants. We're recommending that we treat them on a case-by case basis. And I think what councelor mayor is saying um she would like some transparency on how that decision is going to be made regarding the case by case basis to which I replied um policy from council.
>> Yeah, makes sense. So there'd either be a more detailed list of the reasons or it would be at uh at this moment it's administrative discretion on a needs basis which is how we have it currently.
So if we want more clarity, more process, then that would be the alternative. Councelor Blacklock and then councelor switch.
>> Well, clearly we need to we need a list of these covenant protected trees and we need to go through them one by one and say it would this be protected under the current bylaw and as a property owner, do you want it to remain protected by covenant or can we remove the covenant and allow the bot bylaw to do its job?
like just we just need a comprehensive list.
>> Are there some we don't know about?
>> I'm going to go to C all but director Ashfield also has her hand up behind you.
>> I just want to remind council that the definition for covenant tree falls under protected trees in the bylaw. So it would be the same requirements as a protected tree would be that we have um established in that bylaw. So that's why it's worded like this because it's a bit of a duplicate potentially.
>> So as far as councelor Blacklock your we have hundreds of covenant protected trees and rather than deal with them all cuz most of them we're probably not going to have to deal with at all. The s suggestion would be as counselor has said when somebody comes in for a tree cutting permit and we flag that it's a covenant protected tree then we would go through the checklist and say okay is it should we keep this covenant protection on it or does it not need to be covenant protected so we deal with it when the applications come in >> I'm just going to go to councelor Swift for first comment then we'll go back thank you councelor Swift >> thank you I'm I'm happy with recommendation as it sits. I think the staff has the best uh knowledge and um overview of what the situation is in each of these situations.
Council mayor, >> yeah, I I agree. I I didn't want it to be a council decision. I think it's fine for it to be a staff decision. I just wanted to understand what the criteria was. I'm glad to hear that it already is included in the tree bylaw. Thank you all for taking this journey with me. I'm happy to withdraw the suggestion.
Okay, it's good clarification.
Uh, okay. So, we have number two as worded with no amendment on the table.
Uh, is there any further discussion on the tree protection bylaw in regards to uh future tree covenant requirements and discharges?
All those in favor?
Opposed? And that passes uh unanimously.
Thank you.
We are on item D on page 67. We have the bylaw notice enforcement amendment bylaw number 2004.05 for first, second, and third reading.
>> That has been moved and seconded. And for discussion, all those in favor?
Opposed?
And that passes. Thank you. On page 69, item E, we have the fees and charges amendment bylaw number 2058.01 for first, second, and third readings.
>> Move.
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
All those in favor?
Opposed?
And that passes unanimously. Thank you.
There are no special reports this evening. Under bylaw adoptions on page 71, we have our 2025 to 2029 financial plan amendment bylaw number 2046.01 for adoption.
Moved and seconded for discussion. Are there any questions? Councelor Hlett.
>> Is it 2026 to 2030 or 25 to 9?
>> Yeah, that's that's the same as last week. 20 2026 to 2030 >> I believe >> clarification I think last week we clarified it >> to 2029 financial plan amendment >> it's the financial plan amendment 2025 the amendment we're getting now >> yes that is the revisal of the last year's uh financial plan with the carryovers.
>> Okay. So, it is as written 2025 to 2029 financial plan. Thanks for the question.
Councelor has it.
Any further discussion on bylaw number 2046.01.
All those in favor?
Opposed.
And that passes. Thank you. On page 73 under new business, we have the 2025 annual report that the 2025 annual report is attached to tonight's uh sorry to May 15th from the commun communications coordinator titled adoption of the 2025 annual report be received and further that the report be available for public inspection as per 981B of the community charter.
>> Moved second.
>> Moved and seconded. Any questions or comments on the annual report?
All those in favor?
Opposed? And that passes. Thank you so much to Karine and Communications for putting that report together. Uh there's lots of good pictures and stats in there this year and we greatly appreciate the presentation of that report.
We are on page 133B. We have the Komox general local election appointment of election officers and election bylaw number 2060 and a few items there. So I'll just look for number one.
>> Sorry.
>> Number one has been moved and seconded.
Any questions or comments on one?
All those in favor?
Opposed?
And that passes. Number two, that election bylaw number 2060 be given first, second, and third readings?
>> Move.
That has been moved and seconded. Any questions or comments on that?
All those in favor?
Opposed? And that passes unanimously.
Thank you. And for the public, there's about a 17page report on that bylaw for the upcoming election on October 17th.
So it was very long to read out um but there is a 17page report in the agenda uh on page 133 for uh your review of interested. We are now on to page 150.
We have the zoning amendment bylaw number 2056.01 for 721 uh Lazo Road. And I will go to councelor Swift.
>> Thank you. I'm recusing myself due to a close family relationship with the proponent.
>> Okay, we can uh come find you after, although there's only a little bit of the meeting left after. And we do have a presentation from the director of planning on this application. Director Randy Hoo will be presenting.
Welcome. Thanks for the presentation.
Thank you, Mayor and Council.
I did want to start by thanking everyone for being here and the passion and support you show for your community. We appreciate the comments and criticisms about transparency, which we're always trying to improve, provided it's within our legal authority and procedure bylaws. Uh we recently created a development application tractor tracker, excuse me, where we post our applications on the website and active building permits in the community. And also I just want to say um planning staff is always open to discuss um applications. Um we're there to help.
Give me a call. I I' I'd be happy to speak with you. So before I start, I did want to talk there was one clarification I wanted to make regarding the CVRG's staff. Um, in in the report it does state that the CVR CVRD staff analysis support an extension of Andrew Avenue, but it is with the caveat that it's a through road is is their preference. So, I just wanted to to state that um for the record.
So a bit of a background, the subject property is zoned uh Cape Blazo residential is 2.28 hectares in size. A four lot subdivision is permitted by current zoning with access from Andrew A with MOT approval.
The proposal is a six lotand strata subdivision with a common lot sand dune and 1.31 hectare parkland dedication.
There's a new vehicle pedestrian access proposed from Andrew Avenue and a statutory rightaway proposed for access from Parkland to the waterfront and through the Strata Road.
Did want to touch on the approval process. So number one is the first, second, and third readings of the bylaw, which is where we're at today. So it's the first step in a in a long process.
The second step would be registering of any covenants. uh if council moves for second and third reading adoption of the bylaws development permit application.
So there's been no development permit applications submitted yet and those are where the more technical reports would come. There have been reports that have been preemptively submitted but they're they're not finalized. Um but those detailed reports will be required as part of the hazardous DP and sensitive ecosystem development permits. So the environmental, geotechnical, flood plane, arburous reports and for subdivision there's there's many more reports site survey, storm water, civil and then through to building permit applications.
Talking a little bit about the development permit requirements, a property owner must obtain a development permit prior to subdivision construction of a building or alteration of land. And and that's in our OCP. So it really speaks to that's the process. It it doesn't speak to reszoning as being as being the time to submit those detailed reports and going through the development permits. So with the hazardous DP applicants must provide a report prepared by QP outlining the risks of development to the subject parcels and adjacent properties and allow measures to reduce those risks and allow for safe construction. So the the report is to speak to the impacts to the neighboring properties. So there has been some reports um that submitted from neighboring properties which is great.
It's great information that we'll pass along to the consultants and the QEPs if the project moves forward but they are responsible to to mitigate those impacts on the neighboring lots through the development permit stage.
And then the sensitive ecosystems DP.
Applicants must provide a report prepared by a registered professional biologist to identify the sensitive ecosystems, protection measures, mitigation, restoration, and compensation if necessary. The key is it does not prevent development. So what I wanted to point out is the map on the right is the sensitive ecosystem development permit area. So as you can see, it blankets quite a significant portion of our town.
it that's that's not intended to be areas where you can't develop. It's it's areas that have may have sensitive ecosystems and it's up to a QAP to come in and do an assessment and identify those. There's areas on there that are empty fields um where it made sense from a contin continuous point of view where there may be some trees located at the back of the property. Um but but they've been included. So it's really a blanket approach to try to identify sensitive ecosystems and then look at mitigation, restoration, replacement or whatever the case may be based on the advice of the qualified environmental official.
There's also other environmental site protections such as provinially or federally protected species and then our new tree bylaw. The new tree bylaw does speak to removal though being permitted for conflict with approved building footprints servicing driveways. There's also numerous offset trees that allow for the removal of trees on site if desired by the owners.
There's really four main options in terms of access. So proposed access off Andrew Aav off Lazer Road access off of Hutton or just denial of the application.
Key considerations is the parkland dedication, waterfront access, connection to the Lazo greenway. These are considerations for council access and impacts on entrance choice and and obviously environmental impacts.
I did want to touch on the proposed accesses a little bit at this time and then and Robbie's going to come up and speak a little bit about the parkland dedication and the benefits um from a a parks perspective to the town. But looking at Andrew Aav, some of the pros is is the turnaround uh is would be located in the previously disturbed area, the northland. It protects that parkland and pedestrian access from Lazo. There's also improved fire protection for the subject property and for the neighbor. So a water the water line would be extended from Lazo and there would be a hydrant placed at the entrance to um to the Andrew A and the Radford Beach neighborhood which actually would provide um an improvement in fire protection to those properties. It also improves uh fire protection to this site where where you're not going the fire department's not going down through the forested area down to the site. they're instead going from a a different neighborhood to access the site.
Some of the cons um with this is there's there there is geotechnical challenges.
There is no doubt there is traffic impacts to the Andrew residents and and there will be impacts to sensitive ecosystems.
The lazo route road access the pros is that it doesn't impact the two adjacent neighborhoods. The cons is that there's significant vegetation removal to create a necessary road width and grading for two-way traffic, adequate emergency access, servicing, and sidewalks.
It would be about 6 m paid, but there is additional requirements of 10 to 14 m in road dedication for utilities, sidewalks, curb, and gutter. It's important to have a pedestrian connect connection down from the Laza greenway down to the site to the waterfront access. So that would be a sidewalk and and that takes up space and more environmental destruction.
It also impacts pedestrian connection to the waterfront as I mentioned and you would still need turnarounds in these scenarios. You'd go down down to the site but then you turn left or right and there would need to be turnarounds at th that end those ends for fire department access and emergency access.
The Hutton Road access the pros that there'd be no traffic impacts to the Andrew Aav residents. But the cons is that there's significant geotechnical challenges. Those traffic impacts get shifted to the Hutton Road residence.
There's impacts to the largest Gary Oak stands, which is the top of the large sand dune and and the turnaround is still required at the south end, which would extend into the environmentally sensitive areas.
This is a table that shows the four design scenarios. So you'll see the parkland dedication, ecological impact, geotechnical difficulties, and then it outlines Andrew Lazo Hutton.
I'll leave that up there for for everyone to read and then and then Robbie Robbie will come up and and speak um to some of the the benefits of of the park from a town perspective and and then also speak to any questions about the tree bylaw and how how that might impact or protect the site moving forward rather.
>> Thanks Randy. And maybe we'll just have you stay up there for questions.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks Randy. Um from a parks uh perspective uh the application presents an opportunity uh as mentioned to secure approximately 1.3 hectares of uh new parkland along with improvements to uh trail connectivity, ecosystem protection, uh canopy retention, um and public waterfront access. Uh the Parkland area contains mature trees including Gary Oaks and Douglas furs um which will have long-term protection um under town parkland.
Um with regards to um existing uh town parks related plans such as the urban forest management strategy um the dedicated parkland um aligns with goal two uh which focuses on protecting canopy and natural areas as well the broader objective of maintaining a connected system of parks and natural spaces. Um with regards to the parks and trails master plan, um it aligns with the uh improving connections between upland areas and the shoreline.
Um provides an opportunity to connect the Lazo Greenway um down to uh the waterfront. Um one of the main um items out of the parks and trails master plan was uh beach access improvements. Um, so this would be a new um a new area um for the public to access the beach.
>> Okay, thanks Robbie. Is that the end of the presentation there from the two?
Okay, so we'll just look for questions uh from around the table if you don't mind staying at the mic there. Uh councelor Mayor and then councelor Grant.
>> I have a question for Robbie.
I'm I'm curious. I I think um that one of the primary concerns for everybody is is about how we can care for this unique ecosystem. And um can you talk at all uh I don't know if this is in the um environmental report that we haven't seen but the there is an ecosystems value to the bluff um that in in the scenario that's being presented um would would have a road through it. So do we have an understanding of the ecological value? I like I know it's been previously disturbed, but there are there are still it is still valuable >> and it's okay if you don't know and it >> Yeah, I would have to refer back to the report. Yeah, strictly looking at the the Parkland access.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. And >> it's okay. Keep going. Hold it.
>> Uh yeah. and uh sort of the preservation of um uh the 1.3 hectares of uh canopy retention, >> right? But that this would be like it's a different kind of uh continuousness that connects the the parkland all the way down to the ocean, which is what the ecosystem is in a natural state, right?
So >> anyway, that's probably getting a little bit too nerdy for this meeting and and we can hopefully see that in the report.
um are maybe for both of you if are there species at risk um like designated on this site and if so um how would harms like that be mitigated but in both scenarios. So in a scenario where this development is um proceeds maybe to the next is uh stage or uh if it was just left with the owners in its current state.
>> Sure through to council mayor. Yeah there's no doubt there will be species at risk. Um there will be Gary Oaks uh impacted. Some of the larger stands are on the park protected area and on the top of the common lot, but um it's it's a balance. Um it's protecting three three acres of of land as as park for eternity. So there will be there will be some some impacts for sure. And I did want to point out too that that these reports have been offered to be available for the public through an FOI request. So there's there's they're not being withheld. They they have been offered. We have to make sure that we read the report. I mean on the first page I see someone's name with their address with their email. We have to make sure we vet that personal information and then if get any third party release before we release these reports. That's that's standard practice. So I just wanted to to make sure that was out there.
>> Okay. Thanks for those comments. Um, I'm going to go to Councelor Grant. Yeah.
Councelor Hlett and Councelor Kerr.
>> So, the this process that we're using uh tonight is different than ones we've used in the past. since because it's new and I and I know it's probably the first one we've done. But my question is that if we if we pass first, second, and third reading of the zoning, then I'm not sure where we are when the DPS come up. Do we still do we still get to talk about those?
Like what I'm thinking here is perhaps if we went first and second reading, got some of that detail from the proponent and then we could talk about it and figure out whether we like it or we don't like it and then move on to third reading. I don't know if that makes sense to you or not, but >> it's just a way of getting more info into this into the system before we >> before we run with it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that's a good question and I think it's worth talking about um where where we are and where the town was before. So, uh probably about 2 years ago now, the town went through a development application review. And what we heard from the community and what we heard from the developers was the past practice of bundling your zone bundling zoning and DP applications was not preferred by anybody. And the reason for that was um uh actually the the accusations would come at staff that um we had decided everything already. Um we had worked with the developers for years. Council hadn't got to take a look at anything.
The community hadn't got to take a look at anything. Everything had been preddecided and it got to council with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent and there was no opportunity for public input. Um the developers didn't like going that way because they had to put hundreds of thousands of dollars of their development at risk without getting any indication for whether or not there was support from council. And so about a year year and a half ago, the decision was made from that review to split the development permit process from the zoning process. Uh we started doing that on the Cedar A property um about a month ago where staff recommended that we go out to early public consultation. Um that was received the way it was received and now we have the second one where we're again we're following what we have been asked to do which is to split the zoning and the DP application so that council gets an earlier look at these projects. So council, you have the decision if you want to combine and require DP applications prior to moving through on your zoning, right? If you want to see all of those studies that would be part of the DP application prior to approving the zoning, that's fine. I just want to say this isn't this has been a change based on what the community asked us to do and we are doing it. And so there's a different process that's wanted here. that's fine as well. Um, but if council wants to bundle your DPS and your um, zoning applications, which I think is what you're suggesting in this case, uh, councelor Grant, that's up to council.
>> Thanks for those comments. Um, councelor Grant looks like he might have a followup.
>> Yeah, I I I I understand that and that's actually I understand the logic. It's um what I'm looking at though is that you know there's a lot of like this is a very unique property. There's tons of studies yet to do or or to come in. I think they've probably mostly been done.
Uh we haven't seen them. Uh the public hasn't seen them. And so I'm just wondering if that would be something that we could look at to to get this because you know I know Cedar Avenue is the same thing like like people are phoning us and screaming at us and we haven't seen it yet. Right. And it and so it's really difficult for us when you when this is the case. And here we are again with another one where we don't actually like I'm not really sure what they're going to build on those or I'm not really sure what you know which trees are going to go or or how it's all going to work. And that might be good to know before we pass it if that makes sense.
>> Thanks for those comments. I'm going to chip in. I have a similar viewpoint. And I think the path of having to go through an FOI for an average person might be a more difficult path. I think there's probably a better way. So if there was a way to look at what some of the challenges are, it sounds like the the vehicular access um on Andrew Avenue or Lazo Road. Uh the options and also a lot of the how the servicing will work and what reports are available. I'd be very open to trying to figure out um how we maybe craft a motion that gets some of this information out to the public and then we can revisit what what those readings look like. So, I feel like I heard something similar um with councelor Grant. But for those of us who have been out to the property, it's very unique. It's very uh there's a lot of different slope protections and sewer and all of the different um ecological considerations. So, it's hard to do a zoning on that without some of this in our hands first. And I think the community is kind of feeling that that same way. So, uh looking for comments or I jumped in in front of councelor Kerr.
It is councelor Hlett. Thank her. Thank you.
>> Um yeah, just to touch on that a little bit. Um I agree this is a very unique property. I've been to it quite a few times and um and I can understand that in all the different reports that do need to come in for this, it is unique. I do think that we need to be careful here as we did just put these policies and procedures into place based on what the public wanted. Um however, I do understand the concern on that and you know a potential first and second and then getting all the information could work out really well in this in this case. Um but my question to you Randy is um a lot of questions get raised around the qualified professionals. Um it seems like no matter what happens, if we have a report come in, we're going to get two or three reports from the public stating the exact opposite of what that initial report comes in. How are we how should we look through that information?
and basically make a determination on that.
>> Yeah. No, that it's a really difficult thing. Um, you have qualified professionals who are writing um it some sometimes it's not uh people that are putting their stamp on it. Sometimes it's just people that are putting their credentials on it, but they're not stamping it. Sometimes we do have competing reports that come in. And I'll tell you one of the toughest things in my job is trying to decide between two engine engineers who know more about the subject than I. Who is right? Um we see that on almost everything coming in.
What I will say is that the government structure that has been created in British Columbia and Canada is one where municipalities and it's going to be almost anywhere you go relies on qualified professional reports. Um and it's not just on environmental issues.
If you are building over a three-story building in the town of Komox, you are not using our building inspector. You are using your own engineer who's going to be um signing off and saying that this building is safe for habitation. Uh we do not get involved in in that and it's the same that we rely on the qualified professionals. What I would say is that there are many people with qualified professional designations in the community and perhaps in this room who disagree with the opinions that have come out and are trying to engage staff in a debate about whether or not that report is correct or incorrect. We are not the people to have that debate with.
Please go to the professional associations and file complaints against the people who have written the reports.
We cannot judge that. We do not have the technical expertise to judge that. That is for a um usually in in professional associations there will be a tribunal um convened and they will make the determinations on on people that have violated the professional code of ethics or aren't doing things properly. But it's not something the town can can handle nor can we process for council.
My advice to you, if you are getting two competing um professional reports in and both of them are stamped and saying one is saying this is true and one is saying this is true and you're trying to decide what to rely on, the best course of action is to fund your own study. Um and then the question comes into that is how much money is council willing to prepared to put into all of these applications that they come in or when they come in?
Cirker, >> thanks. Uh, lots of thoughts that I'll probably share later, but question uh for for Randy and Robbie. Um, first of all, I love the table. Decision tables are are wonderful, super helpful as a counselor. Thank you. Um, question on page 17 162 of the report. I want to just ask about uh water and sewer. Uh specifically, Island Health recommends uh the lots connect to the CDRD sewer system. Um and the proponent uh representative tonight mentioned that uh they were planning to do um uh not to not do that and to be on septic systems. So I'm just curious what the plan is from a planning perspective and whether we would we would support the island health recommendation uh to punch a sewer line through somewhere.
And secondly, uh on the fire protection issue, um again a a hydrant is recommended in close proximity and therefore a water line would need to go through. So just a little bit on the utilities and what uh maybe planning's perspective is through the CEO to staff.
Uh be curious uh to know what that is.
Thanks.
>> Through the chair to counseler. Yet, just reading from the report, Island Health does recommend that lots be connected to the sewer system if possible.
Connection would provide greater long-term reliability and reduce reliance on individual on-site or strata sewage systems, which could fail. If connection to the CBRD sewer is not achievable and a strata sewage system is being considered, they'll need to meet the minimum requirements outlined in the subdivision standards pertaining to community strata sewage systems. So, they have a permitting process. We would not want to extend the sewer to this area. I can't really speak. Perhaps Director Ashefield knows how far the sewer is away from this area, but we would not want to extend the sewer to it.
If >> Yeah, I'll just add to that that there's no the CBRD sewer that's in that area is the regional forest main, so they couldn't connect a service to it. And then the water would come off of Lazo.
Any followup from that? Okay. Questions from around the table while we have Randy and Robbie. Uh, council mayor, >> I have a question about um the flood mapping and it's related um I I guess to um the sequencing of decision making.
Um and so I guess I I just need to understand uh what to ask for.
When would more detailed information be available in the current process or like how would we make that information easily publicly available without people having to uh request through FOI like and I think the the coastal flood mapping information was one piece but really it's uh that's related to all the reports.
>> Sure. through the chair to council mayor. There has been a flood plane assessment done um and um it does outline minimum setbacks um from the waterfront minimum flood construction levels as well to meet to meet the flood hazard concerns. Um these this would be required for the hazard development permit so later in the process. Um, but we have those reports if if council wishes for those to be released.
>> Okay. So, we could put that in a motion um that those be released. Thank you for the clarification on that. Um, I wanted to go back um or I wanted to I I would like to really understand if if this was not approved and so it stayed with the current zoning and they could do up to four lots.
Um I think on the first slide there was um something about the entrance way in that case would also be off of Andrew Avenue. Um I think I have two multiple questions I think with this. um what kind of protection uh could people expect um if if this request was uh voted down. So kind of what kind of protection exists with the current zoning I guess is the the first question and then um the second question is with the current zoning um what are the access options?
So, in a case where we have four lots going up, are you saying that all of them would go through Andrew Avenue and that that in that case would would the neighborhood still have say?
>> Sure. Through the chair to council mayor.
The minimum lot size for subdivision is 0.5 hectares. The lot is 2.3 hectares.
So, that leaves about about four lots.
It's it's safe to say. Um, and so the minimum lot width is 27 m. The frontage is approximately 81 m, which so if I were to to guess as what could happen under the current zoning, it would be a three lot subdivision along Lazo Road 123, leaving that this back area sort of undeveloped without road access. So then at that point they would want to have their driveway come from Andrew A to serve one property at on the waterfront.
And and I should just add too that at that point as the approving officer we would just look to to see that the Ministry of Transportation is okay with an additional driveway from that point and if they are it would be approved and they can move through sub to subdivision approval without council uh approval at all. I I think it's important to pause at this point because I think that there's a perception that the municipality and town staff can do whatever we want and that's that's not the true when it comes to subdivision applications. When we get a subdivision application in, there has to be a reason for which we can deny it if it conforms with town bylaws. And so when you take a look at the potential for a three lot subdivision here with a request coming in from Andrew Road, if that request comes in outside of any resoning process, it simply has to um meet the town servicing bylaws and then the approving officer will take a look at it. There will be a study required. Um but the the reality is is the provincial and federal government do environmental protection. that is the levels of government that provide the regulations on what can happen. We've seen this on numerous projects within the town of Komox. Um it will be the provincial and federal government regulations that determine whether or not the area has the type of ecological value that prevents development or it has the type of ecological value that just needs to be um moved and compensated. Those determinations are not made by town staff. Those determinations are made by the qualified environmental professionals who are hired by the developers to make those decisions and then those decisions are reviewed are sent um are referred to the federal and provincial government. That that is the the process. So it's not actually um town staff that can get involved in any of that outside of what we have right now with the resoning. And so one of the ways to look at this is um it's not one of the ways to look at this is staff is looking at providing you know hey in a base case meeting all the town bylaws there's three lots there and we're having a five lot proposal. So what the staff recommendation is is to provide two extra lots for 3 acres of parkland protection. Right? So it becomes those sorts of tradeoffs. If this application doesn't go through, can you go back to the last slide? Uh Randy, right? If council denies the application, um no, one more the very end.
There you go. The four decisions denied.
Um the parkland, we know there will be no parkland dedication. What are the ecological impacts? We have no idea. We know there will be zero protection. Um maybe there is no subdivision application that comes in. Maybe the owners give up. Maybe they go and develop something else up on the top end. We don't know. What we do know is that the recommendation that we put forward secures 3 acres of um parkland dedication and perpetuity for the town of Komox. Now that doesn't mean that that's the right trade that council needs to decide on, but it should hopefully help inform how staff has have come to this conclusion. And just before we move, can you go back to the first slide that had the three options? So there seems to be um a belief that there can be a win for everybody and that the road coming off of Lazo will not need to be constructed to the standard that both the applicant and the town think is probably going to be required in order to get subdivision approval. If that's the case, the town is all ears to hear.
If there is somebody who has an engineered stamp that is willing to come and put their name, insurance, and reputation on the line to do this, please have them reach out to us. We would love a win-winwin situation. What we have right now is taking a look, if you take a look at the pictures there, we have three options. We have the option coming off of Hutton, which would destroy uh if you can see the red dotted lines there, that's Gary Oak habitat. So that would destroy a significant amount of Gary Oak habitat. We have the option coming in from Lazo which would destroy even more Gary Oak habitat and cut a nature park in half. And then we have the option coming off of Andrew which um has the least ecological impact. It's not to say it does not have any ecological impact and it's not to say that it's the right thing to do for council, but this is why staff have come to the conclusion that we have. And again, if there is something out there that we can take a look at that will allow that subdivision with the road for fire access to come in. I I've been involved in projects before where the police have refused to sign off on subdivisions because they didn't feel it was safe for them to get in because they had no way to get out. So, those are the limitations that we take into place because we do care about this community and we want to do the best thing we can for the town of Komox. Um, and we think that we've tried to strike a balance here and if there's disagreement there, that's fine. But I don't think it changes the fact that um, we are doing our best to try and provide um, benefit for the community uh, moving forward.
>> Thanks. Uh, just a quick comment. I think we have a desire and a duty to make sure that whatever plan or proposal comes out is sustainable, is serviceable, is going to work, and gets us the 3.24 acres of protection. So, I think the challenge is there's quite a bit of reports that are that are available that haven't necessarily been made available um to council to be able to sink their teeth into and to also have out to the public for consideration. And so, um, looking around the table for if there's the similar thoughts, I think we just need to pause and get some of this information out to the public with the proponents, um, approval and at least have a conversation on the same page. So if instead of looking at three or four lots going up to six lots, uh knowing that development likely will happen on this unique and ecological property, I think more information being available to council and the public would would at least alleviate some of the discussions and misinformation that we're that we're having. So, um, councelor Grant, >> so would it make sense to move first and second reading tonight or or now so that we can actually get those reports?
Um, and we could get, I guess, any reports that are pertinent or any reports that have been done or that are available, I guess, would be the right way to put that. um that doesn't commit us to any development but it gets us the reports and we can then move to third reading if the reports look look good.
Does that make sense to do?
>> That is one option.
>> Well, what's the other option?
>> Well, I don't like >> lots of different options. There's we can recoup and make them have the development permit uh completed before we reszone, which is kind of going back to the old way. We can ask for uh more community consultation on the driveway and the reports, which is kind of what we're discussing. But you're right, we can pass first and second reading and have third reading at a future date, which gets more information to us and the public.
>> Okay, I would move that second.
>> Okay, we'll move and second and I'll just get you to repeat um the motion or I can try and put it together. Okay.
That zoning amendment uh bylaw 2056.01 be given first and second reading and that any available reports be released >> to council and the public.
>> Sure.
>> Okay. I'm just >> Well, if they come to council, they're open, right? So then then can get them.
Yeah.
>> So that has been moved and seconded and that would be with the applications uh approval. Applicant councelor Kerr. Uh a question for staff. Uh then could you just outline what the next steps would be in terms of what would come back to council and what community engagement would happen?
Can I get the motion out for me one more time? Apologies.
>> No problem. I'm going to go back to councelor Grant for intent of the motion. Correct.
>> Not. Okay. So it was uh zoning amendment bylaw 2056 be given first and second reading and that any available reports be what did I say then be released >> publicly available?
>> Publicly available. Yeah.
>> Okay. So um we we we would release with the So what's interesting about the process we're in right now is that this is the zoning. We have the DP applications coming later.
The reports are connected to the DP applications. However, we have talen to the spoken to the applicant and they um seem more than willing to release this.
So, uh the information and the reports that they've done. So, I think that we can do that. You don't need to connect this to approval of zoning. But what the motion on the table is is just for us to work um and seek the applicant to release the reports that they've already completed. I don't see a motion for the town to hold community consultation.
that would be something that you had spoken to the applicant about and they may choose to hold it. So, I just want to make sure that we're clear what's being asked of staff. What's being asked of staff is just to work with the applicant to release any information um that has been completed in preparation for their DPS >> and as as it's read as a next step because uh we wouldn't be doing third reading.
>> So, it is this the release of this information is conditional in your zoning. Okay. as the motion was read.
Yes, it is >> correct.
>> Uh so we're on discussion now. So we can bring up any new points in regards to the motion. Councilor Mayor.
>> Yeah, I would I would definitely want to include a requirement for neighborhood engagement um specifically like to with an aim for collective problem solving and mitigating impacts. And then I have a process question of um can we just defer it all pending receiving the information and requiring more engagement having staff maybe do further analysis and come back or do we have to approve a first or second reading to do those things?
I would say it's at the will of council, but I'll go to CEO wall.
>> That's correct. It's up to council.
>> I think Oh, sorry. Uh, director.
>> Yeah, thank you. The only the only thing I can add with that is that we would we have to notify in advance of first reading. So then if you don't give first reading now, we would just have to read notify for when you're considering first reading again at a later date. If that makes sense.
>> I think that would be okay. I I just think the in the spirit of slowing down and taking the time that the community is requesting, I I think that um deferring pending these next steps uh would would probably show a little bit more care uh if council is willing.
Okay. And again, the motion on the floor is for the first and second reading. So, you would uh vote against if you want it to be a deferral based on that. Uh just a question over to staff. If there was more inquiries on uh the vehicle access and just having a broader discussion on the actual planning and proposal um that could come from community, would that have to be specified um in the motion or because this is giving x amount more weeks or months to the timeline that would not need to be specified? No, I mean we are always open to receiving um feedback to from the um from the community and trying to incorporate it into applications. I think it's just important to remember too that these aren't staff applications that are coming through. They're developer applications. So, we can't make anybody to anything, but we can certainly suggest it.
>> Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Uh looking for further comments from council on the current motion which is to do first and second reading and make publicly available any reports to date and we would not be doing third reading which is on the t on the recommendation tonight. Councelor Kerr, >> I I'm kind of aligned with councelor Mayor. I just I think I'd like the information before voting. So I will vote against this. Um, and either way, if it does go, if it does pass, I'm still looking forward to the information before voting on the next reading.
Thanks.
>> I'm just going to look if there's any hands over here and then go back. Uh, councelor Blackwell and then councelor Mayor.
>> So, here we are at the resoning stage.
Primary consideration is whether the creation of additional residential loss serviced by septic systems is appropriately balanced by the proposed public benefits including the protection of 1.31 hectares of old growth forest and the provision of a trail connection to a new waterfront access. I would definitely support first and second reading of the resulting bylaw at this stage.
>> Okay. And back to council mayor.
>> Um I just need you to remind me of the process because uh if uh so at the very least if this would pass I would want to require public engagement and that's not currently part of the motion. So, um, but I would prefer to propose a motion that is just deferral.
Uh, of course with the sharing information and requiring engagement.
>> Okay. Thanks for clarifying your vote likely in the opposition. Uh, councelor, sorry, CEO Wall.
>> No, I was just going to ask for clarification again. the mo we do have a motion on the table that's been seconded and so um the desire to include consultation in that could come as an amendment at this time or if the motion passes or defeated you can deal with it at that point as well.
>> Okay. I think I have somewhere in the middle but um I'm supportive of first and second reading with community and um with sorry the reports being made public but I would also like to see the community um engagement conversation.
So, I would I'll vote no on this one and have a possible second motion.
>> Well, you could ask me if I'd accept an amendment, and I probably would.
>> Would you accept an an amendment to have community engagement as part of the motion?
>> Yes, I would.
>> Okay. So, uh we will still have to vote on that. C >> uh you still need to make a motion. Um once a motion is made and seconded, it becomes the property of the floor, not the mover. So, you still need to make an amending motion and then it needs to be seconded.
>> Uh, councelor Grant did make an amending motion and it was seconded.
>> Do it again.
>> Correct. Yeah, >> that's what just was made. Yeah, >> but we do need to vote on that.
>> Okay. So, the amending motion is to have community engagement uh included as part of that first second reading and community sharing of reports. Uh, council mayor, >> I just want to understand aside from the um philosophical kind of side of things of uh demonstrating that we're slowing down by deferring rather than approving first and second. Is there anything that approving first and second uh reading would commit us to that would not be um reversible?
>> No, there would not.
Hey. Uh, CEO Wall.
>> Yeah. I just look for clarification. The consultation that council is voting on is a townled consultation process similar to um ones we've done before or is this a developer consultation process similar to a pre-application process? Is it town led and funded or develop? Is it townledd and funded or developer led and funded?
>> I'll look to councelor grants, but I believe it was internal, but I could be wrong. Councelor Grant intend.
>> So, so are you saying that it would be townled? Is that what you're saying?
>> I'm asking.
>> No, I'm ask. The mayor just made a comment.
>> I think the preference would be to have it be townled based on the community interest. It would >> I would agree with that. Yeah.
Okay. So, townled community engagement on 721 Lassa Road after first and second reading as the motion is uh on the table. We do have to vote on the amendment, but we'll go to councelor Kirk.
>> Uh given the again, this is jurisdictional nightmare. Okay. So given that the residents most affected by an Andrew access point are in the CVRD, uh would this would there also be um and and I recognize we have area B director here in the room. Would would there be a CVRD component to the community engagement uh i.e. or sharing of funding uh or involvement of some way because that is the the residents we're engaging are not town of Komox residents for the most part.
>> I don't think the engagement that we do generally is limited to town of Komox boundaries, but I cannot speak to the funding and I'm not sure staff would be able to on the fly either. But >> no, we'd have to go back and then come back. I think the delay that that would I think it would just add confusion. If if council wants staff to undergo consultation, we can. And I do think that highlights a good point, which is that in in an effort of transparency, the town has gone beyond our statutory requirements in our um consultative process and in our notification process to include um people outside of our jurisdictional boundaries in the notification. Um just wanted to make that clear as well.
>> Uh councelor mayor, ju just one more question. Um I I think that the prop like it's really important that the proponent is part of the conversation. So um is that something that we need to clarify or can we leave it up to staff to kind of um you know if the the view the the purpose is like uh mitigation of concerns and finding a path forward do you need any other specific direction?
So my intent would be to um undertake this the same way we have done other consultative processes which would mean that the proponent is u more than able to attend but that this would be a townled um information session. Uh we we talked I I just want to make sure I'm clear on what council's asking us to do. We talked a long time ago about the renovate the public hearing. This is not a public hearing. This is a a consultation process, but it's the same sort of dichotomy. Um, is council asking us to enter into a process that is more akin to creating a community design panel or is council asking us to enter into an information consultation process similar to what we would have done in the past?
I think your second one is what we would be what we we would be looking for.
>> I think at this time it's information sharing being available so that the discussion can be on the same we can have a discussion on the same grounds.
Uh, councelor Kerr, >> just to keep beating this this horse, uh, you know, I think I think the spirit of what council mayor was saying, if I can try to paraphrase, is is there's some healing or connection that needs to happen between the developer who wants to develop this land and and by all rights should and the parkland dedication is amazing. Um but also some very creative ideas coming from the neighbors uh about maybe different configurations, maybe different uh ways to make it a little bit more acceptable for the neighbors. So I I think is I I don't know I don't mean to speak speak for you council mayor but I I think there's some kind of a a process here where can can the town act as some sort of a mediator between the residents and the developer to find a best solution again like we did with our tree protection bylaw that maybe not everyone loves but we can all live with.
I think that goes back to more of a design panel situation when it's the two-way. So, I I think as the motion reads, I could be incorrect. It's it's going to be sharing of all reports that are available. And then if there is uh the community information SE session, if this passes as amended, um councelor would be council would be welcome to be there to be having those conversations and the more people at that table in that space. but to to act as a mediator in this case may not get a final proposal.
Is there a hand up on this side of the table?
Okay. So, we have an amended motion amending motion to have uh first and second reading complete with any and all available reports being made to council and the community and having internal uh an internal community information session. uh out to the public that's led by the town of Komox. That's the motion as amended. Is there any questions on the amending motion before we vote on that?
>> Senator Wall, >> sorry, we has the amendment voted on yet? I think we're just voting on the amendment, which would be to include community consultation in the process.
So, that'll be the first vote. Whether or not you want to include community consultation in the process, then you'll go back to first and second. Correct.
>> So the amending motion is just on the community engagement information session.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. All those in favor?
Opposed? And the amending motion passes.
We're now back to the motion as I recently read on first second reading with reports being made available to the public and having an internal community information session out to the public internal. Sorry. Uh, is there any further discussion on that motion that's on the floor?
Okay. All those in favor?
Opposed?
And that passes unanimously. I want to thank uh Robbie and Randy just had in mind right there uh for standing up with us today. I do want to make a couple quick comments now that we're there. I know in the last uh couple weeks and I would say more this year we're getting a lot more uh I would say negative and derogatory information um out there online where um you know departments and town of Komox is is labeled in somewhat um I would say in an accurate way. So I do want to just ask the public we're seeing way more of that in the last year than we've seen in the last eight years that I've been here. Um, just consider when you're posting online that our staff are like local lo we all live are your counselors. We live here. We work here. Um, and so if you're posting something, there has been quite a bit of uh wrong information going around and it does make it really challenging to then come to the table and represent the facts that we are trying to get to the bottom of. So I really do want to thank staff uh that's standing up today. uh we all get uh you know nervous in these situations presenting but I do ask that we look to be as kind and um look for truth when we're when we're going online because it's hard to make comments from a council and staff perspective. So thank you for that consideration and we're through 721 Lazo Road. We'll take about a 30-second break should anyone want to depart, but we only have about 5 or 10 minutes left. Oh, we're gonna get Marine Councelor Swift back.
Thank you for attending.
Okay, we're going to get back back to the meeting. We don't have too much longer here. There are no notices of motion. Under correspondence, we have a letter from Jason Bashnik, uh, CRA director of Fresh Air Sim Cinema on the proposed outdoor movie night July 24th.
Uh the BIA has let us know uh through I believe it's Emily Uchuk um that we have been awarded that movie night on July 24th at Komox Marina Park. So I don't believe uh should we receive the correspondence?
It's Yeah, perfect. So we've received it and that is coming to the park July 24th. We hope to see everybody there.
There are no late items. So, we will do reports from members of council and we will start with councelor Blacklock and go down that side of the table. Uh just quick thank you to everyone who came out and attended the BIA AGM. Uh the two new directors uh Emily from Wildflower Merkantile and Caroline from uh New Horizon Law were confirmed as directors at our meeting last night and President Pete Chambers is going to remain for another year. So, lots to work on at the BIA, uh, including the, um, uh, groundwork for our MRDT, uh, tax, um, which will hopefully, um, uh, net some revenue that can be used for tourism promotion. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councelor Swift, and then Councelor Hlet.
>> Uh, thank you. I have nothing to report except that it's the Filberg AGM this coming Sunday at 2 o'clock.
Nothing to report.
>> Uh councelor Ker, council ground, councelor mayor, please.
>> Uh just just briefly, uh last week there was a waste management board meeting, CVRD, and uh they presented some stats of tremendous uh work on diversion and CO2 emissions saved by the organics program um across the valley. and they reported it in tons of CO2, which that metric doesn't make any sense to me. So, we've asked them to um come back with like what that would actually mean. I how many cars off the road, how many um you know, how many trips to and from Victoria that that's equivalent to. So, they're going to come back with some meaningful stats for us to understand. But just uh you know kudos to everyone in the Komox who been using their kitchen catchers and and using their organics bins and uh and it's been really successful. Thanks.
>> Yeah, I don't have anything to report except I took the wrong bin out on Tuesday. So So I still have all my junk from the kitchen.
>> Nothing to report. Thanks.
You guys were faster than I expected. I wasn't quite ready, but uh I got to attend the 138th annual Mayday's Victoria weekend in Cumberland, which was uh very well attended by the public.
I think it's something Cumberland and the valley looks forward to. Um it's theund as mentioned 138th year. So it's one of the oldest festivals happening in British Columbia and it was I think a great success. So, congratulations to the Cumberland Festival Society that uh runs that, Leslie Baird, and a group that's been doing that for many years.
Uh you may have seen uh in news yesterday, the snowbirds have been grounded uh this year at the end of this season. So, they're going to fly for the summer and I believe into September and then they're saying sometime in 2030s they will return with an unknown um number of years. So, um that was some mixed emotion news yesterday about them being grounded and new planes are on order. Um DT-157s and they they will be coming sometime in the 2030s. So, we're not going to have the snowbirds for the next 5 to x amount of years. We won't say how many. Um I did take the opportunity really quickly to run down and go through the Air Force Museum because they have a lot of snowbird memorabilia. They have stuff in the gift shop and I thought it would be cool just to share with the public that they are highlighted in our museum. And that is a very amazing uh place. I've been there twice, I will admit, but it's it's a really um it's a it's an amazing museum. So, take a chance to look that out. Uh thanks to councelor Blacklock for representing the BIA at the AGM.
They did announce the float your boat Fridays which are going to be coming.
Um, I think that's a very catchy name.
And they also will have a concert series every Friday at lunchtime at the old Lauren site or kind of our what we use as our center, town center. Uh, the Komox Valley Cycling Club was celebrating their anniversary and they had a race that they brought back since 2019. They had about 50 cyclists come out to that event and they're hoping to do that uh every year from now on. I believe it's called race the valley and it was uh nice to attend and see. That is all from now. So we have no media questions. Uh is there any public questions this evening?
No public questions. Okay. So with that I will move for termination at 7:35.
All those in favor.
Related Videos
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
Potential Iran deal is 'a big defeat' for US: John Bolton | Elizabeth Vargas Reports
NewsNation
1K views•2026-05-29
Russia Clashes With Romania, U.S. And EU At Security Council Meeting | DWS News | AC1F
dwsofficial
344 views•2026-06-02
Independence Calendar (Episode #25) - With Cory Morgan & Keith Wilson
JohnBoltonAB
3K views•2026-05-31
BREAKING: TRUMP ADMITS HE LIED ON CIA
DarrenMonroePolitics
10K views•2026-06-01
Why Reynosa Is Burning Now: The Truth Explained
THEFACTFACTORYF
560 views•2026-05-30
