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