Councillor Barry Avis Councillor Neil Horner Councillor Bill Luchtmeijer Councillor Anne Skipsey

Transcription

1 Minutes of the 10:00 am Thursday, July 14, 2016 Town of Qualicum Beach Committee of the Whole Meeting held in the Council Chambers, 660 Primrose Street, Qualicum Beach, BC PRESENT: Council: Mayor Teunis Westbroek Councillor Barry Avis Councillor Neil Horner Councillor Bill Luchtmeijer Councillor Anne Skipsey ALSO PRESENT: Staff: Daniel Sailland, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Luke Sales, Director of Planning Heather Svensen, Corporate Administrator Karla Duarte, Deputy Corporate Administrator ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The Committee of the Whole adopted, by unanimous consent, the July 14, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting agenda. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The Committee of the Whole approved, by unanimous consent, the June 9, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting minutes. DELEGATION (1) Geoff Garbutt and Paul Thompson, Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN), regarding the proposed Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No Geoff Garbutt outlined the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Amendment process, noting that the amendment requires either an approval or denial of the amendment from each electoral area and municipality. Given that the Town of Qualicum Beach did not agree with the amendment, the next step is for the Town and the RDN to get together to talk about the dispute resolution process. COMMENTS FROM THE GALLERY Kevin Monahan, 586 Alder Street, noted the following: disagreement with how the amendment is currently presented; minor amended listed in Part 2. Kevin Monahan posed the following question: How does the proposed amendment help to define what an Official Community Plan (OCP) review is? Geoff Garbutt noted that previous versions of the Regional Growth Strategy did not permit minor amendments. He noted that the reason for minor amendments are so that communities do not have to wait for an RGS review, following an OCP review. Amendment that was in front of all the Councils reflected input from all member municipalities. It was thought that adding: unless it was contemplated clarified that when an application comes before the Regional Board, the Board would question whether there was contemplation and then the Board would determine if an amendment was minor. All RGS

2 Page 2 of 5 across the Province are extremely different and all based on the language. The local RGS does not have prescriptive language or standards. The amendment presented is based on the members who want to remain flexible within their own community plan processes are recommended and is up to the Regional Board to fine tune this language to give some guidance to the board when they are determining whether the amendment is minor or not. Still requires a majority vote to proceed. Lance Nater, 996 Royal Dornoch Drive, commented on the RGS proposed amendment process put forward by the Regional District of Nanaimo that was rejected by the Town commenting on the following: Reference to an OCPP (Official Community Plan Process); Local Government Act defines an OCPP as having the majority of Council in agreement, and holding a public hearing; Level of participation is not defined; Area H OCP review is under way according to a newspaper article; Extent to which the Town reached out to the community (Quality of Life Survey (QLS); meetings to develop OCP); Public participation in the meetings has been extraordinary; Distinguish between process and plan Define a level of minimum participation for each municipality, eg. 15%. Anything less than that for a participating level would not be regarded as an amendment to the OCP; Work towards reaching a working solution. Tim Pritchard, 663 Windward Way, questioned what the timeframe for the dispute resolution process would be. Staff noted that the process is a non-binding resolution and determined by the participants. Deborah McKinley, 346 Nenzel Road, noted that the wording is difficult to understand and a simple amendment should be clearly defined. Ms. McKinley also noted that a clear understanding of the wording and definition of each amendment should be considered. What is a minor amendment? What is a major amendment? Carol Dowe, 512 Hawthorne Drive, agreed strongly that the question that was brought forward about clarity is very important. Make the language clear for everyone to understand. Michael Jessen, 1266 Jukes Place, noted that the Arrowsmith Parks and Land Use Council has previously given a submission. Involved with RGS consultation. Commented on the minor amendment process questioning why a huge exercise is needed to amend the RGS for an error on a drawing or improper language. He noted that definitions are needed. In Mr. Jessen s opinion the amendment presented by Qualicum Beach a few years back was not a minor amendment. An expert in logic theory or decision theory should be retained to look at the wording and give an opinion. Kevin Monahan, 586 Alder Street, proposed a solution for the beginning of this resolution process noting that the issue revolves around the language and grammar whereby the first

3 Page 3 of 5 thing would be to look at the amendment and compare the language in other documents. The first step would be to get a common understanding of the differences. Fox McKinnley, 346 Nenzel Road, spoke on minor and major amendments and previous history on speaking as a delegation to the RDN Board. Concerns with what goes to the Regional District of Nanaimo Board. STAFF REPORTS (1) Planning (L. Sales, Director of Planning) a) Official Community Plan Review Work Plan Councillor Horner MOVED and Councillor Avis SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that an Official Community Plan Review Steering Committee be created in accordance with the Terms of Reference attached to the July 14, 2016 Planning memo to Council as amended. Council raised the following concerns: Number of members and time of meetings Number of participants - wording to say could be up to to provide flexibility Council members should be non-voting members Open Space Technology and IAP2 COMMENTS FROM THE GALLERY Deborah Mckinley, 346 Nenzel, commented on the use of teleconferencing for the committee to increase input from the members. Kevin Monahan, 586 Alder Street, commented on the balance of a committee and the need that every community constituency is represented in the group; importance to look for balance in the committee; cost of the process; and composition of the committee. Paul Kyba, 404 Burnham Road, diversity on the committee is very important (balance of gender; demographic; multi-generational). Interest around the business community; social enterprise; culture. Lance Nater, 996 Royal Dornoch Drive, commented on the approach of the previous OCP and approach for the current OCP committee. Committee Terms of Reference What is the mandate of this committee? Suggested to look back at some of the flaws we see in the current OCP. Document vague in some areas. Committee should be charged with making sure the document is consistent and a useable document for the life of the document. Tim Pritchard, 663 Windward Way, committee questioned that if members of the community have questions; ideas; things to be considered will there be a mechanism to let the committee know the public thoughts?

4 Page 4 of 5 Joyce Daman, 1203 Pintail Drive, supported the comments relating to diversity specifically length of time in the community (new people and long-term residents). Interest groups some variety of interest groups for greater buy in. Michael Jessen, 1266 Jukes Place, on behalf of the Arrowsmith Parks and Land Use Council commented on targeted review of the OCP. Is a targeted review a full review? He recommends that the very first meeting be a meeting to determine that the community is in concurrence with the targets proposed. Fox McKinley, 346 Nenzel Road, suggested that the applicants be properly vetted by the current Council and include younger and older members. He further suggested that the meetings be held in the evenings to attract working residents. b) Noise Control Bylaw Update Draft for Discussion Five Key Updates: - A permit system that allows exception to the noise control bylaw, subject to staff review and consultation with neighbours - Updated references to enabling Provincial legislation - Distinction between continuous and non-continuous sound - Later start/earlier finish for construction on Sundays and Holidays - Decibel thresholds for unacceptable noise Councillor Avis MOVED and Councillor Horner SECONDED, THAT Council instructs staff to include acquisition of the decibel reading equipment into the Town of Qualicum Beach Noise Bylaw No. 706, Staff were instructed to research the decibel reader for low frequency noise. Councillor Luchtmeijer MOVED and Councillor Skipsey SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council THAT Council adopts a new noise control bylaw based on the July 14, 2016 draft Town of Qualicum Beach Noise Bylaw No. 706, 2016, as amended Councillor Luchtmeijer MOVED and Councillor Horner SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council THAT Council instructs staff to update the Town of Qualicum Beach Municipal Ticketing Information Bylaw No. 626, 2008 and Town of Qualicum Beach Miscellaneous Rates Bylaw No. 638, 2009 to reflect the updated noise bylaw. Members of the gallery were invited to speak on the proposed bylaw: Keith Smith, 2503 Island Highway, suggested checking what other municipalities have done with their noise bylaws.

5 Page 5 of 5 Rosemary Taylor, 536 Tournament Tour, commented on decibel readers and location of heat pumps. Ms. Taylor noted that the bylaw only contends to half of the problem as the bylaw does not address noise of low frequency. Barbara van Hove, 465 College Road, expressed appreciation for the proposed bylaw noting the need for the bylaw to include a decibel reader to measure noise. 4.4 (c)(i) - continuance of time and the hours for noise on Sundays. Daniel Sailland noted that 4.4 (c)(i) was confirmed with Work Safe BC that 85 decibels for more than 4 hours requires ear protection. Council commented on the need for a decibel reader; clarity on the point of reception; and the ability to measure noise. COMMENTS FROM THE GALLERY: Kevin Monahan, 586 Alder Street, commented on point of reception; objectionable noises or sounds should have criteria set out. Tim Pritchard, 663 Windward Way, noted standards on new equipment (eg., heat pumps) guidelines could be put in place to meet a specific level. Rosemary Taylor, 563 Tournament Tour, noted that Vancouver has a bylaw- no commercial construction on a Sunday. ADJOURNMENT Councillor Avis MOVED and Councillor Horner SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole adjourns the meeting. Meeting Adjourned: 12:35 pm Certified Correct: Heather Svensen Corporate Administrator Teunis Westbroek Mayor