MINUTES of a
regular meeting of the MUNICIPAL COUNCIL of The Corporation of the District of
Oak Bay, held in the Council Chambers, Oak Bay Municipal Hall,
|
PRESENT: |
Mayor
C. M. Causton Councillor
H. Braithwaite Councillor
S. F. B. Carson (arrived at 8:35 p.m.) Councillor
A. R. Cassidy Councillor
P. Copley Councillor
J. D. Herbert Councillor
N. B. Jensen |
|
STAFF: |
Municipal
Administrator, W. E. Cochrane Municipal
Clerk, L. Hilton Executive
Secretary, D. Beesley Director
of Building and Planning, N. Beattie Municipal
Treasurer, P. A. Walker Municipal
Engineer, S. G. Pitt |
Mayor Causton called the meeting to order at 7:30
p.m.
MINUTES
OF MEETING:
Council – January 9, 2006
MOVED by Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by Councillor Herbert, That the minutes
of the Council meeting held on Monday, January 9, 2006, be adopted.
CARRIED
Committee of the Whole – January 16, 2006
MOVED by Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by Councillor Copley, That the minutes
of the Committee of the Whole meeting held on Monday, January 16, 2006, and the
recommendations contained therein, be adopted.
Request for Amendment to Driveway Access Bylaw
(1230 Transit Road)
Responding to questions with respect to the
Committee of the Whole’s recommendation not to proceed with an amendment to the
Driveway Access Bylaw, the Municipal Administrator advised that staff would be
contacting Mr. Popham, owner, 1230 Transit Road, regarding reinstatement of the
boulevard for the southerly access unless an application is received and funds
are deposited to relocate the driveway to the south and reinstate the boulevard
of the northerly driveway.
Request to Undertake Construction on Municipal
Right of Way (2036 Frederick Norris Road)
In response to a question, Mr. Cochrane noted
that Committee of the Whole received a submission from the owner of 2036
Frederick Norris Road during its meeting held January 16, 2006 and requested that
staff review it and report to the next Committee meeting. In the interim, he said, a draft covenant for
the owners’ review has been prepared that would permit a structure to be
erected over a municipal easement, where the owners would be responsible for
all costs associated with this and would have to indemnify the District of Oak
Bay from any liability in this regard.
The question was then called.
CARRIED
COMMUNICATIONS:
|
1. |
2006-36 2006-36-1 |
CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT, December 6, 2005 MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, January 16, 2006 Re Forthcoming Water System Regulations |
(Jack Hull, General Manager, Water Services, Capital
Regional District (CRD) and Stewart Irwin, Manager, Water Quality Division, CRD
Water Services, in attendance for this item.)
Jack Hull addressed Council
noting that the region’s water suppliers are required to comply with the BC Drinking Water Protection Regulation
in order to identify, eliminate, and prevent cross connections with non-potable
water systems.
Mr. Hull introduced Stewart
Irwin, who advised that as Ordered by the Chief Medical Health Officer, water
suppliers must comply with the water protection regulation by using a
coordinated approach for the region and adopting a single regulatory bylaw by
May 1, 2006.
Mr. Irwin presented
background information on the draft CRD Cross
Connection Bylaw No. 1, 2006, prepared in response to addressing the need
for cross connection control.
Mr. Irwin went on to
explain that a cross connection is a physical connection between a drinking
water system and some other environment which could allow a backflow of contaminants
to enter the drinking water.
Cross connections are
assigned hazard levels according to the type of contaminants likely to be
present, said Mr. Irwin, and can be prevented by installing appropriate
backflow assemblies.
The CRD, said Mr. Irwin,
will assume the lead role in implementing a Regional Cross Connection Control
Program, providing public education and raising awareness.
To Oak Bay, said Mr.
Irwin, it means building inspectors would be asked to pay greater attention to
cross connections on new construction, and private residences would require
backflow protection on irrigation systems.
The end result of cross connection control, said Mr. Irwin, would be
reduced liability for the District of Oak Bay if an incident occurred, a
protected public drinking water system, and greater assurance of good drinking
water.
Mr. Irwin noted that, if
the Bylaw is adopted, businesses, which represent higher hazard water systems, would
be targeted to comply first, and the Oak Bay Marina, hospitals and dental
offices—any place that has the ability to cause harm to public health—are
examples of high hazard water systems.
Responding to questions
from Council, Mr. Irwin indicated that it is difficult to estimate the total
cost for compliance of all higher hazard water systems for properties owned by
the District of Oak Bay, noting that individual assessments would be carried
out by the CRD at its cost.
There was discussion
regarding the costs associated with the Cross Connection Control Program and
Mayor Causton requested that further information in that regard be presented to
the CRD Board when the draft Bylaw is considered.
Councillor Jensen stated
that, in his view, the draft Bylaw would be in the best interest of the public
noting that compliance is compulsory in any event.
MOVED by Councillor Jensen,
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That Agenda Item Nos. 2006-36 and 2006-36-1, be received.
CARRIED
|
2. |
2006-37 |
RACEWEB.CA, [undated] Re Request for Road Closures—Cadboro Bay
Triathlon Event |
Responding to a question
from Mayor Causton, the Municipal Administrator noted that the Oak Bay Police
Department reported that the event went well the previous year.
Adam Lawrence, Race
Director, raceweb.ca,
stated that notification would be given to all affected property owners
fourteen days prior to the event, and signs would be posted six days prior to
the event to indicate where parking restrictions would occur. He noted that he expected between 200 and 300
participants.
MOVED by Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by Councillor Jensen,
That permission be granted for the closure of
CARRIED
|
4. |
2006-38 |
GONZALES COOPERATIVE PRESCHOOL, January 19,
2006 Re Public Park/Beach
Clean-up Fundraising Event |
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That permission be granted to the Gonzales Cooperative Preschool to conduct a
litter cleanup fund raising campaign in public parks and beaches in the
District of Oak Bay on April 22, 2006, subject to the Preschool indemnifying
the Municipality from any liability that may arise in connection with the
staging of this event and providing evidence of adequate liability insurance in
this regard.
Mayor Causton noted that
the CRD environment committee has funding available for this type of event.
The question was then
called.
CARRIED
|
4. |
2006-39 |
VICTORIA CONFEDERATION OF PARENT ADVISORY
COUNCILS, January 18, 2006 Re Request for Funding
- Adult Crossing Guard Program |
Mayor Causton noted that
the Adult Crossing Guard Program is now administered by Beacon Community Services.
MOVED by Councillor Cassidy,
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That Council approve a grant of $4,320 to be paid to Beacon Community Services
for the Adult Crossing Guard program for the months of January to June, 2006.
CARRIED
|
5. |
2006-40 2006-40-1 2006-40-2 2006-40-3 2006-40-4 2006-40-5 2006-40-6 2006-40-7 2006-40-8 2006-40-9 2006-40-10 2006-40-11 2006-40-12 2006-40-13 |
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND PLANNING, January 19,
2006 JEANETTE AND CLYDE WOOD, January 17, 2006 MICHAEL RADCLIFFE, January 16, 2006 DIANNE RADCLIFFE, January 16, 2006 JEANETTE MURRAY, January 12, 2006 SEVIEW APARTMENTS LIMITED, December 1, 2005 R. NASH, November 22, 2005 M. R. WEISENBERGER, [undated] MARCIA KINZIE, October 28, 2005 NONI PERRON, February 21, 2005 DOROTHY BISHOP, January 17, 2006 LAWRENCE AND GABRIELLE ANDRES, January 22,
2006 BILL AND SHARON JAMES, [undated] JAMES AND WENDY STEVENSON, January 22, 2006 Re
Oak Bay Beach Hotel (Bison Properties) – Application for Rezoning/OCP Amendment /Discharge of Land Use Contract/ Development
Permit |
Shawna Walker, of Bison Properties Ltd., owner,
Oak Bay Beach Hotel,
introduced Bas Smith, of Bas Smith Architect Inc., to speak to the
application for redevelopment of the Oak Bay Beach Hotel site at 1175 Beach
Drive.
Mr. Smith explained that the application was for
a discharge of the land use contract that was tied to the development scheme represented
by the existing building, along with an amendment to the Official Community
Plan to designate the land for hotel rather than multiple family use as at
present, a rezoning to a new zoning category that would accommodate the
proposed hotel redevelopment, and a development permit to address the
architectural design details and landscaping.
Kevin Walker, also of Bison Properties Ltd., said that the existing
building could no longer sustain a financially viable hotel business
notwithstanding the considerable amount of reinvestment that had been made over
the years. Prior to looking at the
option of a complete redevelopment, Mr. Walker said, he had considered the
possibility of expanding and renovating the existing building. He had found, however, that the requirements
for Building Code upgrades that would have been triggered, especially in the
areas of seismic protection and universal accessibility, called for an
investment in an amount that could not be justified under any realistic
financial model.
Darcy Kray, Durwest Construction Management Ltd., appearing on behalf of
the applicants, described the construction and Building Code issues which, in
his assessment, would make renovation of the existing building a prohibitively
expensive proposition. First and
foremost in this regard was the seismic upgrade that had been mentioned by Mr.
Walker. Even the minimum allowable
standard, he said, would require substantial demolition and reconstruction,
likely involving removal of most or all of the existing mechanical and
electrical systems. Achieving the
minimum standard would be technically difficult and very expensive. The end result, moreover, would offer no more
protection than what the Code refers to as “substantial life safety”. A significant earthquake would still cause
extensive building damage, with a long reconstruction period. Upgrading to an even higher standard would be
required in order to minimize business interruption in the event of this sort
of natural disaster.
The second most significant Code issue raised by
the renovation alternative would be the work required to comply with the
standards for universal accessibility, i.e., for people with mobility
impairment and other handicaps. The
complexity of this issue was demonstrated by Mr. Smith, who made a visual
presentation showing the split level layout of the various floors in the
existing building. He also noted that in
the event the elevator could not be used, the only internal exit from upper floors
was via an open stairway – i.e., completely unprotected by any kind of
fire-rated separation. All other exits
were external, difficult and hazardous to use, and unsatisfactory in terms of
their proximity to outside wall openings.
J. C. Scott, of J. C. Scott Design Associates, appearing on behalf of
the applicants, observed that the original portion of the existing building was
essentially limited to the central core, which had been constructed in 1927 and
reconstructed in 1930 after being destroyed by fire. The key historical elements in the central
core, in turn, were in his assessment the front entrance and the grand
lobby. Along with the “Snug” beverage
room, these elements were proposed to be incorporated into the new structure as
part of the ongoing legacy of the existing building. Outside of the building itself, Mr. Scott
also noted that there was an intent to recreate the oceanside salt water pool
concept that had been a part of the original development, but this time as a
hot water mineral spa.
Mr. Smith said that the applicant envisaged
providing the details of the redevelopment proposal at a future meeting of
Council. Mr. Smith did, however, provide
a brief description of the key architectural features of the proposed new
building, noting that the façade would retain the Tudor revival style that
characterized the existing structure. He
also pointed out that the highest portion of the new building would be set back
120 feet from Beach Drive.
Responding to questions from Council, Mr. Smith
said that building elevations, three dimensional renderings and a massing model
would be available to supplement the forthcoming presentation with respect to
the redevelopment proposal.
Asked to elaborate on the concept of re-using
important historical elements such as the grand lobby, Mr. Walker confirmed
that he was committed to the incorporation of these features of the existing
building regardless of additional costs that might come to light once the work
was underway. This, he said, was a
promise to the community.
Responding to a further question from Council,
Mr. Walker confirmed that the south wing of the building, which had been
substantially rebuilt in the late 1980s, was constructed to a higher standard
than the rest of the structure, and that sound transmission between rooms was less
of a concern in this portion. Speaking
as part of the applicant’s project team, however, Chris Peterson, Structural
Engineer, said that he had not been able to conclude from the drawings he had
examined that a seismic upgrade had been undertaken in this part of the
building.
Moved by Councillor Jensen,
Seconded by Councillor Herbert, That Agenda Item
Nos. 2006-40 through 2006-40-13 be received.
CARRIED
Mr.
Walker said that he would be asking the Municipal Clerk to schedule the balance
of his redevelopment application presentation for the February 13, 2006 meeting
of Council.
|
5. |
2006-41 2006-41-1 2006-41-2 2006-41-3 2006-41-4 2006-41-5 |
M. D. FITZPATRICK MCNEILL ET AL (petition),
January 18, 2006 ROBIN FRENCH, January 19, 2006 KATHLEEN CAIRD, January 19, 2006 KATHLEEN CAIRD, January 20, 2006 CHRIS AND LAURIE NATION, January 22, 2006 MARILYN BEKKER, January 9, 2006 Re Application for Development Variance Permit to Accommodate
Subdivision –230 King George Terrace |
The
Municipal Administrator reviewed the application for a subdivision of 200 and 230
King George Terrace into three lots, noting that variances would be required
prior to further subdivision consideration. He noted that as directed by
Committee of the Whole, the resolutions appearing in the agenda regarding the
development variance permit application and permission for continued
construction of the new dwelling during the subdivision process and retention
of the existing dwelling were being presented for consideration and debate by
Council. The agreement referred to in the resolution with respect to
continued construction, he said, would require security from the applicant for
demolition of the existing building at 230 King George Terrace in the event the
subdivision application does not proceed. The agreement, he said, has been
reviewed and signed by the applicant.
Mr.
Cochrane pointed out that, if the notification process for the development
variance permit is not proceeded with, the second resolution would be moot
given that the permission contained in the agreement to allow the existing
dwelling to remain while building commenced on the new dwelling contemplates its
demolition in the event permission for the issuance of the development variance
permit is not given by Council.
There
was discussion regarding the heritage value of 230 King George Terrace as well
as 200 King George Terrace, which the applicants have refused to provide
voluntary protection for, and varying views and opinions on whether protection
was critical were noted. It was pointed
out by a member of Council that options for temporary protection of the
dwelling, should it be threatened in the future, would be available to Council.
Responding
to questions from Council, Mr. Cochrane indicated that he had never told the
applicants that, if the existing dwellings were removed, there would be no
further impediment to subdivision. There are many considerations that
would need to be taken into account before he would be able to approve or deny
a bare land subdivision, he said.
Discussion
turned to the possibility of obtaining agreement to enter into a covenant with
respect to limiting the height of the proposed new dwelling, and it was pointed
out that a valid building permit has already been issued to the applicant.
Responding to questions from Council, Mr. Cochrane noted that the applicants’
agreement to height controls would depend on their highest priority – i.e. if
the new dwelling was the highest priority, it would be unlikely that the
applicants would agree to such controls. If, on the other hand,
subdivision was the applicants’ highest priority, an agreement with respect to
limiting the height of the new dwelling might be reconsidered by the owners,
although they have previously stated they would not be agreeable to height
control. If a height control covenant were to be a condition of
approval but not agreeable to the applicant, the subdivision and development
variance permit application would likely be withdrawn, the new house would be
built as proposed, and the existing dwelling would be demolished.
With
respect to the easement running through the lower portion of the lot at 230
King George Terrace, it was pointed out that its location would only become an
issue for the proposed subdivision if the existing house was demolished and the
normal setbacks were adhered to, resulting in a constrained building envelope.
At
this point there was consensus to have members of the public provide input.
James
Kirk, 2233 Theatre Lane, pointed out that
should Council grant the variances required for the subdivision, and should the
subdivision be approved, it would set an undesirable precedent where many like
applications could be expected, and applicants would expect to receive the same
approvals. He acknowledged the value of 230 King George Terrace, but felt
that it should either be moved by the applicants to a new lot, or incorporated
into the redevelopment. Council, said Mr. Kirk, is being held for ransom,
and it is not right.
James
McNeill, 150 Prince Andrew Place, drew attention
to a petition with 60 signatures on it from all over Oak Bay, pointing out that
the application before Council is not just a local issue; many people are
interesting in preserving the neighbourhood. Mr. McNeill said that there
are seven lots near his that would qualify for subdivision with respect to
having sufficient lot size, and he warned that those owners would also be
looking for the same consideration for approval.
Regarding
the heritage value of 230 King George Terrace, Mr. MacNeill stated that the
house was actually built after the Art Deco period, and noted that Council is
not obligated to save it or any other heritage or Art Deco house.
Mr.
McNeill went on to say that the current controversy over the Cairds’ proposed
subdivision is destroying the neighbourhood, and he encouraged the Cairds’ to
reconsider their application, including downsizing the new house, and to be a
part of the neighbourhood.
Patricia
Wilson, 1329 St. Patrick Street, noted her
dismay with the comments that suggested the houses at 200 and 230 are not of
heritage value. While she is not an expert in the field, she said, there
are experts who have said that both houses are significant, especially as a
pair. A balance needs to be found between the heritage issues and the
neighbourhood issues, she said, noting that heritage is important to the future
of the community.
James
Lee, 240 King George Terrace, said that the issues
facing Council have created dissention in the neighbourhood, and that he did
not see any immediate resolution given that the application does not allow for
any compromise.
Mr.
Lee drew attention to the impact of the requested five foot rear yard setback
for the proposed lot with the existing house at 230 King George Terrace,
stating that granting such a variance would make a mockery of the bylaws and
variance process. The variances required for 200 King George Terrace also
do not make sense, he said.
While
the house at 200 King George Terrace may have significant heritage value, said Mr.
Lee, 230 King George Terrace is not a quality home in the area. If it was
so valuable, he queried, why has it not already been placed on the Community
Heritage Register?
Laure
Nation, 190 King George Terrace, pointed out
that she has sent several emails to Council regarding the Cairds’ application,
noting that she is requesting Council deny the required variances.
However, she said, if Council must approve the variances, provisions should be
made to limit the height of the new dwelling to 24 feet above grade, and
heritage designation of 200 King George Terrace should be forthcoming.
MOVED
by Councillor Cassidy,
Seconded
by Councillor Braithwaite, That the meeting proceed beyond the 11 o’clock p.m. hour of
adjournment fixed by the Procedure Bylaw.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Kenneth
Smith, 170 Prince Andrew Place, acknowledged
the potential compensation issues that would surround a forced heritage
protection measure for 200 King George Terrace.
Dr.
Smith noted that the people in the surrounding neighbourhood purchased their
lots because of the large sizes. Should the proposed subdivision and
potentially others occur, he said, surrounding property values would decrease
because of the smaller lots and homes around them. He urged Council to
preserve the neighbourhood as it is.
Matthew
Takoski, 2010 Lorne Terrace, said that he was a
former tenant at 230 King George Terrace, and he did not find the area
particularly neighbourly at that time. He said that 230 King George is a
special house, found to be unique by heritage professionals. He
encouraged Council to let the subdivision and new development proceed,
providing more housing in the area.
Marion
Cumming, 141 Sunny Lane, said that the proposal
to protect 230 King George Terrace and allow the subdivision is a fight against
development by demolition. If approved, an important house would be
saved, and Council would be providing further building lots to assist with its
role in accommodating growth in the region.
The
application, she said, has become a national issue. Ms. Cumming went on
to encourage Council move forward with the application and let the Cairds’
continue to build their new home.
Chris
Nation, 190 King George Terrace, expressed his
desire to see the height of the new dwelling restricted to 24 feet. It was
his impression that the Cairds’ number one priority was subdivision, and he
encouraged Council to impose height conditions in relation to approving the
requested variances. In his view, he said, the Cairds’ would not demolish
230 King George Terrace given its value.
George
Caird, 200 King George Terrace, confirmed that
it is their primary purpose to build a new house one way or another. He
said he would like to save the houses on 200 and 230 King George Terrace,
however he reiterated that he would not offer formal protection for 200 King
George Terrace, although he would be amenable to having it placed on the Community
Heritage Register.
Mayor
Causton reviewed the main issues with respect to the application, noting that
the applicants have placed Council in a tough spot by refusing protection for
200 King George Terrace. In response to the input received, Mayor Causton
suggested to Mr. Caird that he attempt to work with his neighbours to address
the issues raised, such as protection of the two Art Deco houses and height
controls for his new house, and to see if the neighbourhood could be rebuilt
through such discussions.
Mr.
Caird responded, noting that in his view, the question for Council was how to
get him to change the roof heights now that he has already been given a valid
building permit, and how to address the heritage issues. He pointed out
that in terms of working with his neighbours, he had already changed the
original proposed location of his new house to accommodate the views of Mr.
MacNeill.
It
was proposed by Mayor Causton that Mr. Caird meet with his neighbours to try
and sort out the issues and work towards an acceptable resolution, prior to
Council making any decisions, and he offered to attend and facilitate such a
meeting. Various members of Council, along with Mr. Caird and some of the
neighbours, agreed to meet as suggested, although it was pointed out that such
a meeting would be open to anyone who wished to attend.
MOVED
by Councillor Carson,
Seconded
by Councillor Cassidy, That Agenda Item Nos. 2006-41 through 2006-41-5 be deferred.
There
was discussion regarding the option to hold a Special Council meeting to
further consider the development variance permit application and agreement for
continued construction of the new dwelling during the variance and subdivision
process once the above noted neighbourhood meeting had taken place.
The
question was then called.
CARRIED
NEW BUSINESS:
RESOLUTIONS:
Development
Variance Permit—1318 Transit Road
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite, That the
Director of Building and Planning be authorized to issue a development variance
permit with respect to the proposed subdivision of:
Parcel A (DD 118746-I) of Lot 1, Block R,
Section 23, Victoria District, Plan 368B (1318 Transit Road) which would vary
the requirements of Section 6.4.4(2)(b) of Bylaw No. 3531, Zoning Bylaw, 1986, and Section 8(1) of Bylaw No. 3578, Subdivision and Development Bylaw, 1987
to permit the existing principal building on the proposed Lot 1 to have a rear
lot line setback of 6.0 metres, substantially as shown on the sketch plan of
the proposed subdivision prepared by Powell & Associates, BC Land
Surveyors, dated June 20, 2005 and attached to Committee of the Whole agenda item
#2005-287, when and if the Approving Officer grants preliminary approval to the
proposed subdivision, and upon the applicant satisfying all conditions of
preliminary approval set out by the Approving Officer including but not limited
to the payment of all required off-site servicing costs and the execution of a
covenant in favour of the Municipality imposing the following restrictions:
·
municipal
approval required for building design and siting, and driveway location, on the
proposed Lot 2;
·
preservation
of existing residence located on the proposed Lot 1;
·
preservation
of existing rock wall on proposed Lots 1 and 2;
·
municipal
approval required for removal of mature trees on the proposed Lot 2, and for
the Giant Sequoia on the proposed
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor
Cassidy, That the resolution in respect to the Development Variance Permit for 1318
Transit Road be tabled to enable notice to be given in accordance with the Local Government Act.
CARRIED
Development
Variance Permit—
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Cassidy, That the Director of Building and Planning be authorized to issue a Development Variance Permit in respect to Lot 7, Block 11, Section 31, Victoria District Plan 1216A, Except Part in Plan 2713 (3000 Rutland Road) that will vary Bylaw 3531, Zoning Bylaw, 1986, to permit the renovations of the single family dwelling on the land in accordance with the plans considered by Committee of the Whole on January 16, 2006, as follows:
|
Bylaw Section |
Permitted/ Required |
Requested |
Variance |
|
6.2.4.(3).(c)
& Schedule “B” Maximum
Roof Height |
4.60 metres |
5.83 metres |
1.23 metres |
|
6.2.4.(2).(c)
& Schedule “C” Minimum
Interior Side Lot Line |
4.57 metres |
1.54 metres |
3.03 metres |
MOVED by Councillor Cassidy
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That the resolution in respect to the Development Variance Permit for 3000
Rutland Road be tabled to enable notice to be given in accordance with the Local Government Act.
Development
Variance Permit and Proposed Subdivision—
200 and 230 King George Terrace
Development
Variance Permit and Proposed Subdivision—
230 King George Terrace, Construction of
New Residence Pending
Subdivision
There was consensus
among Council to defer consideration of these two resolutions until the next
meeting of Oak Bay Municipal Council, or a Special Council meeting, pending
meeting between the owner and concerned members of the public, to further
discuss the proposed subdivision and development variance permit application.
BYLAWS:
For
FINAL ADOPTION
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That Bylaw No. 4301, Fire Regulation
Bylaw Amendment Bylaw, 2006,be adopted.
CARRIED
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That Bylaw No. 4302, Subdivision and
Development Bylaw Amendment Bylaw, 2006, be adopted.
CARRIED
MOVED by Councillor
Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That Bylaw No. 4303, Sewer User Charge
Amendment Bylaw, 2006, be read adopted.
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT:
There was
consensus of Council to cancel the meeting of Council In-Camera due to the late hour.
The meeting
adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Certified Correct
|
Municipal Clerk |
|
Mayor |