From the 09 November 2008 e-wheel SPOKES from Thetis Island:

The community responded positively to SPOKES distribution and TINet posting of platforms for all three Thetis Island candidates for trustee in Islands Trust elections next Saturday, November 15. Some individuals, however, lamented the lack of an all-candidates meeting, “a public forum, where [candidates] could answer questions from the residents, directly in an open meeting. This would help clarify many questions folks might have. It would also give clear information and responses to queries residents may have.”

There are those, too, who realize that organizing a meeting takes, well, someone to organize it – in a community that arguably has more organized events per capita than any settlement of comparable size.

It is, as one person wrote, “a bit late in the game” to present an all-candidates get-together in Forbes Hall, but in the wake of Saturday’s Advisory Planning Commission session, another individual came up with a compromise proposal regarding candidates for the three-year trustee role:

“I was wondering whether it would be appropriate for an ‘all candidates’ question to be posed regarding the final recommendations of the APC, following from a sincere consultative process . . . the community might benefit from the responses.”

With a full business week remaining before the vote, and with complex concerns in the community with what will result from the Trust’s current revisiting of the Thetis Island Official Community Plan and how it will come about, we’ll give it a try.

Within the bounds of legality and practicality and the object of the Trust, I will as trustee support the recommendations of the APC toward an updated Community Plan for Thetis Island. Upon taking office in December, each duly elected trustee swears an oath to uphold the object of the Trust so this is an essential part of the decision making process.

Of course I would support the APC recommendations, however the APC needs to demonstrate to the LTC and the community that its recommendations reflect the will of the community.

Candidate’s note: I was not consulted in advance regarding this online questionnaire about my availability to participate in this forum, I am away from home with a very busy work schedule this week. I have NO Internet access and limited or NO access even to a phone. I apologize I may not be able to answer any further questions.

Yes, I would support recommendations of the Advisory Planning Commission that accurately reflect the will of Thetis residents and property owners and the people of B.C. whose design for the Gulf Islands is set out in the Islands Trust Act. To acknowledge the commission and all the citizens who contribute to its voluntary work, the Thetis Local Trust Committee should respond publicly and completely to each commission recommendation.

It is important that both trustees are people who are listening and working with the community to learn and problem solve together. They don't need to share similar viewpoints on everything but do need to respect each other and the work to be done. The work to date that I've been involved in has focused on improving our staff support, increasing our tools for preserving and protecting, and advocating for issues concerning our whole Thetis Island Local Trust Area. We have not had a big subdivision application to consider or have public hearings about so the work has not required decisions which may involve quite different opinions between trustees.

Greetings from Mayne Island. There are a number of important factors associated with your choice of Trustees. The individual points of view are not critical; the key is can they work together to achieve the business agenda of the committee and the community. The individuals need to be able to look at the issues, and in my mind come to an agreement of what’s best for the community and move forward. A second consideration is the fact that the local trust committee is compromised of three trustee's, the chair is an appointed off island trustee. What is significant here is that if the two trustees disagree on a voting issue, then the off-Island Chair is the deciding vote, not that this is a bad thing but I think it can add its own set of dynamics to the decision making, that may not agree with everyone.

A wider range of viewpoints in the Thetis Local Trust Committee would give islanders a greater opportunity to have their land use concerns fairly and openly represented. Better solutions are possible when problems are considered from more angles. Like their constituents, trustees can disagree without being disagreeable. More than expressing viewpoints, the task of trustees is to properly translate the desire of islanders to enjoy the fullest use of their properties without diminishing the public good.

The "loft bylaw crisis" was a regrettable mistake I as a trustee take responsibility for. This opportunity to explain what occurred from my point of view is a way to alleviate some of the damage it caused - I hope.

It was a case of mishandling by the trustees and misunderstanding by the community. The intent was to walk us (Local Trust Committee and the community) through the process of how a bylaw can be reviewed and changed when the need arose. Our first mistake was to give the "proposed bylaw" "first reading" - we should have asked our planner to suggestion wording for a "draft bylaw". The next step (which we did have in place) was to hold a Community Information Meeting for the community to review the possible new wording and suggest other changes as they saw fit. First reading of a proposed bylaw should only take place when the trustees feel reasonably certain they have a consensus within the community that the wording of a draft bylaw is right.

The concern being addressed at a Local Trust Committee meeting on this occasion was the definition of a "guest cottage". In that definition a loft is not defined which leaves it open to being interpreted to be as much as a full second story. Our intent was to open a process to the community to think together with us about how we could better word the definition of "guest cottage" so as to limit the loft to a size that is reasonable and the usual practice (perhaps 1/3 or 1/2 of the allowed 700 sq ft. footprint for an overall floor space of 1000 to 1100 sq ft.).

This was said at the LTC meeting during discussion but some people present understood what was said to mean that we thought it was a good plan to "not allow lofts at all" (never the intent) and that we were changing the definition right then and there without proper community consultation. The misunderstanding spread quickly since it felt like a betrayal of trust. In hind sight I think since there is a lot of terminology and process to learn surrounding various land use questions it is not surprising (but deeply unfortunate) that there was misunderstanding on all sides.

Unfortunately, very few people contacted the trustees directly to ask what was going on. So by the time we came to the planned Community Information Meeting lots of people were extremely upset - and rightly so since they thought we were riding roughshod over their interests and rights. After listening to the concerns voiced at the meeting we stopped the process and shelved the review of the "guest cottage" definition, leaving it (as requested by those present at the meeting) to be brought out at the Official Community Plan review with an Advisory Planning Commission to look at the issue.

To prevent this sort of crisis from happening again I will, if elected, communicate more carefully and thoroughly using plain terms and make a practice at Local Trust Committee meetings of asking if there are questions about that is going on. I now understand the proper process and am confident this sort of mistake will not be made again. This occurred during a time when we were in flux with our planning support so continuity was lacking in that way as well.

All this to say: it's been a steep learning curve which has been difficult and challenging for me. The choice to run for trustee again has not been an easy one. However, with this and other hard lessons learned I feel equipped to do the job in a more responsive way if elected for a second term to work for you. It is rewarding work when it done right. I hope to rebuild your trust in me and in Islands Trust. I believe it is a valuable part of local government and hope to be able to help us all be proud of living in the Trust Area.

As one of your trustees, I heard the community reject this idea. We have also set the full OCP review in motion as a result. In order to alleviate the damage we expect the APC to address this specific question and come back with recommendations that the community thinks will answer the need to redefine this term or just leave it as it is.

The proposal to remove the right of Thetis property owners to have sleeping lofts in guest cottages was seen by many as public theft of private property. The Local Trust Committee floated this 'down-zoning' solution as an alternative to their existing policy that allows sleeping lofts to be entire second stories with more than one room and covering up to 700 square feet. With more dialogue with islanders, a definition of 'loft' can be forged that better serves our community.

As Dave Steen rightly stated in his answer, this is not a bylaw but is a statement in the Official Community Plan. It expresses the overall shared vision of the Thetis Community. I think there are different sorts of expectations for different sorts of areas:

• In R1 zoning (being comprised of smaller lots more closely spaced) the sounds from neighbour to neighbour will be more noticed so should be carefully considered within the neighbourhood.
• In R2 zoning (being comprised of larger lots more widely spaced) the sounds from neighbour to neighbour will be less noticed so it is not as likely to be an issue within a neighbourhood.

Once again, responding from Mayne Island. I do not have the by-laws or OCP in front of me but I can offer the following: I believe this section of the OCP and by-laws refers to the rights of a resident to enjoy their home and their property relatively undisturbed.

This kind of problem is clearly subjective. If a complaint is filed, it would be up to the by-law enforcement officer to investigate, make a subjective decision, and act accordingly. In the case of industrial activity, this may be easily decided. In the case of home construction, noisy vehicles or other short-term activity, it may be more difficult to assess. Recent practices of the by-law officers have been to consult with all parties and try to reconcile complaint situations (I have not heard of any noise complaints at this time).

In this past term, we implemented municipal ticketing as a measure to discourage non-compliant land use and activities. This kind of situation may be a very good application of this new system. Again, with regards to recent by-law enforcement activities, it is current practice to offer a warning prior to issuing tickets. This to date has proved effective.

The quote in the question is not a by-law. It is from the 'land use and development objectives and policies' section of the Official Community Plan. I could find no reference to 'noise' in a quick scan of the land use bylaw. Because certain noises can be a racket to some people and music to others, noise complaints are often better managed by education than legislation. Several people have raised the noise issue in recent days. It merits a deeper look by trustees and the community.

As noted in my answer to Question #3 there was never an attempt to restrict property rights, use and values regarding guest cabins and sleeping lofts. There was an erroneous perception that our goal was to outlaw lofts. To repeat: with the reasonable concern of some that our definition of a guest cottage is too loose (in that it could possibly include a full second story) we were attempting to figure out a way - with community involvement - to rewrite the definition (perhaps limiting lofts to 1/3 or 1/2 the main floor square-footage as is the common practice).

The Community Information meeting was in place to engage those interested in the topic through thoughtful discussion. That discussion never occurred since people arrived at the meeting in a defensive stance - in no mood to discuss anything. It took me awhile to figure out just what went so terribly wrong. This mistake will not happen again.

Be assured - your private property rights are carefully protected by the legislated process required for any bylaws changes. To make a change there are required 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings at public Local Trust Committee meetings. There is also a requirement for at least one advertised Public Hearing. The Executive of Trust Council must review and approve each new bylaw. Next the Minister of Community Affairs must do the same. Finally, the Local Trust Committee gives a 4th and final reading to enact the new bylaw. Anywhere along this process public input is encouraged and taken into real consideration. At any point the process can be stopped and/or changes can be made. These safe guards are already in place.

As your trustees we chose to have a (non-mandatory) Community Information meeting to provide a specific time for discussion - looking for ideas to come forward from the community.

As trustees we responded to you at the Community Information meeting - when we heard your clear message not to proceed we dropped our - honest and open but terribly misunderstood - attempt to rewrite the definition for the good of all.

This is a very open ended question, not easily answered in this forum. I can only say that we have charged the APC to review the Official Community Plan and the associated by-laws. It is my hope that the community will come forward and recommend how to address the definitions of "guest cabin" and "sleeping loft" so that we can all know what to expect when a neighbour, for instance, wishes to undertake building a guest cabin or when one has thoughts about building a guest cabin. The by-laws are about certainty -- certainty about our rights and our neighbours’ rights. I intend on supporting a community view on these issues and supporting the rights as detailed in the by-laws. Exercise your right to vote, November the 15th for the trustees you feel will be able to help our community through this challenging time.

The Thetis Official Community Plan and Land Use Bylaw legally define private property rights/uses. I have no desire or plan to change them, but I would make certain that any sincere application for change is afforded the benefit of processes that have been made for that purpose. I support making OCP and LUB language more understandable because that will foster island harmony and the efficient resolution of land use issues.

Property values are determined by the real estate market. Measures that increase respect for Islands Trust legislation will boost owners' confidence and their sense of security in the uses and values of their Thetis properties. (This fall the world is learning again that disrespect for, and lack of, wise regulation damage economies, markets and personal finances.)

For more on lofts, please see my response earlier to Question #3.