Draft Minutes - 10 April

Minutes

FVSG

10 April 2008, Fulford Hall, 3-5 pm

Core Group Members Present: Margaret Day, John Rowlandson (chair), Ron Bain, Ralph Pred (for John Moore), Larry Woods (secretary)

Community Reference Group Members Present: Stan Shapiro,  Martyn Day, David O'Flynn

Community Members Present: Peter Lamb & George Ehring (Trustees)

Regrets: John Moore

[NB: All decisions taken by consensus.]

1. Adoption of Agenda as presented.
2. Adoption of Minutes of 3 April meeting.
3. Chair’s Report: The Chair welcomed the Trustees and invited Margaret to speak to draft interim report prepared by the Writing committee. 
4. Discussion of Interim Report:  Margaret recommended the acceptance of the interim report.  It was noted that the draft does not include many and varied appendices.  A lengthy discussion of the section dealing with the recommendation for the establishment of an ongoing Fulford Advisory Committee.  While the intent of this recommendation is important, the group agreed to revise this section after the Trustees reminded us of the ongoing nature of the Fulford Study Group in its terms of reference.  A checklist of appendices was reviewed, as were the mechanics of distribution for the report and appendices in advance of the Trust community meetings in Fulford on Monday, 14 April.  The Chair thanked the Writing Team for their efforts and indicated that he will introduce the report at both sessions.  Margaret introduced input gather from Fulford School children this very morning and indicated her hope that these would be posted on our blog.  Stan referred to a summary handout he has prepared and will revise.  It was noted that we must thank all those who have given us their input.  The Chair acknowledged the efforts on the Focus Group now that we had walked in their shoes and noted the difference between our group and theirs may be our ability to advocate on behalf of our report because of its roots in the community.  The need to place an article in the Driftwood was stressed.  
5. Other Business:

a)     The Chair noted the need for succession planning as we move into the next phase.  Leadership and participation will need to be addressed on an ongoing basis.

b)    The Chair thanked all group members for their participation and input and the Trustees expressed their thanks to the Chair and group members for the quality of the interim report and for reporting on time given the tight reporting timeline the group was set.

6. Adjourned 4:45 pm.    LW 

Minutes - 3 April

Minutes

FVSG

3 April 2008, Fulford Hall, 3-6 pm

 

Core Group Members Present: Margaret Day, John Rowlandson (chair), Ron Bain, Larry Woods (secretary), Ralph Pred (for John Moore)

Community Reference Group Members Present: Stan Shapiro, Vera Robinson, Johan Gerritsen, Martyn Day

Regrets: John Moore

 [NB: All decisions taken by consensus.]

1. Adoption of agenda, as amended.
2. Adoption of Minutes of 27 March meeting.
3. Chair’s Report:  After thanking everyone for their participation in the Open House display during the Fulford Flea Market on Saturday, Ron’s summary of the Open House was introduced.  The responses to the display were gratifying and the effort was appreciated by the community.  Forty-five responses were received on the day.  Perhaps we could add disclaimer indicating that Ron’s summary does not contain all views expressed by group members.  The document could be appended to our final report.  
4. Review of Focus Group Recommendations & Final Report:

A lengthy discussion revealed a lack of consensus in support of the Focus Group recommendations pertaining to ferry-related issues.  Given the time expended on  this discussion, the Chair expressed his sense that our final report is emerging and that a writing team should be able to complete it.  This group could identify issues to be addressed in long-term.  We could use the review sheet the Chair prepared for the discussion of the Focus Group recommendations to help organize the text of our report and appendices.  It was proposed that Margaret, Ron and Stan be the core of this group.  An introductory “coda” could address those aspects of our purpose we want to stress.  Can the “preserve and protect” approach to the natural environment be applied to the service environment?   We can present divergent positions in our document.  Stan’s draft already includes a list of Focus Group recommendations acceptable to our group.  Our document will need to go out before the public process begins in Fulford on 14 April.  Ralph will attend the writing team in Larry’s stead, as possible.  The first meeting will be 2:00 pm Friday, 4 April at the home of Margaret and Martyn Day.  We will also reserve our regular meeting room for 3-5 pm next Thursday to review the final report.

5. Other Business:

a)     There was discussion of the Hornby Island local committee structure.

b)    The connection between amenity transfer and density transfer was explored.  The question will be referred to the Trust.

6. Adjourned 6:00 pm.

LW 

Agenda - 10 April

OAP Room - 3:00 to 5:00 pm

1. Agenda/Minutes
2. Interim Report
3. Discussion
4. Other Business
5. Adjournment

Agenda - 3 April (Responding to Trustees)

OAP Room - Fulford Hall

1500 to 1700 hrs 

 Agenda 

1. Adoption of Agenda/Minutes
2. Report on Open House
3. Next Steps
4. Adjournment
   

Minutes - 27 March

Minutes

FVSG

27 March 2008, Fulford Hall, 3-6 pm

Core Group Members Present: Margaret Day, John Rowlandson (chair), Ron Bain, Larry Woods (secretary), Peter Lamb (Trustee)

Community Reference Group Members Present: Stan Shapiro, Ralph Pred, Vera Robinson

Community Members Present:  Nel Bushby, Robert Kojima (Islands Trust staff), Gerry Hamlyn (Islands Trust staff)

Regrets: Alan Goldin, John Moore

[NB: All decisions taken by consensus.]

1. Adoption of agenda, as amended.
2. Adoption of Minutes of 20 March meeting recorded by Martyn Day, noting suggested changes from Peter Lamb.
3. Chair’s Report:  Peter Lamb has observed that we should create a budget for any future activities in order for said budget to be approved by the Trust beforehand.
4. Ron Bain spoke to panels of display for upcoming Open House.
5. Margaret spoke to responses to Service Environment questionnaire circulated to group members.
6. Robert Kojima spoke to today’s local Trust committee meeting which dealt with the density transfer issue, assessment of amenity values, agricultural polices, and climate change matters as part of revision of draft of OCP.   The local Trust committee meets on 3 April (the same day as our report is due), meaning the next opportunity for our report to be considered by local Trust committee meeting will be 7 May.  We should get our report to them as soon as possible.
7. Vision: Group members spoke to their visions of the village twenty years on and Trust staff offered guidance.  Some group members said we must guard against loss of history and reason for being.  The social side of Fulford must not be lost.  Language of OCP is not language of Fulford.  We must be respectful of nature and neighbours.  Some prefer to grow slowly.  It was observed that there is an assumption that Fulford as presently constructed has the capacity to receive densities, but we lack receiving capacity.  We must clear up problems in resource and infrastructure gaps.  Then receiving issues can be looked at differently.   Are we really thinking about developing a local area plan?  Do we want to say we wish to preserve and protect the village?  We do not need to assume development.  Do we want it to stay as is?  Do we want to recommend removing Fulford as a receiving area?  What about development outside development permit area?  Can we duplicate the process in Ganges with respect to heritage conservation areas?  It is possible, but would require us to deal with boundary issue.   Some are skeptical about heritage designation.
8. Consideration of OCP Vol.1 items dealing with Fulford [sections refer to items in OCP (adopted June 10, 1998; consolidated May, 2007)]:

B.5.1.2.1   Use reference to “Fulford Village” throughout.

B.5.1.2.11 Duplicate for Fulford re: heritage designation

B.5.3.1.3  Reinforce water supply as contingency for development

B.5.3.2.4  Distance re: parking should be softened in some way

B.5.3.2.6  Fulford Village should not be designated as a receiving area for densities until criteria for achieving needed capacity are met.   We should build out before allowing additional densities and encourage development within existing zoning allowances.

9. Open House and Drafting of Final Report: We reviewed the display for the open house.  What should we offer people on the day?  We will ask them for their visions of Fulford and have a book they can write in. We considered having an extra meeting to confirm positions on Focus Group and OCP recommendations.  Our report will not be completed by 3 April. 
10. Adjourned 6 pm.

 

LW 

Agenda - 27 March (Vision to Action)

OAP Room - Fulford Hall

1500 to 1800 hrs 

 Agenda 

1. Regular FSG Meeting (1500 to 1700)
1. Adoption of Agenda/Minutes
2. New Business (Lamb)
3. Report of the Working Paper Task Group (synthesis document Service Environment Framing Questions)
4. Fulford Vision/OCP Actions to Achieve Vision
5. Report Development
6. Adjournment
2. Open House Coordinating Meeting (1700 to 1800)
• Content 
• Feedback
• Logistics

Historical Properties in Fulford Village

In response to Study Group interest in Heritage properties and Village development, Barb Lyngard has put together this document that shows property ownership and transfer in the Fulford area. This is very much a work in progress and Barb would like you to contact her at lyngard@shaw.ca if you have more current or accurate information. Barb will also be making a presentation on the History of Fulford at the Public School, 9 April at 1:00 pm. To enlarge any of the seven spreadsheets, just place your cursor over the image and left-click.

Minutes - March 20th

Minutes- March 20^th.

20^th. March 2008, Fulford Hall, 3-5.30pm.

Core Group Members present: Margaret Day, John Moore, John Rowlandson (chair), Ron Bain, Peter Lamb ( Trustee), Martyn Day as alternate for Larry Woods.

Community Reference Group Members present: Stan Shapiro, Ralph Pred, Vera Robinson, Ted Bowland

Regrets: Alan Goldin, Larry Woods, David O’Flynn, Johan Gerritsen

All decisions taken by consensus.

Maps displayed by Ron Bain.

1. Adoption of Agenda

2. Adoption of minutes of March 13^th. Meeting

3. New Business

Stanley Shapiro and Ron Bain each outlined their positions and concerns re: the short and long term process issues facing the group, as detailed in an exchange of e-mails circulated by the chair to all Study Group. Members.

Trustee Lamb was asked for his advice/ direction as to how the group could most effectively meet its TOR.

In response Trustee Lamb advised the following:

1. That the Study Group should report to the Trust by the April 3^rd.deadline on those items in the current draft OCP which they could support, and on those which would need further study; otherwise the recommendations of the Focus Group still under consideration would be accepted.

2. That trustees would not endorse any change that the Study Group could not support. Trust staff have similarly been instructed not to make decisions that affect Fulford until the Study Group reports to the Trust.

3. The Study Group should also identify any objections/concerns re: the existing 1998 OCP by the April 3^rd. deadline...

John Moore advised that from the review of the Focus Group recommendations by the Study Group to date there appeared to be general agreement with many of the Focus Group recommendations.

4. Service Environment Framing Questions

John Moore agreed to update and finalize the .synthesis document of the previous week on the built environment questions and include the submissions of Margaret Day and Ron Bain.

Group members to submit responses and.Margaret Day to finalize the synthesis document based on discussion and Service Environment Questions  as posted on the blog for this weeks meeting.

5. Focus Group recommendations/ OCP objectives/policies related to the Service Environment

The Trust has clarified the position of the existing boundaries and this information has been added to the overlay of the maps by Ron Bain. Within these boundaries, under current zoning, a build out from  98   to 142   residences was possible.

John Moore brought up the issue that only 30%of the residents of Reginald Hill were full time. An increase in this percentage would affect the use of Morningside which continues to show signs of subsidence. This was of general concern to the whole group

With the inclusion of Abbeyfield it would appear that the capacity / state of the existing water supply would be at its maximum. John Rowlandson speaking for the Fulford Water District said that there would have to be a substantial improvement in the infra-structure and source to accommodate the existing build out potential.

It was noted that the section of the Fulford-Ganges road within the village is treated as a major highway and is a major safety concern. Ideas put forward included: village be “pedestrianised” up to the junction with Beaver Point Rd., appropriate signage for motorists exiting the ferry terminal, speed bumps, 30km. speed zone, etc...

Trustee Lamb said that the group should be talking to the Transport Commission and Gary Holman about the traffic problems.

Ted Bowland from the floor said that the village seemed afraid of development when, in fact, shaped and directed development could be used to solve infra-structure problems.

Several issues not having come up for discussion it was agreed that the same format as the previous week would be adopted with everyone submitting their response to the questions as framed on the Blog  for the Service Environment

6. Other Business

An “Open House” will be held (Fulford Flea Market, March 29^th. Fulford Hall) with the objective of bringing ‘Greater Fulford’ up to date with how the Study Group is attempting to deal with its task and to seek their involvement/vision. Emphasis would be on getting their input.

Meeting adjourned 5.30pm.

Minutes submitted by Martyn Day acting as alternate for recording secretary Larry Woods

Working Paper #3 - The Built Environment

Study Group Member response to Guiding Questions

Fulford Village Issues

What is in Fulford now and what can be changed without expansion (note: italicized items are part of terms of reference).
 
What facilities or services (e.g. senior’s or affordable housing, sewage treatment, multifamily dwellings) would be required to fulfill your vision?

• too early to say but generally the topography and the character of the Village conflicts with large infrastructure projects (uglification) and really begs for smaller shared approaches. The small commercial core of businesses at the ferry terminal would be a great place to ‘demonstrate how micro-sewerage’ could work in other places.
• Seniors’ housing, affordable housing, medical clinic, community center, community garden. 

• To that I would add a small park.

• It would not be facilities as much as the exterior space that would knit the village together and sitting spaces, pathways and bicycle routes that would help to replace the automobile. A walkway and park along the outer edge of the road from the ferry to Drummond Park. With transit to Ganges, Fulford would be the ideal place to live without a car.
• Agree with JOHN R about ”the topography and the character of the Village conflicts with large infrastructure projects (uglification) and really begs for smaller shared approaches.Instead of Seniors Housing a SENIORS SERVICE CENTRE staffed 24 hours a day with staff nurse, and with home-help support and pharmacy as needed, to help seniors remain in their own homes in Greater Fulford . A smaller building /bigger service.(  NB I realize that this is a different concept to Abbeyfield but was interested tp hear last week that a modified version of this is part of their plan). This would allow for 10 units of affordable housing, which would come within present water units. Affordable housing:  small modern cottages designed with work/studio space suitable for activities as listed under 6. I.e. the rural version of the artist loft developments of East Vancouver

How can we leverage existing community assets to support a more livable community?

• While we’re gathering information about many of these assets now, there are many others – such as the narrow roadways, existing pathways, Secret beach, the school soccer field, Akerman’s baseball field – that are widely used and can be leveraged to formalize to a walking/cycling/recreational network that would double as core transportation network for the village. We need a strategy that can start opening up the public pathways that used to by Villagers and surrounding neighbours to get in/out of the Village by foot/bicycle. 
• If the ferry is to continuing using the dock at Fulford, we should be able to get BC Ferries and the Ministry of Transportation to pay more attention to the immediate needs of the community for a solution to the attendant traffic and parking issues.  We should also be able to get the police to enforce the existing laws or have auxiliary police officers do this for them.  Maybe we should deputize people who are akin to “meter maids” and have them enforce the regulations.  I understand how the police have bigger fish to fry.  Some sort of community policing initiative may help, although these initiatives usually address crime problems, not traffic issues.
• We must also address the secondary emergency access issue, either by getting the Ministry of Transportation to undertake the necessary restoration work to Morningside Drive, putting in the emergency access atop Sunnyside or putting a road through the Fraser property to Reynolds Road.  Can the Frasers be compensated for this in some way?
• Strongly endorse the need for parking enforcement and also emergency access.  There should be no objection to an emergency access through Sunnyside, t least as a temporary measure until an alternative through the Fraser property could be constructed.
• Have CRD assume responsibility in part for an expanded Fulford Hall Community Parking area, to serve as a Park and Ride for the ferry.
•  Fulford School was built for 200-215 and presently has approx. 150 students, while this situation continues to exist, encourage development of building as a Community School
• Map and clearly signpost all existing pathways. This ties in with John R.’s comments re; pathways and Ron’s for a more welcoming community. 

How can we provide additional facilities and still protect the character and form of the village?

• I see the Abbeyfield as one model – that the facility is designed to meet community-based needs (the health clinic for instance) and respond to community-based requirements (reduced traffic flow). It has grown out of a local development structure (Ruby Alton’s bequest to make room for southend oldtimers) and I would expect that a process and mechanisms for guiding local development would support similar facilities that fit the local character and form. 
•  Have our own development permit regulations.
• After this phase is over it would be interesting to explore how the village could restore and add housing to what is there. Increasing the number of people would be possible by careful infill which is in scale with the existing housing. The OCP and the bylaw should encourage this type of development which would add value to the properties, help pay for upgrading costs that are necessary and help provide more affordable housing. 
• Consider alternative use of residential buildings on a case by case basis within the village core, re: commercial or home business use. Flexible planning is I think very important to maintaining the existing character while allowing things to change.
• In all cases increased traffic flow must be considered, this is one area that concerns me about location of Abbeyfield, the amount of traffic generated by a senior’s complex of any sort is high. Before Stan and Marie’s generous offer was the area behind the pub ever considered?
• Allow for development in Greater Fulford to accommodate additional facilities in suitable sites, on a basis that does not tax the existing infrastructure.

What is the potential expansion of the housing capacity within the village using existing zoning requirements? Should the existing R8 zoning be changed to allow other forms of housing that would respect the existing character and public space in Fulford? If there is no increase in population do you need more services? (Is Fulford adequately serviced today?

• TBD
• Not sure on capacity issue.  Providing housing for 10 seniors and perhaps 10-20 units for affordable housing for individuals and families may be all we can handle. 
• Yes [to R8 change], if rezoning allows seniors’ and affordable housing.
• A medical clinic may help.
• We need to make a strong statement in favour of affordable and seniors’ housing and then address with more consideration how to make this happen.
• Please see my comment above. A good discussion in the community about this would really be useful. I am concerned that without some change in what exists, the cost of living in Fulford will change who can live there and the housing they will want. Change the R8 zoning designation to Fulford Village zoning and include the guidelines for maintaining the character and building form.
• Well designed and landscaped, visibly obvious, public toilets.A health clinic. A picnic table out on the wharf. A sheltered large public notice board with a map of the village of a rustic nature as close to the pedestrian exit from the ferry as possible.

How much commercial activity, and of what kind should be taking place? Even if there is no expansion and no additional zoned commercial land within Fulford, what demands will the expansion of population in the south area of the island produce for expanded commercial services (e.g. a health clinic, pharmacy, computer repair…)?

• Commercial demands should be small footprint satellite-type offices that are sustainable through the busy summer and slack winter months. Given the large number of home businesses in and around Fulford, some sort of support structure will be required (perhaps integrated with the Post Office). Given the larger number of cars and ferry traffic, a satellite RCMP office.
• No more commercial activity is needed now that we have public transit to Ganges.
• Health clinic.  As we now have public transit to Ganges and as it is hoped that this service can be expanded, no other services in Fulford are needed.
• Disagree with the contention that we need no more commercial activity.  Limited, yes, but in future Fulford folk should be able to access the essentials of everyday life without hopping a bus to Ganges.  For example, I would not mind seeing a small branch pharmacy. 
• Lets clarify what home based work is and how people can earn a living in Fulford if they live there. 
• Supply and demand will continue to shape the commercial development of Fulford.A small deli, seasonal plant shop/nursery, office supply with computer/internet service would all be on my wish list and add to general feel of the village as a vibrant live able place, all could be small scale fitting in with that ever essential character.

What industrial activity might be acceptable?

• Industrial arts and artists is and likely will be acceptable in the future.
• None.
• Again, too categorical.  Certain types of art, e.g. metal art, classify as light industry and we would not wish to exclude them.
• In Fulford Village industrial activity on a large scale would be both inappropriate and out of place as the Village is a essentially a residential neighbourhood. If you are looking at a cheese making plant or similar occupation then there should be locations outside the Village. 
• Small scale craft/artisan related in keeping with present home studio businesses. Low environmental and noise impact. These are clearly acceptable to current residents and should be encouraged to increase the number of young working families in our village.

What role does agriculture play in your vision of the village? Is there space for gardens and possibly a community garden?  Should we consider recommending any swaps of residential for ALR land?

• It’s pretty important if you count flower gardens. They big gardens (Andrews) are out of production (and there’s some village history of people making small plots available to families without any arable land to speak of). The school has a very large greenhouse that is pretty much out of use all summer. The patch of arable agricultural land that runs up Southridge is an untapped resource, that would provide sustainable food production capacity for a small compact village when/if Salt Springers have less frequent access to the North American food market. 
• The community garden should become a centerpiece of Fulford.
• Yes, there is space for a community garden.
• ALR land should be returned to working farm status, including the ALR lands along South Ridge.  This would be an ideal place for a community farm and this land was previously used for farming.  One should not be permitted to “sit” on ALR, waiting for a land swap or rezoning.  If you bought ALR, you bought ALR and should be forced to use it as such.  I am hesitant about land swaps.  This should only be considered if no other option exists.
• Totally endorse the above.
• Plant every available space!
• All viable AR land should be drained, cleared and used for same. On my wish list would be the area between Southridge and Sunnyside as allotments with a southern end as a graveled parking area, this might just solve emergency access and parking as well. As a heritage feature the few remainig heritage apple trees of the original Mollet Orchard could be resurrected by Harry B. and declared a national historic site!!!!!!!
• This would also be an excellent site for the nursery proposed in 5. I could walk there with my wheelbarrow.
• A small garden on land donated by Shell (old tank area) and supervised by a local master gardener would be a wonderful oasis. Shell might need a tax break this year!!!!!!!!

What is required to make the village become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly and how should that be accomplished (e.g. walkways, speed bumps, how can we open old trails and maintain existing ones?)

• Specifically, speed bumps on Morningside between the fish ladder and Orchard, cement barriers along the southern edge of Morningside between the end of Maude’s to the new fence (these barriers have been in place for many years at the fish ladder and adjacent to the old Wigen property). Basically they prevent people from falling off a cliff (particularly people who park along that edge and try and squeeze off the road). We also need enforcement of parking by-laws (part-time constable). To keep the village senior-friendly we could put stairs alongside steep hills.
• I am uneasy about the placement of the bus stop.  I think the present location will be problematic at the height of the tourist season when the ferry line-ups run back up the hill.  Other options should be seriously considered, as it may be difficult for the bus to get into the village and to the present bus stop.
• The bus needs to come to Fulford more often.  The bus service to Fulford needs to be expanded, especially given that bus service from Swartz Bay to downtown Victoria is to be vastly improved in Sept 08 with the establishment of a much more direct route.  More Islanders will be taking the bus to Fulford on their way to Victoria and more folks from away will be wanting to take the bus into Ganges from Fulford.
• Walkways along the waterfront between ferry dock and Inn.
• Water runs down the hill to the ferry dock, frequently making things icy for pedestrians.  Improving the drainage alongside the road is necessary.
• Pedestrian walkways up and down hill from ferry dock.
• Improving public access to beaches.  Right of ways are known, but are not properly maintained.
• Improving the trail up Reginald Hill.
• Working with the Indian Band to improve and maintain the trails through the Indian Reserve.
• Securing a trail through to Lisa Lloyd’s from South Ridge to Reynolds Rd.Securing public access to trail through Fraser property to Reynolds Rd.  Securing another road access to and from the village along this right of way should also be explored.
• Formalizing and improving the walkway through the meadow at the top of Sunnyside.
• Ensuring that the lines and instructions on the hill down to the ferry are painted on a more regular basis.
• I endorse most of the above.  Also, Morningside is sadly in need of upgrading and could be widened with the addition of a culvert, thus making it more pedestrian and cycle friendly.  I am leery about “improving” the trails mentioned; save for a few places they are quite adequate for walkers and I would not like to encourage bikers.  In any case, the Trail and Nature Club does this sort of thing periodically (and could be co-opted into any plan to better identify beach accesses etc.).
• From Beaver Point turnoff to Reginald Hill all roads should be slow speed  - 30 kph and priority given to cyclists and pedestrians. Make parking restrictions clear and enforce.
• A separate walkway divided and marked for pedestrians and cyclists from Ferry to Pub with a turn off to Beaver Point Rd. should be one of our highest priorities. Ask the kids! This is an accident waiting to happen.
• A large sign as they have in Europe at the junction of Orchard and Morningside saying “Pedestrian Zone. Narrow winding roads subject to subsidence. Local traffic only. Absolutely no parking beyond this point.” And enforce.
• NB In his response to this question our sainted chair has just proved his age again” stairs”??????? only for those with good knees!! A handrail on the junction of Fulford Ganges and Beaver Point any time soon would be nice.

Fulford Village expansion issues

Should the village boundaries be changed in order to facilitate your vision of the village and the immediate surrounding area, and if so, how?
 

• I do not think the boundaries do not need to be changed to meet my vision.  I am open to arguments to the contrary.  A discussion of the issues for and against changing the boundaries was missing from the Focus Group’s recommendation. What will the cost be to those brought into the village by a change?  What will the benefit be?  It might make sense for people to become villagers, but they should be brought in willingly, if they are brought in at all.  The purpose for changing the boundaries must be openly discussed and understood.
• I am now thinking that the existing designated Fulford Village area should not expand at all. It is unnecessary and will complicate maintaining the Village character. I believe that a study of the area around the Village should revise the existing zoning to allow development of housing and small agricultural support enterprise based upon strong sustainability guidelines that respect the existing ecology, affordable housing needs and the scale of development appropriate to a rural community. All development should provide their own energy and water.

What other buildings, assets, parks, that are outside Fulford Village do you consider to be a part of Fulford Village?

• The school and playing field.
• The water reservoir and filtration system next to the school.
• Fulford Hall.
• Fulford Inn.
• Drummond Park.
• Stowell Lake & Creek, Weston Lake & Creek and watersheds.
• Reginald Hill. 
• Tsawout Indian Reserve.
• Anglican and Catholic churches.
• The meadow atop Sunnyside.
• The fish ladder on Morningside.
• Secret Beach.
• I’d even be willing to consider the ALR land along South Ridge as part of the village if it was to be returned to active farm status and turned into a community farm.
• Amen!
• The harbour, the estuary, the swans, the paddlers, the mud flats.
• I consider Fulford School, the pub, the Hall, the Anglican, and Catholic Church and Drummond Park as part of the village. I have heard nothing yet to change my mind. The AR between Sunnyside and Southridge would cease to be a no man’s land and become part of the village if it was turned into an emergency access road and allotments. 

 
Compiled by John Moore, amended by Margaret Day and Ron Bain, 21 March


 

  

Maps - Fulford Harbour Contour @ 2 metres

The Trustees have made a number of maps available in digital format to the Fulford Study Group. The map immediately to the left is a contour map of Fulford Harbour and surrounding areas. A Contour map is sometimes called a topographic or 'Topo' map. The map shows the elevation and the shape of the terrain (i.e. hills, peaks and valleys) using contour lines accurate to two metre increments. You can enlarge this image by placing your cursor over the map and clicking the left button. This will open another window with slide bars on the side and on the bottom. By moving these bars north-south and east-west you can see the whole map as well as the legend.

Guiding Questions (The Service Environment)

On 20 March 2008, as a part of its ongoing review the Fulford Study Group

will focus on understanding the Service Environment.  Here are some issues and questions on which the Group would appreciate response.  Passages in italics are issues from the Group’s Terms of Reference:

1. What [new] facilities or services (e.g. [businesses, public space], sewage treatment) would be required to fulfill your vision?
2. What changes are necessary to address public safety and emergency services such as fire fighting, ambulance, and evacuation routes?
3. Consider the consumption of resources and energy, the supply and delivery of water, and the treatment of sewage [see also paper on Water and Waste-water approaches].  What infrastructure might be necessary to accomplish your vision of the village?
4. Understanding that the ferry terminal will not be moved to another location or closed, and that the final design of a new terminal clearly rests with BC Ferries, what recommendations would you make about the terminal in order to accomplish community goals?  Do you support the recommended design in the final report of the OCP Fulford Focus Group?
5. How much space will be required for parking, and where should that go? 
6. What is required to make the village become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and how should that be accomplished?
7. Should the village boundaries be changed in order to facilitate your vision of the village and the immediate surrounding area, and if so, how?  Do your responses to the above questions imply a change in the way we view the village boundaries?

 

 

Agenda - 20 March (The Service Environment)

OAP Room - Fulford Hall

1500 to 1700 hrs 

 Agenda 

1. Adoption of Agenda/Minutes
2. New Business (Shapiro)
3. Report of the Working Paper Task Group (synthesis document of previous week’s work
4. Service Environment Framing Questions
5. Focus Group recommendations/OCP objectives/policies related to the Service Environment
6. Other Business (Open House; concurrent OCP processes; Questions to the Trust)
7. Adjournment