Regular Council - 18 Jun 2024

1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
7.A: Staff Recommendation:
7.A.i: Special Business Meeting: April 23, 2024
7.A.ii: Regular Business Meeting: June 4, 2024
7.B: CORRESPONDENCE - Receive for Information
7.B.i: 0529 V. Guterres Simionato Re: Youth Council Scholarship
7.B.ii: 0531 MP. P. Weiler Re: May 2024 MP Newsletter
7.B.iii: 0605 MP. P. Weiler Re: Constituency Youth Council Townhall
7.B.iv: 0605 MP. P. Weiler Re: Green Municipal Fund
7.B.v: 0612 Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada Re: Save the Date for Welcoming Week
7: CORRESPONDENCE - Referred to Staff
7: Staff Recommendation:
7.C: STAFF UPDATES - For Information
7.C.i: Grants and Partnerships Policy Review - Memo
7.C.ii: Youth Climate Corps BC and District of Squamish Partnership Update - Memo
9.A.i: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Agriculture 1) No. 3054, 2024
9.A.ii: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Tantalus at Paradise Valley) No. 2974, 2023
9.A: Zero Carbon Step Code Implementation
9.A.iii: District of Squamish Building Bylaw No. 1822, 2004, Amendment Bylaw (Low Carbon Step Code Building Bylaw Update) No. 3090, 2024
9.A.iv: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Low Carbon Step Code Zoning Bylaw Update) No. 3085, 2024
9.B: 2024 Loan Authorization Bylaws
9.B.i: District of Squamish Whittaker Slough Pump Station Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3058, 2024
9.B.ii: District of Squamish Xwu’nekw Park Sea Dike Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3064, 2024
9.B.iii: District of Squamish Loggers East Drainage Diversion Pipe Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3066, 2024
9.B.iv: District of Squamish Expansion of the Cemetery Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3068, 2024
9.B.v: District of Squamish Wastewater Treatment Plant Headworks Building Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3070, 2024 District of Squamish Bridge Resurfacing Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3071, 2024
9.C: 2024 Loan Authorization Bylaws
9.C.i: District of Squamish Whittaker Slough Pump Station Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3058, 2024
9.C.ii: District of Squamish Xwu’nekw Park Sea Dike Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3064, 2024
9.C.iii: District of Squamish Loggers East Drainage Diversion Pipe Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3066, 2024
9.C.iv: District of Squamish Expansion of the Cemetery Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3068, 2024
9.C.v: District of Squamish Wastewater Treatment Plant Headworks Building Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3070, 2024 District of Squamish Bridge Resurfacing Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 3071, 2024
9.D.i: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Small-Scale Multi-unit Housing) No. 3036, 2024
9.D.ii: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Tantalus at Paradise Valley) No. 2974, 2023
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:08:24)

0:00:28 (0:07:26)


Armand Hurford
0:07:55 (0:00:29)

hello everybody and welcome to the district of Squamish this is a regular business meeting for the District of Squamish for Tuesday June 18th Hamish welcome to the traditional and unseated territory of the SCH homish Nation please be advised that this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the public to view on the District of Squamish website following the meeting if you have concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting which is Miss Wells this evening

0:08:24 (0:00:17)

Armand Hurford
0:08:24 (0:00:16)

could I have someone move adoption of the agenda please move by councelor French second by councelor Hamilton all in favor motion carries thank you we thank you we have no delegations petitions or proclamations this evening

0:08:41 (0:26:16)

John, representing Paradise Trails at Squamish, approached the council with a request to discuss an amendment bylaw concerning the downzoning of a property they are working on. He highlighted the urgency due to the council considering the first three readings and possibly the fourth reading of the amendment bylaw during the meeting. His request was to address the council on their work and why they believe the amendment bylaw should proceed, emphasizing that there had not been an opportunity for public input as it was not included in the public hearing notice.

The council's discussion following John's request was cautious, with staff advising against hearing unscheduled public attendance on this item to maintain procedural fairness. Council members expressed various viewpoints, with some considering the importance of hearing from the public or the developer, while others, informed by previous discussions with the proponent and mindful of maintaining procedural integrity, were not in favor of deviating from established processes. Ultimately, the council decided not to allow the unscheduled public attendance, with the motion failing as most council members, including Mayor Armand Hurford, opposed it, citing the need to adhere to procedural fairness and the established process for public input.

Armand Hurford
0:08:41 (0:01:32)

item four is consideration of unscheduled public attendance so if anyone has a matter that's emergent in nature and is and needs to be thus needs to address Council before our next regular scheduled meeting this would be their opportunity to make a case for that to happen I see some hands I'm going to go with first P the post so I saw over we'll start over here and U just I'll run everyone through the process of this piece so this mechanism is here to your first opportunity is to U make a case as to why tonight you're on you would speak tonight at the meeting not so much to make the whatever the point is that you're that you're looking to address with Council so once we've had heard that Council decides whether that's appropriate or not as so that'll be voted on and then we go we go from there so you have two minutes to make to present as to why it's timely this evening that's the first piece and then we'll get into the content later in the agenda where appropriate should Council accept that so that's the process and that'll be the same for whichever the matter is so we'll start we'll start here if you approach the mic and start by stating your name and we're and then you have two minutes to address

0:10:14 (0:00:28)

Council my name is John or I work for Paradise trails at Squamish tonight council is considering first three readings and fourth reading is my understanding on an amendment bylaw to down zone of property that we're working on and I'd like to have the opportunity to address Council and to discuss what we've been doing and why we think the amendment should be the amendment bylaw should be

Armand Hurford
0:10:42 (0:00:08)

defeated okay thank you for that Miss WS sorry do you y go

0:10:51 (0:00:25)

ahead because this was advertised and it wasn't an opportunity for a public hearing and it was stated in the public hearing notice that there wouldn't be an opportunity for public input I would caution councel against hearing unscheduled public attendance related to this item for reasons of due process and procedural

Armand Hurford
0:11:16 (0:00:20)

fairness okay with yeah so we heard a request and a caution from staff council do we have looking for guidance where Council would like to go from here councelor penil look like you have a question or comment

Chris Pettingill
0:11:36 (0:00:09)

yeah clarifying question is this issue one that with the new housing legislation where a public hearing is not required or not

0:11:46 (0:00:10)

permitted I believe this is one where it's not required it's not the one that is

Armand Hurford
0:11:56 (0:00:41)

prohibited okay so Council we've heard from someone that would like to speak on this on this matter we've been cautioned by our by our staff on this is there appetite to proceed despite the caution or he heed the advice I suppose if we wanted to hear from folks on this matter we need a moover and a seconder for this otherwise the silent we don't need to take action would be the defeat or schedule public hearing I suppose or some other matter but some other approach but councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:12:38 (0:00:05)

Hamilton I'm G to move that we hear the

Armand Hurford
0:12:44 (0:00:11)

speaker okay and I'll speak to it if second yeah thank you I'll second it for discussion so go

Andrew Hamilton
0:12:56 (0:01:30)

ahead thanks very much Council hearing views of the public is very important this is a different scenario this is a the views of a developer a developer is approaching us which is a slightly different scenario I am hesitant to put forward this motion to hear from the developer in this forum because unscheduled public attend this is not the designed purpose of unscheduled public attendance but in the when I ask myself can we afford five minutes or three minutes of our time or two minutes of our time I do think we can afford two minutes or five more minutes of our time to hear from this developer so with that I acknowledge the advice of our corporate officer I also think that if we should be changing our public attendance unscheduled public attendance policy we should do that in a more fullsome manner than in

Armand Hurford
0:14:26 (0:00:03)

oneoff okay councilor Penning

Chris Pettingill
0:14:29 (0:00:59)

yeah I'm not inclined to support my colleague I and I believe a number of my colleagues have had indepth conversations with the proponent and so I feel I've had a chance to review and understand I think my understanding is that our understanding of the guidance around when it's appropriate to do a public hearing or necessary versus unscheduled public attendance and so on has is evolved in and we're trying to improve always improve our processes and I think you know in some other cases where I think it seems maybe we have been over accommodating there's also always at the end of the day a public hearing and so there was a general public opportunity with notice and so on and that is not the case here and so that together with the staff advice and the meetings I've had make me uncomfortable supporting this thank you

Armand Hurford
0:15:29 (0:00:03)

thank you other comments on this Council green

Lauren Greenlaw
0:15:32 (0:00:16)

law I won't be supporting either just given the fact that we have recently come under some scrutiny for being to LAX with our public attendance with our unscheduled public attendance and I think that we should Rectify that moving so

Armand Hurford
0:15:49 (0:00:03)

forward okay thank you Council

John French
0:15:52 (0:00:28)

French thank you mayor I won't be supporting the motion one of the reasons is that this particular proponent is prolific and extremely good at sharing information I have received a significant amount of excellent documentation and I feel like I wouldn't be hearing anything new in an oral presentation tonight so I won't be

Armand Hurford
0:16:20 (0:02:54)

supporting thank you any other comments before I Venture mind this is an interesting piece we had some I will say we had some applications to appear under our delegations petitions proclamations process which Speaking a development or a group speaking on a development doesn't fit in that in that piece so this piece on schedule public attendance is that opportunity when appropriate for Council to entertain a hearing from folks in the community and it was my understanding that this would be this would be an option but now I've heard from our from our corporate officer the nuances and with each matter that comes before us it's a slightly different context and slightly different procedure depending on you know many factors including whether there's a public hearing and so on and that's all named in that's all done in the name of and kind of counterintuitively honestly in this case of procedural of procedural fairness and giving everyone the opportunity to speak or not so I think that if we want to hear from the proponent and or the community r large on this then there's a decision somewhere around having a public hearing whether that opportunity would exist more fulsomely so yeah so I'm not I'm going to as much as I was the second for that for that discussion I haven't heard a compelling argument to move against our corporate officers efforts to keep us on side procedurally so I won't be supporting so with that I'll call the question all in favor councelor Hamilton is in favor and opposed councelor Anderson Pettingill green law French and may Herford oppose motion fails so I would say that I do have sorry I do have some names on a list as much as I went that I realized is here I didn't see that when I went for hands so I think we've addressed the topic so if there's anyone on a different topic I'm going to say this stands for our on this topic is there is there someone that would like to speak on a different topic oh sorry there I go I'm here is there anyone that wishes to speak on a different topic yeah we'll start we'll start here Mr LaVine same again two minutes to address Council on why the matter you'd like to speak to is urgent and I would encourage it to be a different matter thank you

0:19:15 (0:01:16)

hey good evening I represent the owners hop Creek Farms and I'm here I would like to make this un scheduled representation to talk about the new agricultural lands zoning we've worked with the District of Squamish planners and it was a very good process however we believe that this is just the first start of the step in the right direction and I wanted to take the time to be able to speak to the process that we had with the planner and how it was such a great opportunity and the planner was really open in listening to all the agricultural land owners concerns and we discussed it and I think we've put forward as part probably a really good comprehensive new zoning that year is going to be discussed on tonight so I do want to while I appreciate all the hard work that's gone into the zoning that's only one bylaw and there's few other Municipal bylaws that I would like to bring to your attention almost like a good research report this is further work that needs to be

Armand Hurford
0:20:32 (0:00:17)

done thank you okay thank you I'm gonna ask oh sorry Mr LaVine can you just state your name I know I know I know I know but could you st state your name for the for the record and then we'll then we'll have the discussion

0:20:49 (0:00:03)


Armand Hurford
0:20:52 (0:00:48)

Lan so I'm going to go to the corporate officer quickly just to double check on this feels very similar to the first request however unscheduled public attendance is after in our agenda is after that topic and it sounds like this is a Flo a knock on from that so do we have the same the same risk if they to speak following if this request was granted if it was to stay in its currently scheduled position which would be following adoption of the or following discussion of the bylaw that Mr LaVine is looking to speak to follow my question so it would be one of these earlier bylaws but then unscheduled public attendance is item 19 or something on the agenda so it would be fall after does

0:21:41 (0:00:05)

that you know okay that doesn't pose any risks procedural

Armand Hurford
0:21:47 (0:00:40)

okay so this is so this would be consideration of un of Mr lavine's request falling after the discussion that we that we have around the property so it's like a next a next what next steps could be or something like that rather than speaking to the motion itself so that's the differentiation I'm going to make with this request from the last one although if it was otherwise then we'd have the same we'd have if it was to speak before and to the zoning then we would be in the same position we were with the last item does that make sense to everybody first of all councelor penil

Chris Pettingill
0:22:28 (0:00:33)

yeah just a question I'm not sure if I can ask the delegate I'm is that the right term for a question of clarification because as per your comments and what I heard is that this is sort of these are knock on things whereas I would expect a degree of urgency which doesn't seem to be here and so it's I think a filing an application to appear would make more sense in this I'm not clear on the urgency especially if this is going to be discussed the end of the meeting and so can we ask for clarification on that or

Armand Hurford
0:23:01 (0:00:15)

what's Mr Le can I get to and thank you for that Council P that's a great point one of the pieces was why you know why it's tonight and not in two weeks or some subsequent meeting for a Next Step so could you speak to the urgency of this

0:23:17 (0:01:02)

matter sorry this is an urgent issue pop Creek Farms as you all know has gone through a development permit process and we're running into roadblocks within that development process that is directly attributable to the Mis confusion or misinterpretation of the agricultural land commission Act and the Ministry of Agriculture and how they treat agricultural properties within the agricultural farms and the definitions of farm use farm buildings I'm not here to talk about the actual motion that's forward I'm talking about how as a council and hop Creek Farms can better work together with staff to affect the purpose without having to waste a considerable amount of time and resources because we're right in the throws of this development process

Armand Hurford
0:24:20 (0:00:26)

okay thank you for that additional context Council we've heard why the applicant for lack of a better praise for this piece is would' like to be heard this evening and following the matter that the matter the zoning discussion so that we don't have the same issue that we had in the first conversation but councelor penal

Chris Pettingill
0:24:47 (0:00:37)

yeah I'm left with another question I apologize but it seems to me in this process if we if we agreed it was urgent we had tonight there' be five minutes we would hear and basically just listen if we if this came in as a request to AER delegation there might be a commit of the whole and a more fome discussion might not happen as quickly but it's maybe a more you know more constructive process and so I guess I'm looking from Clarity from the delegate if it is that five minutes tonight that is the where the real

Armand Hurford
0:25:24 (0:00:32)

I think I think that's maybe for us just to understand what more so than to anyone in particular so I think yeah if someone wants to move this in second then we can we can we can work our way our way through it otherwise we can leave it to another to another process so are you moving are you moving it councelor Hamilton no I'll move it yes thank you is there a second ear councelor French seconds you want to speak to

Andrew Hamilton
0:25:57 (0:00:56)

it I think that the here the notion of urgency is the is debatable urgent for Urgent on what timeline and me debatable isn't the right word perhaps unclear is the right word I do understand so we are doing first three readings of this bylaw that's reasonably that's quite a few readings that's in one go and so I see this as a as a significant change happening fairly quickly and I think that it is upon I think it is valuable for us to hear what the folks impacted by this bylaw how they're being affected by it and what they're going to see as potentially coming next or important next steps for them so I thank

Armand Hurford
0:26:53 (0:00:30)

you I just wanted to clarify I think we might be is that we actually have third reading and not adoption of that particular bylaw tonight so it actually sorry I think our earlier comments I was being a bit optimistic on just where the timing was in the agenda but because we're not adopting I think we're in the same place so I'm going to go to miss Wells sir I just noticed that this wasn't one of the ones that was up for adoption I thought we were doing third reading and adoption yeah so we're in the same does that leave us in the same placement well I'm sorry

0:27:23 (0:00:36)

was sure clear on which bylaw it was at first I've just confirmed with staff that this is another a another item that is a discretionary public hearing and again notice was provided for this and in that notice it did it did indicate that there would be no public input opportunity and that it's always open for people to submit written letters but again this is to stay on the side of procedural fairness it wouldn't be appropriate for Council to hear from members of the public at this time

Armand Hurford
0:27:59 (0:01:05)

sorry I was in my advice earlier I was a bit optimistic that I was overly optimistic that this was an item that we were going to Grant readings to and potentially adopt prior to the public participation piece I will say that the so I won't be supporting but I do think that having through my work at the slrd where we actually deal with the agricultur the alc work more frequently than we do here as evident by the parcels that were we're discussing tonight when it comes to the ALR there's not many so the I know that there's a lot of nuance with this area and I would welcome a conversation and perhaps engagement in another way but this isn't the spot tonight but that doesn't mean that the matter is not important nor urgent to the individual just we can't I don't think I can support us putting our process off offside we'll trying to get the next step right so let's so I won't be supporting any other comments on this before I call the question counc green

Lauren Greenlaw
0:29:05 (0:00:23)

law I tend to agree with councelor pettingill's comments I wonder if this is better served in an application to appear before Council I do think it's important to get this information and to have these conversations but again I I'm a little bit wary of stepping into unscheduled public attendance based on the advice from our

Armand Hurford
0:29:28 (0:00:50)

yeah thank you and I think that during the conversation around that particular item we can ask what next steps are and how folks that are interested in those next those next steps can engage rather than presuppose what those opportunities would be but finding a way to create those opportunities to get this feedback in a in the appropriate ways is important so yeah thank you for that seeing no one else clamoring to speak to this I'm just going to call the question all in favor and opposed councelor Anderson Pettingill green law French and Mer Herford oppose motion fails thank you I saw another hand Chief yep go ahead and again the if you focus your comments on why the matter is urgent this evening and take into consideration what you've heard already thank

0:30:19 (0:01:39)

you yeah Chief Dale Harry one of the 16 Chiefs from the Squamish Nation I guess one of the things I really want to talk about is you know if it's two minutes and I think it's urgent and supporting the fire brigade up there and supporting Paradise Trails you know it comes something that I was involved in Council many years ago it's unfinished business for the nation it's unfinished business for the proponent and it's unfinished business for the district and we do have over have over 60 support letters from the Squamish nation and I shared it with many of you the counselors here and the mayor and I think it'd be really good that we be listened and be heard and you know one of the things is that I see when there's a fire up in chekai or Paradise Valley or the Squamish Valley there's imaginary line that the District of Squamish won't go fire department won't go they we've we had a fire at MES n and you know what and the fire department said it's not in our jurisdiction so I think we need to I'm here not to go up and fix a blame but I want to fix a problem and the problem is we need Fire Res fire protection a fire brigade to look at wildfires cuz you know I seen I think it's going to be a long hot summer and I think it should be we should be listened and we should be heard oium

Armand Hurford
0:31:59 (0:01:11)

thank you so I think I say this the speaker spoke to the urgency and also made took the opportunity to make a make a submission but we'll so this we have the advice stance from our from our staff if anyone would like to move otherwise see no mover or seconder for this so it doesn't does therefore it doesn't pass I do but the matter that topic will be I'll be sure to raise during the when we get to this to this matter is there anyone else on any different matters that would like to address Council this evening seeing none we'll move on with our with our agenda oh sorry yes go ahead you're we have to go to the we have to go to the mic and sorry Start If you could start with stating your name and then you have two minutes to address coun speak

0:33:10 (0:01:16)

to the urgency of this being heard from all of us that are here who want to speak and why it is tonight I feel it's a good as time as any and the urgency is you know like Dale said summer's coming and there's a lot that can be heard from us that can make or better the taxpayers in the valley the residents of chai and I believe that we're very lucky that the bushire we had out there that somebody was doing a backyard Bush burn and it jumped and it made for the forest and it and it could have been really bad for all of Squamish and if there's no district for fire hall out there needs to be one and I hope you guys can hear what we have to say more on that tonight thank you

Armand Hurford
0:34:26 (0:00:30)

thank you oh sorry did you start with stating your name and just Alicia Newman okay thank you Alicia I just wanted to make sure we got that on the on the record so Council we've seen we've had this we've had this discussion is there anyone that would like to move at this point to hear from Miss Newman okay seeing none we'll move on with our with our agenda we have no public hearings this evening or scheduled timed items

0:34:57 (0:00:36)

Armand Hurford
0:34:57 (0:00:36)

we have the consent agenda and I just wanted to pull item C1 from the consent agenda is there anyone else that wanted to pull anything go ahead councilor pill C2 please C2 okay thank you anyone else pull anything if not I'll look for someone to move the consent agenda are you moving the consent agenda so with those two items pulled councelor Hamilton moves councelor French seconds all in favor motion carries thank you and we'll deal with those two items in their appropriate spot we don't have anything under consideration of council committee recommendations we're on to

0:35:33 (0:00:05)

Armand Hurford
0:35:33 (0:00:04)

9A first three readings of bylaws

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Agriculture 1) No. 3054, 2024
0:35:38 (0:20:36)

Asia Philp, a planner with the Community Development Department, presented the Agricultural One (Agri1) Zone amendment to the District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, for council consideration. The amendment aimed to align the district zoning bylaw with the Agricultural Land Commission Act (ALCA) and the Agricultural Land Reserve Use Regulation (ALR), addressing inconsistencies in the current rural zoning covering most ALR land within the district. The presentation outlined the objectives of the Agri1 zone, including the preservation of farming and support for local farms and food production amidst increasing urban development pressures. The proposal also included rezoning five agricultural land reserve farm properties to the Agri1 zone, following consultations with landowners and alignment with ALCA and ALR regulations. Key aspects of the Agri1 zone, such as updating the definition of agriculture, adding accessory agriculture definitions, and setting restrictions for residential uses to ensure a compact residential footprint, were highlighted.

During the discussion, council members John French, Eric Andersen, and Andrew Hamilton raised questions regarding specific aspects of the proposed bylaw amendment, such as the inclusion of picnic area endorsements, the security of current tenants on the Easter Seals property, and the impact of the bylaw on existing farm uses and development permits. Staff clarified the consultation process with landowners, the intention behind specific bylaw definitions, and confirmed that the bylaw supports a wide variety of farm uses in compliance with ALCA and ALR legislation. Mayor Armand Hurford inquired about potential non-conformances and whether the bylaw goes beyond merely aligning with ALR requirements. The council expressed appreciation for staff's responses to stakeholder input and emphasized the importance of addressing industrial land supply to support the agricultural sector. The recommendation to give the first, second, and third readings to Amendment Bylaw 3054 was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried by the council.

Armand Hurford
0:35:38 (0:00:35)

and we have our staff here to present on the first one which is distri Squamish zoning bylaw number 2200 2011 Amendment bylaw for agricultural one this is number 3054 and I will turn it over to staff to introduce themselves and the project

0:36:13 (0:06:23)

good evening mayor and Council my name is Asia philp planner with the Community Development Department tonight I'm presenting the agricultural one zone for Council consideration of initial readings objectives are to present key ask ects of the agriculture one zone which I'll refer to as Agri one and review the five agricultural land Reserve Farm properties that we are proposing to reone to the Agri one zone throughout the presentation I'll be using several acronyms and I'll do my best to clarify these right from the get-go I'll refer to the agricultural land Reserve as the ALR so the primary drivers for the creation of the agri1 zone are to align the district zoning bylaw with the agricultural land commission act which I'll refer to as the Alca for short and agricultural land Reserve use regulation which I'll refer to as the ALR for short the district has a legislative responsibility under the Alca to ensure our bylaws are consistent with the Alca and the ALR the current rural zoning that covers most of our ALR land within the district has inconsistencies that have led to the need to update the zoning the second and related driver are our various policy directives to update the zoning the two main policies directing this work are ocp policy 26.4 C listed here and a very similarly worded recommended action from the Squamish Valley agricultural plan both calling out the need to update the zoning bylaw to align with the Alca and ALR so I wanted to touch briefly on why just beyond meeting our legislative requirements and policy directives we are doing this agriculture zoning work the challenge of preserving farming both locally and across BC grows with each passing year ALR lands are facing increasing pressure from Urban Development and encroachment the district has a role to play in both preserving the community's agricultural land base and in creating a regulatory environment that supports local farms and food production there's a related driver to this agriculture zoning work which is tied to the Easter Seals property highlighted here in red in 2021 Easter Seals made a non-firm use application to the alc to allow for the Easter Seals Camp Squamish to reestablish outdoor education camps in partnership with mulgrave school the application was considered and endorsed by Council in 2022 and forwarded to the alc for their consideration in 2023 the alc issued a decision on the application approving the camp use specifically for the 1.9 hectare camp area highlighted in yellow on the map here one of the conditions of the alc approval was to amend the property zoning to ensure consistency with both the alc decision as well as with the Alca and ALR and this condition has been captured within the agre 1 Zone The agri1 Zone was drafted following the alc and Ministry of agriculture's bylaw guidelines staff worked with the alc and Ministry staff to ensure alignment with the legislation we also reviewed the Squamish Valley agriculture plan and the slrd area D agriculture one zone to ensure a consistent approach was taken around residential uses and development Footprints as well as around tourist accommodation uses key aspects of the agri1 Zone include updating the definition of agriculture adding accessory agriculture definitions which included AGR tourism and several Farm product processing facilities uses from the rural zones that are inconsistent with the Alca and ALR were removed including two unit dwelling pet daycare and short-term rental sighting and size restrictions were added for residential uses including maximum lot coverage maximum floor area and maximum setbacks from roads to ensure a compact residential footprint and lastly raring setbacks for agriculture buildings were added to the zone as the province's ripar and AA protection regulations do not apply to agricultural uses these setbacks reported in directly from the ministry of agriculture's bylaw guide so staff are proposing to reone lands to the agri1 zone that are within the ALR are actively farmed are larger lots and are within the serviced area of the district we're taking a phased approach starting with a limited number of actively farmed properties and this allowed staff to consult directly with the land owners of each property staff intend to work on resoning other ALR lands in The District in future phases when we have the capacity to engage with the large number of ALR land owners and also to address the more complex land use situations the five properties proposed to be reson to agri1 in the first phase are listed and shown here all properties are8 hectares or over size and have rural residential 2 rl2 zoning all properties have some form of active farming on site staff worked with the alc and Ministry of Agriculture staff to draft the zone to ensure that it complies with the legislation staff engaged to the iap2 level of consult with the owners of the ALR lands proposed to be rezoned staff met with a couple of the owners in person and engaged with the other land owners through email correspondence feedback from the owners was considered and incorporated into the new Zone where there wasn't a conflict with the legislation so staff recommend that Council give first second and third reading to Amendment bylaw 3054 to add the new agre one zone to the zoning bylaw and align it with the Alca and ALR also note that bylaw 3054 also proposes to rezone the five ALR properties covered in this presentation to the new Agri one zone and with that concludes my presentation and I'll pass it back to the chair for questions and discussion

Armand Hurford
0:42:37 (0:00:07)

thank you Council questions on this councelor

John French
0:42:44 (0:00:22)

French thank you mayor as I'm reading this question I wish I had a little bit more specific information but I'm hoping you're going to know where the question is coming from did the agriculture people get back to staff about the picnic wording suggested by one of the land

0:43:07 (0:00:23)

owners yes through of the chair staff did respond to the landowner and we worked through the picnic area endorsement which is part of the Farm alcohol production facility accessory uses and the and the bylaw has been updated to reflect

John French
0:43:31 (0:00:08)

that all right my next question is what's the logic of restricting the use of ashol and

0:43:39 (0:00:22)

gravel so the guidance comes from both the alc staff and Ministry of a staff in that it's hard to convert back to farmable land when hard surface which they consider gravel to be a hard surface to convert that back to aable farmable

John French
0:44:01 (0:00:02)

land okay thanks

Armand Hurford
0:44:04 (0:00:08)

mayor thank you other questions councelor

Eric Andersen
0:44:13 (0:01:16)

Anderson miss philps you have referred to the non-farm use application that was addressed by Council in July 2022 and subsequently addressed by the alc that footprint involves well there are some Farm uses at the present time and tenants there that are feeling a bit insecure my question to you is that in the context of the present bylaw that we're considering this evening is there any assistance to Res resolve alleviate their feeling insecure in on that on that property that is will the mus mulgrave education entity is there a win-win there was perceived to be a win-win when we addressed this in 2022 but do they continue to need to be using that remaining property for Farm use for Agri use is that is that something that arises in the present bylaw how can these current tenants feel a little bit more secure about their future there on that farmable

0:45:29 (0:00:11)

portion through the chair can I clarify with councelor Anderson are you referencing the tenant being mulgrave school or the or the farm use the

Eric Andersen
0:45:41 (0:00:04)

the farm use please yes if I may be more clear local roots and neighbors

0:45:45 (0:00:52)

yeah through the chair so staff consulted with the base land owners being the Easter Seals Representatives we did send a copy of the draft bylaw to the tenants and also to the Squamish can and food policy Council executive director we didn't receive any feedback from them and so I'm unsure of what insecurities they might have because they it hasn't been clarified to staff however the bylaw as drafted allows for wide variety of farm uses and aligns correctly with the AL LC act so as long as the tenants are operating within the legislation of the alc act and ALR are then they're ons side with the

0:46:38 (0:00:03)


Armand Hurford
0:46:41 (0:00:05)

you thank you councelor Hamilton yeah

Andrew Hamilton
0:46:46 (0:00:37)

thanks I've got two questions so we've got one of the properties there's a I don't know exactly what stage it's at but The Hop creep Farm we saw a development permit application for that for that use for the alcohol the cidery use production and sales is does this bylaw change their ability to move forward with their development permit in any

0:47:23 (0:00:20)

way through the chair this B law supports what they're trying to do from a use perspective and then outlines the criteria that they need to meet for their Brewery that is in line with the limits that the alc sets through their

Andrew Hamilton
0:47:44 (0:00:58)

legislation great thank you I'm a big fan of making policy align when it overlaps and one question on that in the bylaw we've got lots of there's some new definitions being added and many of them just say means and use under Section 11 of the agricultural land use R use regulation BC regulation but one of them says Farm product one of them is Farm product retail sales and there's a larger description there than just basically means whatever it means in the ALR use regulation are we does our bylaw deviate from the farm product retail sales deviate from the ALR use regulations regarding Farm product retail sales or is that just a an artifact of writing the

0:48:43 (0:00:45)

bylaw through the chair I'm trying to Recall why I drafted it as such I believe that the Alca or the ALR has a defi a definition of farm product retail sales and so I pulled that and put this into our bylaw whereas in contrast some of the other processing facilities that are listed here don't actually have a definition from the alc act or the alur but it's a good description of it and so that's what I've referenced in the definition here so I'm trying to align it as closely as possible so there's minimal room for misinterpret

Andrew Hamilton
0:49:29 (0:00:08)

okay so we are not deliberately deviating from the farm product retail sales in the AL

Armand Hurford
0:49:38 (0:00:19)

right okay this is an acronym heavy session here but any other questions before I Venture a few of my own I'm wondering if by taking this action we're creating any legally non-conforming uses on any of these parcels

0:49:57 (0:00:32)

through the chair I in terms of residential uses I don't believe we're creating any non-conformances that being said for hop Creek the size of their residential dwelling unit may be Beyond but it was constructed before the alc act changed and restricted the size of the residential homes and so they already have legally non-conforming status through the AL like through the provincial legislation and I don't believe that we're creating any other non-conformances

Armand Hurford
0:50:29 (0:00:18)

okay thank you and then is there anything here that goes further than the AL than the ALR or is this I'm hearing alignment throughout this the your presentation and the discussion so far I just wonder if there's any area where we're going further than alignment which would be the minimum in my

0:50:48 (0:00:53)

perspective through the chair so I it's not necessarily looked at as going further but the alc allows local governments to have discretion to regulate in certain areas so there's certain uses that we cannot prohibit but that we are allowed to set regulations around and the alc doesn't provide any further Direction on what those should be and so in those situations staff did review other municipalities recent agriculture zones that were referred to staff by the alc staff being like hey these are good examples take a look at these and we did draw from some of those to set some parameters around the additional like the Farm Processing facilities that you see further down in the use criteria

Armand Hurford
0:51:41 (0:00:39)

okay thank you I was just going to ask for an example but that was that's a good example okay that makes sense to me and then we heard earlier Mr LaVine in his application to speak this evening was talking about some urgent sort of next steps and the next steps I see in the report are addressing different properties aren't necessarily further refinement of this of this policy how I guess what are the next what are the other P are there other pieces of this coming on these properties or ALC working in general that we that we should refer that type of feedback to or is that an opportunity that needs to be created if Council s

0:52:21 (0:00:44)

it through the chair I'll answer and then I'll pass it on if Jesse or Y want to add to it but our next steps are the next phases of focused on the zoning not necessarily other bylaws that Mr LaVine had mentioned need to come into alignment that affect other departments are under the umbrella of other departments So within the planning department we're certainly still focused on Al the zoning alignment and tackling some of the other properties out the Paradise Valley Etc but not specifically attention to what Mr LaVine referenced in looking at the other bylaws that are outside of kind of the planning departments

Armand Hurford
0:53:05 (0:00:11)

work okay thank you and did anyone else want to comment on any of that any of that stuff or is that future maybe ocp related work or is this another matter that

0:53:16 (0:00:03)

I'm through the mayor this would be another matter

Armand Hurford
0:53:20 (0:00:19)

okay thank you any other questions for our staff we do have a recommend we have recommendation before us as well y go ahead I'll move the staff recommendation thank you second by councelor French thank you any comments on this councelor Anderson go

Eric Andersen
0:53:40 (0:01:32)

ahead yes first of all I wanted to comment on the we've been delivered through our package all of the input provided by different stakeholders and I just wanted to complement staff's responses to each of those briefs that came from stakeholders I found them to be good orientation and very satisfying secondly as I look for at the policies that are to be District polic Council policies that are to be satisfied or addressed by this initiative I'm reading under prepared for the future and our strategic plan the agri1 zoning project supports strategic plan action item 4.2 as it encourages farming and other agricultural uses that fall within the green economy agriculture sector what I wanted to observe is that that's this is not enough I referred earlier to the case of the Easter Seals property the and related concerns passed on to me the concerns are regarding displacement potential displacement and space constraints also there just isn't enough room for those businesses to grow and Thrive there so they and others are looking for lands elsewhere and in particular industrial lands we don't have a lot of agricultural land that's accessible and available for farming on the other side of the river and so forth so i' just like to pass on if we want to satisfy this objective for our green economy agriculture sector it's just another reason we need to go to work on addressing our industrial land Supply that is the land Supply that these Growers are looking at and they're struggling to identify Parcels thank

Armand Hurford
0:55:13 (0:01:01)

you thank you any other comments on this I'll just take the opportunity to thank staff for working diligently to bring this forward and to align our policy policies I know this is an area that's been evolving and it's important that we stay we stay current there so thank you for that it sound and it sounds like the we did hear some comments tonight around sort of desired next steps and i' invite Mr LaVine for to meet with me and I I'm happy to listen and figure out see if there's a path forward on those particular pieces so please reach out to that and I'll have my we'll schedule we'll schedule that and but in relation to these bylaws at this time I think that aligning to the good work done from the LR is totally appropriate I'm happy to support so with that I'll call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Tantalus at Paradise Valley) No. 2974, 2023
0:56:14 (0:34:48)

Brian Daly, alongside David Rolston, Jonas Fiscus, and Jesse Fletcher, presented a zoning amendment application for a parcel in Paradise Valley, aiming to rezone it from Comprehensive Development Zone No. 52 to Resource. This change was proposed to align with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and address flood hazard concerns. The property, previously rezoned in 2008 for an equestrian center and rural residential lots, had not progressed due to unmet conditions regarding flood protection. The staff highlighted the property's location in a primary floodway of the Camus River and the shift in provincial policy against privately maintained dyke infrastructure. The presentation also covered the Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan, which recommends avoiding development in the area due to flood risks and maintaining the valley's rural character.

Council members engaged in a detailed discussion, raising questions about the development permit area 2 (DPA 2) related to flood control, discrepancies between flood hazard reports, and the implications of rezoning on potential development and fire protection services. Concerns were voiced about the alignment of the proposed rezoning with the OCP, the impact on the community's safety, and the property owner's opposition to the amendments. Despite the complexities and the landowner's significant input, the council expressed support for the staff's recommendation based on flood hazard concerns, the need to align zoning with the OCP, and the broader community interest in managing growth and ensuring safety. The motion to proceed with the first three readings and consider adoption of Bylaw No. 2974 was carried unanimously, reflecting the council's prioritization of flood risk management, adherence to the OCP, and commitment to public safety over the development proposal.

Armand Hurford
0:56:14 (0:00:37)

next up is item where are we nine A2 District SCH zoning bylaw Amendment bylaw and this is related to Tanis at Paradise Valley this is number 2974 2023 we've got our staff taking position here and when they're ready I will turn the floor over to them to introduce themselves and the topic

0:56:52 (0:01:59)

thank you mayor Herford good evening mayor and Council my name is Brian Daly planner with Community planning or Community Development with me this evening are David Rolston senior manager of infrastructure planning Jonas fiscus senior director of Community Development and Jesse Fletcher manager of current planning we're here tonight to present a district blood resoning application to reone an unaddressed parcel in the Paradise Valley from comprehensive development Zone number 52 to resource for consideration of first three readings and adoption tanelus at Paradise Valley is the name of a forber subdivision contemplated on a large address parcel on Paradise Valley Road it has more recently been referred to as Paradise Trails the property was rezoned in 2008 to allow for an equestrian center and 82 rural residential lots at the time of the resoning the applicants were required to construct a dyke to protect the property from flood Hazard given that a large portion of the property is located in the primary floodway of the Camus River the property owners have yet to submit a subdivision application to the district since the property was resed in 2008 the property owners have been engaging with staff regarding submitting a velopment permit application for protection from flood Hazard DPA 2 but have yet to provide a report that addresses the relevant DPA 2 guidelines the subject property is located in a restricted densification area and has a resource and Recreation land use designation in the official community plan as previously noted at the time of resoning the applicants were required to construct a dyke to protect the property from flood Hazard given that the large portion of the property is subject to flooding from the Camus River the development application was not completed following the resoning and the province no longer approves new privately maintained deck infrastructure so staff are proposing to reone the portion of the property with cd52 zoning to Resource to align the zoning with the ocp land use designation flood Hazard related policies in the ocp and recommendations in the integrated flood Hazard management plan I will now pass it to Mr Rolston to speak more on the integrated flood Hazard management

0:58:52 (0:02:39)

plan good evening mayor and Council the integrated flood Hazard management plan was completed by The District in 2017 it reviewed flood hazards from all of the different sources of flooding within Squamish and it demonstrated that U The Paradise Valley most of the Paradise Valley would be flooded in a major event including the single access and ESS route into the valley would be inundated with water and unusable based on the hazards that were identified in the integrated flood Hazard management plan a mitigation strategy was prepared for the Camus River Valley one of the foremost strategies was to avoid development within the Paradise Valley and also not to build dying due to the extensive costs of building as well as ongoing maintenance there's the integrated flood Hazard management plan also recommended to restrict densification within the valley through rezoning and to maintain the rural character of the valley the proponent has completed two flood Hazard assessments for the development the first was completed at the time of resoning This was completed by an independent qualified professional laast Consultants the district commissioned a peer review of that report that was signed and sealed and it was concluded that the design flood was a 5 100 Year debris flood with a 2,840 cubic meter pers second flow rate that concluded that the site is exposed to extensive hazards and that dying would be required to provide for safe development in 2024 the developer Mr John or submitted a report a flood Hazard report and also commissioned a peer review that has was not signed and sealed that significantly downgraded the hazard to a 200-year Clearwater flood with a design flood of 1,32 cubic meters a second or less than half of what had been previously identified at the time of resoning and it concluded that there's minimal flooding of land and minimal dying required so this report in 2024 significantly downgrades the hazard from the developer commissioned report in 2020 2012 and also the district's integrated flood Hazard management

1:01:32 (0:02:10)

plan A Land Development agreement was registered on title in 2012 the agreement outlined phasing requirements and required amenities none of which have been provided to date the agreement was silent on a f volunteer fire department staff have followed up with the fire department regarding the possibility of establishing a volunteer fire department in Paradise Valley and was provided with the following information the office of the fire commissioner does not permit fire brigades to be formed as a half measure a fire department has to be fully certified under the provincial standards and have the authority to do so within a local government or Fire Protection District the district has a Collective Agreement with the I Union for Staffing adding a separate fire department within the District of Squamish could be viewed as Contracting out of services a fire hall price tag would be in the neighborhood of 14 to16 million as the ground is similar to the Tantalus site but more at risk of catastrophic flooding Squamish fire does not have plans to establish a fire hall in this area at this time a third Hall will be triggered with a large scale development north of Ross Road where there is a large enough population to satisfy a volunteer pool of responders Paradise Valley does not have a sufficient population to support a fire hall fire apparatuses are in the range of 1.4 to$ 1.7 million each for a new fire engine and take roughly three years to build due to a backlog from covid and currently Paradise Valley does not have a municipal water system in place and thus does not have a hydrant system for firefighting water supply large scale developments in this area would be required to have a certified water system Supply system in place for firefighting water supply staff introduced the proposed zoning Amendment to the affected land owner to solicit feedback the land owner was not supportive of the proposed amendments a public hearing is not required for this application because it complies with the ocp and is a non-residential application comprising less than 400 square meters of floor area as per the Land Development procedures bylaw so staff are recommending that bylaw number 2974 be given first three readings and that following the three readings that bylaw 297 bar or be considered for adoption that concludes the presentation I'm happy to take questions at this

Armand Hurford
1:03:42 (0:00:13)

time thank you for the presentation who' like to get us started with questions any questions at this point c

Chris Pettingill
1:03:56 (0:00:55)

penil yeah thanks I understand from the correspondence there is a fair bit of back and forth around development permit area 2 reporting and permit application which basically as I understand it effectively would allow for a qualified professional to weigh in on whether or not the site could be made safe U within our regulations for habitation but that would not make this we would still end up even if we sort of accepted a development permit application granted a permit that would not make the site consistent with the or the zoning consistent with the ocp there' still be a misalignment there is that

1:04:51 (0:00:05)

correct through the mayor yes that's correct

Armand Hurford
1:04:57 (0:00:22)

so I think might be helpful for this conversation just for everyone's understanding could you just use the acronym DPA to around flood control could you could you speak to some specifics around that just to orient everyone that may be either in the room or viewing or view this in future just about what that what the aim of that is and what some of the sort of pertinent pieces of the DPA 2

1:05:19 (0:00:40)

are through the chair de development permit area 2 is a component of the district's flood policy framework our policy framework falls under the official community plan which has overarching flood policy guidance our flood plane bylaw which regulates building regulations within the flood plane and Development permited Area 2 which is intended to maintain critical floodways through the community to ensure that we don't increase flood risk over time by congesting our rivers or our flood planes so development perit 2 is just one element of our flood policy

Armand Hurford
1:06:00 (0:00:37)

framework okay thank you in your presentation you had to the sorry you compared the a previous a previous study from 2012 was that have the date right and one from 2024 that showed different numbers how when things like that happen what's the process for resolving discrepancies in reports I would imagine that modeling improves over time maybe information changes but I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here but how are these things resolved when they occur because this type of thing must occur every once in a

1:06:38 (0:00:43)

while through the chair it is dependent on the situation typically if there's a disagreement between a developer commissioned report and a District Master Plan there would be a peer review to review the report and any new information in this case given that there has been a peer-reviewed report completed already that is likely not necessary the integrated flood Hazard management plan is consistent with the 2012 report that was submitted by the developer the inconsistent report is the new 2024 report which has not been completed as comprehensively as previous

Armand Hurford
1:07:22 (0:00:32)

studies okay thank you the do we have anyone from I appreciate the slide around the fire hall do we is there any do we have someone that could speak to a fire sort of the fire question around I'm curious about next fire protection for the valley I think this is an adjacent issue to this but I wonder if like what our emergency planning says about wildfire in the valley and how that's how that's handled that's is that something that or sorry you're flagging me down Miss glund

1:07:54 (0:00:12)

thank you mayor Herford while I appreciate wanting that information that was not part of this particular bylaw and so staff are not prepared to speak to it but certainly could in the future yeah

Armand Hurford
1:08:06 (0:01:15)

okay thank you for that I appreciate the slide being in included but I can tell that there's some concern around this issue as so I will we'll move on from that from that line of questioning the development the development perit application so we've got is under way we'll say and we have this zoning piece I wondered around to me if a development permit isn't achievable and that and for technical reasons just not able to meet the requirements then this action of resoning to something that's more appropriate makes like that kind of makes sense in a perfect world I know that we don't live in a perfect world and we're here but how does this is there a risk to having that development permit sort of run its course and if it's not achievable then coming back coming back to us and just I guess it's a timing why now given that that's that that's the case could someone speak to the timing of these things is this isn't a sort of common practice to end up in this sort of

1:09:22 (0:01:43)

space that's a good question essentially what we're proposing tonight is continued implementation of the 2018 official community plan so once the new official community plan was adopted in 2018 the land use designations changed in certain areas and we have been bringing year after year resoning amendments that align the zoning bylaw with the current official community plan designations and for Paradise Valley we have new Direction essentially that densification is not appropriate in this area due to flood Hazard the area is outside of our growth management boundary the that's why the designation in the ocp is as it is the applicants did have an opportunity to apply for a development permit or subdivision they chose to apply for a development permit for flood Hazard and staff have given some time to the applicants to make the application however as Mr rolon pointed out you know the discrepancies between the information that we have and what the applicants have provided are quite significant and so staff are proposing to council that given the policy of the ocp and the misalignment that needs to be rectified I think the Avenue that the applicants will have as any landowner has is to come in and apply for or a resoning or in this case this would require an official community plan Amendment and a resoning if they wish to pursue this

Armand Hurford
1:11:06 (0:00:29)

development okay and that would be that would be something that could happen after if they were able to satisfy the development permit or it could be a new process that took into account current policy like is the development permit need to proceed or is this going back to a rezone and ocp Amendment and that sort of thing and that's the path forward just or both either or an option for the proponent at this

1:11:35 (0:00:51)

point so the proponent if Council say proceeds with readings tonight and Adoption of the bylaw the proponents still have procedurally are able to proceed with development permit review and that would certainly involve another thirdparty review of the of the current report but in Practical terms it's not really going anywhere because if the zoning is does not allow for subdivision in this area the development permit won't supersede the zoning but as any landowner this applicant this developer can apply for another official community plan Amendment and resoning but I will note that the current policy would not support an application for resonic so that's why there would have to be an ocp amendment involved as well

Armand Hurford
1:12:27 (0:00:26)

okay thank you and then in the matter of I think it was rural residential use in a in the in a resource or like in a resource area how does that interplay with the limited densification and can you speak to that to that piece of the misalignment which was one of the pieces in all

1:12:53 (0:00:48)

this three you may so the resource and Recreation land use designation does contemplate sort of recreational activities and sort of also resource extraction but some kind of larger rural properties but these properties would be quite large in scale as most of them are in that area of the Paradise Valley the lots that were contemplated or allowed under the cd52 zone are significantly smaller than that they're much closer to the size of the lots that you'd find in rs1 or kind of throughout the District of Squamish so there was already some misalignment between the proposed rural Lots in that are allowed in the CD 52 Zone and the rural typical rural lot

Armand Hurford
1:13:42 (0:00:26)

size okay that's useful and then in the matter of limited densification designation for lands what does that interact with this rural designation as well that lot that lot size is it does it does it say no additional structures period or like how does this how does this thing I the overlapping I think is interesting I don't quite get yet

1:14:09 (0:00:32)

the restricted densification area which is applicable to the subject property essentially says do not increase density whatsoever in this area because it is subject to high flood Hazard and that resource and Recreation Landes designation is contemplating not densifying kind of at all it's more resource extraction or recreational opportunities it's reflecting that this land should be maintained for you know uses that aren't increasing the number of people living in this High Hazard area and are maintaining the land for flood

Armand Hurford
1:14:42 (0:00:04)

conveyance okay thank you councelor

John French
1:14:46 (0:00:36)

French thank you mayor the presentation by staff included a table that is not in the staff report and the title of it is flood hazard assessment table and one part of that table indicates not signed slash sealed and this is in reference to the 2024 study that was done by the proponent I think you touched on it in the report but could you tell us more about what does that mean not signed SL

1:15:23 (0:00:41)

sealed through the chair when a professional engineer provides engineering ADV advice in British Columbia they're required to sign and seal that report that's a egbc documentation requirement so the report that we have received is not signed or sealed it's not clear if the report was reducted where or what the case may be but there's no signature or engineering seal and the author actually was not com was not a professional engineer registered within British Columbia

Armand Hurford
1:16:04 (0:01:05)

okay thank you mayor so sorry no we I'm gonna need quiet in the we we're g we're going to need quiet in the in the audience so we can so we can proceed here please and with whatever the outcome is we need to have quiet and decorum in the so please I'm going to have to ask I don't want to have to ask you to leave but we can have disruptions of the of the process okay so I sir we're trying to work our way through this complex matter and give it its due attention we can have another we can't have another outburst it's just not how this works I understand your F your frustration we're going to try to work through this okay so okay if we'll need to recess the meeting if there's another outburst till we resolve the issue or remove or folks leave the chamber so I don't want to have to do that other questions I had sorry I had councelor Pettingill

Chris Pettingill
1:17:10 (0:00:48)

next yeah as I understand it both the current ocp and then the current and proposed zoning all include equestrian as a use as far as I can tell from our bylaws and ocp a question is really limited to for example the you know the infrastructure directly related to horses does it do any of the definitions in any of those bylaws or the ocp imply any sort of residential support to equest is it strictly the res the equestrian aspect like is there something implied Beyond just horses and a horse you know

1:17:58 (0:00:41)

facility through the mayor there may be a provision that would allow for a caretaker dwelling associated with this use but that would require a development permit that DPA 2 that we've been speaking about before a building permit would you would have to apply for that along with a building permit for the equestrian facility as well as potentially a caretaker dwelling but it's considered an accessory use not the primary use so the primary use would have to be the equestrian facility and then there's quite strict limitations on the size that a car caretaker dwelling could be on a resource or a rural residential property associated with that

Armand Hurford
1:18:40 (0:00:09)

use okay other questions Council y I go ahead councelor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
1:18:50 (0:00:04)

I'm going to move the staff recommendation if there's no other questions

Armand Hurford
1:18:54 (0:00:04)

you seconding that councelor French okay we to speak to it and then I'll go to

Andrew Hamilton
1:18:59 (0:01:09)

Second yeah this is a this is a difficult situation we've I've spoken at length with the developers here and in my mind this is a situation where there was what something what something that may have seemed appropriate over a decade ago in the intervening decade we learned more about flood Hazard our community changes our community priorities have changed and very meaningfully our official community plan has changed and our community has focused on a growth management boundary in a very clear and distinct way and I think that this the cd52 zone on that property is inconsistent with our ocp and our growth management boundary and on that on those grounds Alone I support this

Armand Hurford
1:20:08 (0:00:02)

rezoning thank you councelor

John French
1:20:11 (0:01:57)

French thank you mayor this file has been a challenging one for me I really feel for the landowner and I'm thankful for the volume of information that has been provided by the land owner to me and I presume everybody else on Council it is significant and it really took something for me to get through all of it but I did read it I do understand it and I think it was an important contribution to this process and for many years now a landowner has been caught in a push and pull between elected officials and District of Squamish staff recommendations from staff have been rejected by previous councils despite the opposition in 2008 and8 of then counselors and later to be Mayors Patricia heinsman and Greg Gardner staff have consistently pushed smart growth consistency of official community plan and Zoning alignment with the regional growth strategy strategic Dyke construction or not maximizing efficient use of existing infrastructure and promoting the construction of missing middle housing and I'm feeling like it's time to rip the bandage off and let this landowner know that in the current affordability crisis inside our climate change reality this is not the time to build estate homes well outside of our growth management boundary the risks of moving this proposal forward are just too high in my opinion for our community and I'm not interested in having the district take on even more responsibility for more dking infrastructure and another huge stretch of road that currently is not in ideal condition we have roads inside our growth management boundary that need Improvement I'd like to see us focus on improving those first I support the staff recommendation

Armand Hurford
1:22:08 (0:00:02)

thank you councelor

Eric Andersen
1:22:11 (0:02:22)

Anderson thank you I will also be speaking in support of the staff recommendation over a considerable period of time there's been clumsy and difficult Communications between the district and the paradise Valley Trails project proponents I think this is very regrettable especially because of the significant Community interest in this particular project notably in the vicinity of the Paradise Valley and within the among the residents of chaks Reserve number 11 how the DPA 2 guidelines compliance may be incomplete whether or how much a portion of the property is in a primary floodway issues with respect to the app appc an's recent flood Hazard report and its peer review and the fire protection planning for the valley that General issue these are all have been difficult Communications over each one of them we have to learn better all of us to manage our disagreement and to also be mindful of perceptions and misperceptions around transparency on the part of the district as well I think there's lessons to learn for all of us in this episode I don't agree with all of my colleagues comments on the issue of the growth management boundary we have here a proposal for a touris destination tourism product something with which our tourism Squamish organization is desperately interested in has been for some time people forget that the clani resort proposal was outside of the growth management boundary that as was originally proposed in 2005 we just forgot that and put it back in there again I think that there are always trade-offs and benefits to evaluate we have here Road improvements other things that have been discussed to in and I think that sometimes some mixed use development is a way to realize a particular tour destination tourism product that's a scenario however and I just wish the proponents good luck in trying to address that opportunity and the pl our planning staff have outlined a pathway way and that is unfortunately that's where we're at it's a new rezoning and ocp Amendment application thank

Armand Hurford
1:24:33 (0:00:05)

you thank you other comments on this C pill

Chris Pettingill
1:24:39 (0:01:57)

yeah I'm going to support the motion on the floor I think you know there's some disagreement between staff and Council initially about alignment between this the zoning the or the rezoning that was received and the ocp but there was alignment on flood Hazard concerns since then we've done a lot of work and updated our ocp and so now the zoning was out of compliance with the with the zoning which until the zoning changes you can develop on it but then also the proponent brought forward a suggestion that you know they for possibly good reason changed their mind about the hazard in the area and have tried to change the perspective on the hazard and that has gone on for a while but nonetheless we've been left with aside from the hazard assessment piece a zoning that has for a long time now been out of compliance with the official community plan which considers Hazard and flooding risk Beyond just what's in our DPA 2 and I think you know a lot of focus has gone on to the DPA 2 piece but that's only one small piece and I think we are at a time given the risk we are seeing and given the importance of many aspects of our ocp in terms of growth management where densification is appropriate I think it is appropriate that we align our zoning to the current ocp and you know we will be doing ocp renewals and reviews in the near future there may be opportunity to reconsider some of that I personally feel and have run on a strong feeling in support of our current ocp I think it makes a lot of good sense but at this time I think it is time to align the zoning with our ocp thank

Armand Hurford
1:26:37 (0:00:04)

you thank you councelor

Lauren Greenlaw
1:26:41 (0:00:53)

Greenlaw thanks for the chair I'll be speaking in support of the motion as well I too have found this conversation very difficult the proponent has a perspective that does not seem to be in alignment with some of some of what we hear from staff but upon staff as presentation I am concerned about the validity of some of the information that's being provided by the proponent and echoing my colleagues comments specifically around developing development outside of the growth management boundary flooding hazards in alignment with our current ocp those would be my primary concerns my primary reasons for support I would like to see a continuation of the conversation of our emergency response plans for the Paradise Valley fire response because it is something that I'm informed about and it is a concern of mine I am concerned about climate change and increased fires down the valley and I think that should be in front of mine to protect those communities

Armand Hurford
1:27:35 (0:03:27)

thanks thank you the so as many of my colleagues have