Every recorded step of Denman’s Housing Review, from the first project entry in January 2021 to the public hearing on 15 September 2026: what staff put in front of the committee, what the committee decided, and how a housing-supply project arrived at a proposed general 64-hectare minimum lot in every zone.
Denman’s Housing Review was listed as a top priority on 19 January 2021 to “increase options for affordable and attainable housing.” Five and a half years, one consultant report, one advisory commission, one abandoned bylaw and about $49,000 later, the bylaws before the hearing sharply restrict general subdivision potential, reduce principal-dwelling permissions on larger lots, and, by staff’s own estimate, reduce maximum outright buildout by about 100 dwellings. Exceptions and rezoning routes remain; this is not a forecast of homes delivered. This page records how that happened, step by step, from the Trust’s own documents and recordings.
Restricting subdivision was already an option in February 2024: staff proposed allowing it only where a portion of land was donated for affordable housing, alongside options for smaller donated lots. Trustees supported that option, then dropped the subdivision items in May 2024. The broader island-wide approach returned in 2025.
On 26 June 2025 staff explored removing subdivision potential from all or some Denman lots, describing “an aha moment for staff” in discussions involving Denman and Gabriola. This followed an earlier conditional restriction proposal and a May 2025 discussion of capping lots; it was not the first consideration of subdivision limits. The committee endorsed further policy development and engagement.
The committee chose it on 20 January 2026 (“the preference is to remove subdivision potential altogether”) and refined it on 17 March 2026 to Option 2: private subdivision only by rezoning and only with a community benefit.
The recovered record identifies minimum lot size as the mechanism, but does not establish who selected 64 hectares or the full analysis behind it. The April draft carried X placeholders and, on page 31, an editorial comment [MM3] says it is awaiting GIS data for minimum parcel size. Those initials do not establish authorship. The May first-reading text uses 64.0 hectares, already the Forestry and Park minimum. The July recording gives the general rationale for a high threshold; the GIS calculation, comparison of alternative figures and legal review have not been recovered.
The survey had 36 answers to the subdivision question: 7 opposed further subdivision outright, 8 supported it only for donated affordable-housing land, 19 selected other support options, and 2 were outside those groups. Conditional support for affordable-housing subdivision is not opposition to every subdivision. This small consultation does not establish an island-wide mandate.
At second reading on 24 August 2026 the committee deleted the housing-need figures (109 homes in five years, 359 in twenty) from the plan, on the record, to “see what the ministry says.” The 64-hectare policies were reordered and otherwise untouched.
The timeline
1. A housing project (January 2021 – March 2023) · 2. The advisory commission (April 2023 – February 2024) · 3. Action plan, and the density-bank fight (February 2024 – June 2025) · 4. Growth options and the decision (July 2025 – April 2026) · 5. First reading to second reading (May – August 2026) · 6. The hearing (September 2026 onward)
The thread: the proposed subdivision restrictions
Today’s rules (Land Use Bylaw 186, Table 7 in each zone) set the smallest lot a subdivision may create at 1.0 hectare in Residential, 2.0 hectares in Rural Residential with a 4.0-hectare average, 35 hectares in Co-housing, 15 hectares in Agriculture and Resource, 64 hectares in Forestry, Conservation and Park, and 1 to 2 hectares in the commercial, industrial and institutional zones. Bylaw 264 sets 64.0 hectares in all of them, and section 8.1(4) says so in one line: “The minimum lot area for all zones is 64.0 hectares.”
These are general area rules, not an inventory of subdivision approvals: family-lot and specified-purpose provisions, other approval constraints and rezoning remain. The steps below are the ones found in the recovered record, in order. Each is expanded in the chronology, with its document or its timestamp.
General lot-area rules, with special provisions and approvals assessed separately: Land Use Bylaw 186 today and Bylaw 264 as read a second time.
The review begins as a bid to widen housing options: a top-priority listing, a business case for $13,500, a project charter, and a consultant-run community survey. Nothing in this period proposes larger minimum lots; every lot-size idea points the other way.
Regular meeting
The review is listed as a top priority
The committee of the day (Sue Ellen Fast, David Critchley, Laura Busheikin) adopts a top-priority list whose second item is a Land Use Bylaw review of housing: secondary-suite rules, “further opportunities to support housing options,” and a limit on the gross floor area of a dwelling. Every later project report carries the same received date, 19 January 2021.
On the table
Resolution DE-2021-016, as quoted in the July 2021 staff report: “2) Land Use Bylaw Review Housing – review of secondary suites regulations – further opportunities to support housing options – limit on gross floor area of a dwelling (and/or use of floor area ratio to measure density).”
Decided or changed
The minutes of this meeting are not in our archive; the resolution is known from its quotation in the 6 July 2021 staff report (p. 173).
Direction to write a business case “focusing on housing”
Trustee Busheikin’s discussion paper proposes approaches; the committee prefers a targeted review limited to housing and asks for a business case that names the goal of the whole project.
Decided or changed
DE-2021-040: staff to prepare a business case for an OCP and Land Use Bylaw review “focusing on housing, with the goal of increasing options for affordable and attainable housing while also minimizing impacts of housing generally to better protect the environment.” CARRIED.
DE-2021-041: a discussion paper on “options available to the Local Trust Committee to facilitate more affordable housing.” CARRIED.
The Regional Planning Manager’s report proposes a two-stage project: a consultant-run public engagement in 2022/23 and bylaw drafting in 2023/24, with readings “over the course of 2023 - 2024.” The critical success factor named is “Continued prioritization of the project by Denman Trustees after the 2022 election.”
On the table
Business case “Denman OCP and LUB Housing and Short Term Rentals Review”: 2022/23 $13,500 (First Nations consultation $2,500; consultant public engagement $10,000; technology and administration $1,000); 2023/24 $8,000 (legal review $6,000; communications, information meetings and public hearing $2,000).
Attachment: Trustee Busheikin’s June 2021 list of past Denman housing efforts, which records “2010: Density bank created” and the 2011–2014 “Cooking Up Housing” project that legalised secondary suites and created the temporary-use-permit route for cottages.
Decided or changed
The minutes of this meeting are not in our archive. The 2021/22 annual report, approved 31 May 2022, records that the committee “was also successful in acquiring Trust Council budget approval to advance an Official Community Plan (OCP)/Land Use Bylaw project in 2022/23 focused on housing.”
The planner reports Trust Council’s approval of $13,500. Trustees list what they want in scope: a Mayne-style “distributed square footage” approach, suites and cottages beyond the R2 zone, more density downtown, a community housing zone, a tiny-home village. Nothing about lot sizes.
Decided or changed
DE-2022-034: staff to prepare a project charter for the OCP and Land Use Bylaw review for housing. CARRIED.
Short-term rentals are struck from the project; it becomes the “Denman Island Housing Review Project.” One amendment matters later: “Review of land use designations or zoning categories” moves from out of scope into scope.
Decided or changed
DE-2022-046: remove “short term rental” throughout; rename the project; replace “flexible housing” with “distributed square footage or similar approach”; move “Review of land use designations or zoning categories” into scope. CARRIED.
DE-2022-047: the priority’s description becomes “Targeted public engagement with First Nations, residents, external agencies and local organizations to update the Official Community Plan and Land Use Bylaw with policies and regulations to strengthen housing options and affordability on the island.” CARRIED.
DE-2022-048: approve the charter dated 29 April 2022 as amended. CARRIED. (The charter text itself is not in our archive.)
Floor-area limits enter the scope; Phase 1 and Phase 2 defined
The outgoing committee hands the project to its successor with two phases (engagement 2022/23, drafting 2023/24), a bigger engagement budget line, and the advisory planning commission drawn into the consultant’s work. Public engagement is to run through the fall and winter with a final report in March 2023.
Decided or changed
DE-2022-078: add to scope “Regulations to limit the gross floor area of a dwelling or dwellings.” CARRIED.
DE-2022-085: raise the information-meeting and public-hearing line from $2,000 to $12,000. CARRIED. DE-2022-086: endorse the 2023/24 business case as amended. CARRIED.
DE-2022-087: invite advisory planning commission members to one to three working-group meetings, August 2022 to March 2023. CARRIED.
Engagement launches at the farmers’ market; a lot-line project is added
The consultants’ engagement plan has just arrived; the launch is set for the last market of the season. The only subdivision item of the year is a small one, to simplify boundary adjustments that create no new density.
Decided or changed
DE-2022-112: support the launch of the public engagement on 8 October at the Denman Farmers Market. CARRIED.
DE-2022-114: add to the projects list “Review of subdivision requirements for lot line adjustments with a goal of simplifying this process.” CARRIED.
Stage 1 engagement (MABRRI, Vancouver Island University)Subdivision
The consultants’ survey closes: 174 responses
The survey ran from 1 November to 5 December 2022 with 174 responses; a stakeholder focus group of nine met on 10 November; an open house planned for 14 November was cancelled and, after the October 2022 election, the new committee (David Maude, David Graham, Sam Borthwick) chose not to reschedule it.
On the table
Asked whether the existing minimum lot sizes in subdivision should stay: 63 per cent supported the 1.0-hectare Residential minimum and 68 per cent the 2.0/4.0-hectare Rural minimum; 60 per cent supported the plan’s 5 per cent overall density cap.
“Increased minimums would decrease the housing supply”
A background paper prepared for the review sets out the zones on which housing is permitted with their minimum lot sizes (Residential 1.0 ha, Rural 4.0 ha, Agriculture and Resource 15.0 ha, Forestry 64.0 ha) and summarises the survey’s subdivision questions. This is the first appearance of “64.0 hectare” in the review’s papers: as the existing Forestry minimum.
In their own words
“Should minimum residential lot sizes in subdivision be increased — Increased minimums would decrease the housing supply, increase property values, decrease affordability”
The Denman Island Housing Action Group presents the density arithmetic that runs through the whole review: 994 baseline densities from the 2010 Subdivision Potential Map, 5 per cent (49) set aside for affordable housing, and only a handful left. The committee decides to advertise for a housing-specific advisory planning commission.
On the table
Delegation slide: “Residential (min: 1 Hectare) 406 0 78 484; Rural Residential (Min: 2 hectares. Average not less than 4) 239 0 67 306; … Total: 826 0 168 994 * 5% = 49.7”, source “Denman Subdivision Potential Map, October 2010.”
Staff: continuation of the review “would be considered MAJOR”; Trust Council to review a business case for more funds in March.
Decided or changed
DE-2023-010: advertise for expressions of interest for a special Advisory Planning Commission on the Housing Review. CARRIED.
In their own words
“that's the history of the density bank um and it's got no incentive for actually building sustainable housing um so we need to either fix it or get rid of it”
The Housing Review Report from Vancouver Island University’s Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region Research Institute recommends secondary dwellings and cluster housing on existing lots “rather than subdividing new lots,” subdivision for affordable-housing projects, a total-square-footage approach, abolishing temporary use permits, and fixing the density bank’s baseline. It is the first document of the review to counsel against new low-density subdivision, and it does so to add homes, not to remove lots.
In their own words
“2.3 Allow secondary dwellings on residential lots with lot sizes over 1 hectare as a measure to increase rental housing on existing residential lots rather than subdividing new lots for low-density residential development.”
The advisory commission April 2023 – February 2024
The consultants report, staff table an options paper, and a seven-member Housing Advisory Planning Commission works through the summer to a final report that asks the committee to eliminate the density bank and legalise more homes. In February 2024 staff also propose restricting subdivision to cases involving an affordable-housing land donation; the committee supports exploring it.
Regular meetingSubdivision
“I agree, subdivision is wrong”
Dr. Pamela Shaw presents the consultants’ report. The minutes record that “rather than subdivisions, land sharing options might be encouraged” and that a total-square-footage approach was supported. On the recording a trustee goes further. A community information meeting on housing is ordered for May.
Decided or changed
DE-2023-017: schedule a community information meeting for housing in May. CARRIED.
In their own words
“secondary dwellings could be allowed on lots that are capable greater than one hectare of having the carrying capacity … instead of allowing new subdivisions. So infilling rather than subdividing”
Seven residents appointed to the Housing Advisory Planning Commission
Judy Armstrong, Richard Day, Karla Neufer, Riane da Silva, Pamela Willis, Virginia Spinney and Rosa Telegus are appointed for a term ending 25 April 2025. The committee declines a fast-tracked CMHC grant application and refers the plan, the bylaw and the review to the new commission.
Decided or changed
DE-2023-021: provide the commission with the Official Community Plan, the Land Use Bylaw and the Housing Review. CARRIED.
Staff’s options paper: smaller lots for donated land, and a caution
Planner Narissa Chadwick’s preliminary report sets out the need (a 2018 assessment of up to 80 affordable units; 105 households in core housing need; population up 19.4 per cent 2016–2021), the 2023/24 budget of $18,000, and two tables of options. Every subdivision option would loosen the rules: a reduced minimum parcel size where land is donated for affordable housing, a subdivision density bonus, “smaller lot subdivision” in limited circumstances. The committee’s recorded caution points the other way.
On the table
Table 1 (OCP): “Permit reduction of minimum parcel size in some designations to facilitate donation of land for affordable housing”; “Permit zoning for additional density in exchange for lots being donated for affordable housing”; “Review density bank policy and make updates — The density bank is unique to Denman.”
Table 2 (LUB): “Subdivision density bonus”; “Smaller lot subdivision … Staff recommend this be used in limited circumstances where lots are being donated for affordable housing”; “Update potable water requirements for subdivision”; “Prohibit groundwater fed swimming pools — As the biggest limiting factor for increasing density and intensity of residential use is water.”
A suitable-land and build-out analysis, with Denman “likely one of the pilot communities.” The pilot concerns an expanded analytical method following Mayne’s work, not a pilot prohibition on subdivision (staff report p. 74).
Decided or changed
DE-2023-031: refer the report to the Housing Advisory Planning Commission for comment by 1 October 2023. CARRIED.
DE-2023-034: develop a project charter for the next phase. CARRIED. DE-2023-035: a business case for a water availability assessment for 2024/25. CARRIED.
DE-2023-044: ask the commission to consider “all things housing” and report by 1 October 2023. CARRIED.
In their own words
“Caution regarding use of subdivision to address housing needs was expressed as this can lead to selling of smaller parcels and an increase in land price.”
Stage 2 charter: “increase the number of permitted housing units”
The Stage 2 charter states the objective as amending the plan and bylaw “to increase the number of permitted housing units to address housing needs of current residents,” with a suitable-land and build-out analysis in its workplan and readings pencilled in for late 2024. Trustee Graham gives the density bank’s origin on the record. The committee strikes the housing-needs update and the commission’s drafting role, and adds a public hearing to the plan.
On the table
Charter v1 (25 July 2023): Phase 1 July–December 2023 including “Suitable Land and Build Out Analysis June – August 2023”; Phase 2 “Housing Action Plan/ Bylaw Drafting Jan. – June 2024 … First Reading/referrals Oct. 2024; Second Reading/Third Reading/EC review Oct. – Dec. 2024.” Budget 2023/24 $18,000; 2024/25 request $15,000.
Decided or changed
DE-2023-052: endorse the charter for Stage 2, Phases 1 and 2, as amended (housing-needs update deleted; “The public already understands housing needs”). CARRIED.
DE-2023-053: endorse the commission’s terms of reference as amended, with drafting of policies “to be completed by Islands Trust staff.” CARRIED.
DE-2023-055 to -058: engagement plan, business case, a water-availability business case to the Regional Planning Committee, and Community Meeting 1 after the commission’s October report. All CARRIED.
In their own words
“Suitable Land and Build Out Analysis – Regional Planning Team is working on this; most of potential housing solutions will occur on land already housed; however, the information will be useful and will not delay the project.”
“We asked staff to count the number of residential densities … that had been removed from land which through rezoning had become sold for conservation … we can allow the density … to increase up to 5% for affordable housing or special needs … That's how the bank became.”
A trustee, apparently David Graham, who names himself as a member of the committee that created the bank (voice unresolved). Recording 230725D at 0:04:41
The commission asks for the density bank’s papers, and a month
The commission’s progress report estimates “over 120 Denman community members here and now are living in precarious housing,” asks staff to find and share every document on the bank’s creation and to update its numbers, and asks for one more month. On the recording the commission’s presenter says it will recommend abolishing the bank.
Decided or changed
DE-2023-064: update and publish the 25 July terms of reference, charter and engagement plan. CARRIED.
In their own words
“we're looking to recommend that the density bank be abolished and certainly when this goes to community … this is going to be a controversial item”
The commission’s final report: legalise, simplify, eliminate the bank
The Housing Advisory Planning Commission (Riane da Silva, Richard Day, Alan Friesen, Virginia Spinney) recommends legalising existing affordable housing, accessory and secondary dwellings in nearly every zone, a combined-floor-area cap by lot size, rainwater catchment, removal of the temporary use permit, and elimination of the density bank. Its lot-size proposals are thresholds for more homes (0.4 hectares for a secondary dwelling, 2 hectares for new eco and tiny-house zones), not larger minimums for subdivision.
In their own words
“Recommendation 2b: Eliminate the density bank … (826 legally zoned houses + 128 additional subdividable = 994 densities) 2. An additional 5% of those densities were set aside for affordable housing (49)”
“The assignment of 5% for affordable housing was a purely arbitrary number. The number was not developed in relation to the carrying capacity of the island according to David Graham.”
The commission’s chair presents a guide to the report. The committee asks for a staff analysis and a special meeting early in 2024, and updates its standing resolution: the density bank holds seven residential densities.
Decided or changed
DE-2023-069: receive the final report of 3 November 2023. CARRIED. DE-2023-072: staff analysis of the recommendations and a special meeting via Zoom at the beginning of 2024. CARRIED.
DE-2023-073: the density bank “has a cumulative total of residential densities of 7”; Housing Policy 11 allows a density increase of approximately 5 per cent beyond zoning at the plan’s adoption on 15 May 2009. CARRIED.
In their own words
“we recommend eliminating the density bank we did a lot of research into the creation of the density bank and the conclusion is quite clear the density bank has stopped affordable housing from happening … after 16 years it's time to retire it”
Capacity agreement with K’ómoks; the farm bylaws fix 64 hectares for Forestry
The committee funds a capacity work agreement with K’ómoks First Nation (up to $16,000 of the review’s budget) after a meeting with the Nation’s staff and council on 18 January. The same day it gives second and third reading to the farm bylaws, whose Resource table sets the minimum lot per dwelling outside the Agricultural Land Reserve at 15.0 hectares for Agriculture and Resource and 64.0 hectares for Forestry. The 64 that later spreads to every zone is already here, in one.
Decided or changed
DE-2024-004 and -005: prepare a capacity work agreement with K’ómoks First Nation and release up to $16,000. CARRIED.
DE-2024-006 to -013: Bylaws 228 and 229 amended, read a second and third time, forwarded to the Executive Committee and the Minister. CARRIED.
In their own words
“They suggested include an OCP policy that states further subdivision of agricultural lands to create new lots is not supported, and that is represented in policy seven.”
Planner Marlis McCargar, on the Agricultural Land Commission’s advice for the farm bylaws. Recording 240213D at 0:45:19
Staff’s analysis of the commission’s report: three subdivision options, all supported
Planner Chadwick’s review of the commission’s 52 recommendations adds fifteen staff options. Two would expand subdivision opportunities for donated affordable-housing land; the third would restrict subdivision to cases where a portion is donated. On the recording it is presented as “a much heavier kind of tool” and “extremely controversial.” The committee supports all three for further development and asks staff to start drafting.
On the table
HAPC 9 “Eliminate Density Bank — Densities currently remaining in the density bank is 7.” LTC comment: “Supported.”
STAFF 1 “Permit subdivision, in all land use designation where dwellings are permitted, if land is being donated to a not-for-profit or government agency providing affordable housing.” LTC: “Supported on a case-by-case basis.”
STAFF 2 “Permit a reduction of minimum parcel size in some designations to facilitate donation of land for affordable housing.” LTC: “Supported.”
STAFF 3 “Allow subdivision only if a portion of land is being donated for affordable housing … This may limit subdivision.” LTC: “Supported. This downzoning approach encourages more market and affordable housing.”
Decided or changed
DE-2024-021: develop an action plan to inform draft bylaws. CARRIED.
DE-2024-022: “request staff to begin drafting bylaws relating to options identified in the February 20, 2024 Special Meeting Staff Report.” CARRIED.
DE-2024-023: a special meeting to review the Suitable Land Analysis mapping tool. CARRIED.
In their own words
“this is where you're basically restricting subdivision unless it's being donated for affordable housing so that this is a much heavier kind of tool … it's extremely controversial … down zoning is a term that's often used”
“Restricting subdivision to affordable housing is a great idea. And so let's put that in a draft form and take the comments if they come at that point”
Action plan, and the density-bank fight February 2024 – June 2025
Staff options to permit subdivision for donated land are supported, then dropped. A stand-alone bylaw to delete the density bank meets the largest public turnout of the review and is abandoned. A build-out count puts the island's remaining subdivision potential at about 150 lots, and in June 2025 staff describe an “aha moment”: remove it.
Regular meeting
“Out of scope, and would cause delay”
Public comment objects to the suitable-land analysis, a water availability assessment and an action plan as additions that would delay the project. The committee orders the action-plan meeting anyway, and separately directs staff to remove the temporary use permit requirement for secondary dwellings, which becomes a minor project of its own.
Decided or changed
DE-2024-024: a special meeting as soon as possible to review a draft Housing Action Plan and bylaw-drafting process options. CARRIED.
DE-2024-025: remove the temporary use permit requirement in Section 5, Area 2 of the Land Use Bylaw. CARRIED.
In their own words
“Objection was made to adding additional items to the Housing Review project … The Suitable Land Analysis, Water Availability Assessment and a Housing Action Plan were not supported as a part of this project, are out of scope, and would cause delay.”
The subdivision options are dropped: “not a direction they want to go”
The process report splits the work into streams and a minor project to remove temporary use permits and, with them, the density bank. Reviewing the draft Housing Action Plan, trustees strike every subdivision item: no reduced parcel size, no subdivision in exchange for donated land, no subdivision-only-if-donated. On the recording the reason is plain: the word is a red flag.
On the table
Draft Housing Action Plan (May 2024): “P2B Permit reduction of min parcel size to facilitate land for donation to NGO/Govt — Size of parcel TBD”; “P2B Permit subdivision (where not currently permitted) in exchange for donation”; “P2B Allow subdivision only if land is donated for affordable housing — Community engagement?”
Streams: Phase 2A (LUB amendments needing limited analysis), 2B (OCP amendments), 2C (options needing detailed analysis and First Nations engagement: “Amendment options that involve increasing density on a wider scale”).
Decided or changed
Trustee direction recorded in the minutes: “Subdivision and reduction of parcel size are not a direction they want to go”; “Remove the reduction of parcel size aspect and permit subdivision in exchange for donation of land”; “Remove the suggestion to only allow subdivision if the land is donated.”
DE-2024-031: endorse the temporary-use-permit review charter as a minor project. DE-2024-032: endorse the Housing Action Plan as amended. DE-2024-033: endorse the revised charter for Phase 2 of Stage 2. All CARRIED.
In their own words
“The word subdivision is a red flag, which was going to cause all sorts of consternation on [Denman]. And a reduction in minimal parcel size, I think, is another thing”
Bylaws 248 and 249: delete the density bank, drop the permit
The minor project produces two bylaws: 248 deletes Appendix D (density banking) from the plan; 249 removes the temporary use permit for secondary dwellings in the Rural, Agriculture, Forestry and Resource zones. Only two such permits had been applied for since 2008. Both bylaws get first reading and go to referral, with a public hearing pencilled for late fall.
Decided or changed
DE-2024-057 and -058: first reading of Bylaws 248 and 249. DE-2024-060: referral to eighteen First Nations and agencies. DE-2024-061: a community information meeting and public hearing. All CARRIED.
In their own words
“Trustees … noted that the removal of the density bank and removal of the requirement for a Temporary Use Permit … allows for the creation of more housing.”
Phase 2A takes shape: cisterns, floor areas, a 200-metre line
The Phase 2A report lists the bylaw changes needing little analysis: reformat the bylaw, limit vacation rentals to bed-and-breakfast, expand suites, require an 18,000-litre cistern, and set floor-area maximums on the Mayne and North Pender models. K’ómoks First Nation’s archaeologist presents the Nation’s cultural-heritage permit and its 200-metre buffer around waterways and known sites. The reformatted Residential zone still reads: no lot under 1.0 hectare by subdivision.
On the table
Reformatted R1 example: “(16) No lot having an area less than 1.0 hectare shall be created by subdivision in the R1 zone. (17) Maximum density permitted by subdivision is an average of one (1) lot per 1.0 ha.”
Later reported (18 March 2025 staff report, p. 9): “Permitting subdivision (where not currently permitted) in exchange for donation … was an action that was removed at the October LTC meeting.” The October minutes themselves do not record it.
Decided or changed
DE-2024-068: approve the revised project charter. DE-2024-069: a further $5,000 to K’ómoks First Nation. DE-2024-070: approve the next steps for Phase 2A. All CARRIED.
In their own words
“we created this AOP by buffering major waterways and archaeological sites within KFN's southern core territory by 200 meters”
“Not interest in unrestricted growth”; the density objective goes
Staff reintroduce the reduced-parcel-size option for donated land; the committee agrees to extend the plan’s existing exception to affordable housing generally, secured by a housing agreement. A rewrite of the plan’s housing objectives proposes deleting Objective 3, which fixed the island’s maximum residential density at the zoning of 2009. The hearing on Bylaws 248/249 is postponed by the postal strike. On the recording, a trustee expects pushback on growth that has not come.
On the table
Phase 2B Action 2: “the LTC did not initially express support for this action. However, staff are now presenting it for reconsideration,” with the existing minimums: Residential 1.0 ha, Rural 2.0 ha, Agriculture and Sustainable Resource 15 ha, Village 1.0 ha.
Proposed deletion of Objective 3: “To set the maximum for the overall residential density of the Island as the residential density possible with the zoning regulations in place at the time of adoption of this Plan.”
Conservancy rezoning report, p. 31: “The minimum lot area permitted by subdivision in the CN zone is 64 hectares, meaning none of the subject properties will have any subdivision potential under this zoning.”
Decided or changed
Trustee direction: “Subdivision bylaw already identifies exceptions to minimum parcel sizes for multifamily affordable housing and there is agreement to expand this exception to affordable housing in general”; “Address affordable housing options in a way that indicates there is not interest in unrestricted growth.”
DE-2024-073: postpone the community information meeting and public hearing on 248/249. DE-2024-079: approve the next steps for Phase 2B. CARRIED.
In their own words
“I really actually expected a pretty big pushback from our removal of the temporary use permit and the density bank. And for the community to say, well, what about unrestricted growth?”
“There will not be opportunity to subdivide a property with a second residence”
Bylaw 249 is amended to one secondary dwelling per lot and re-read. Asked how a second residence would stay affordable, trustees say housing agreements are possible but that there are no resources to administer many, and confirm that a lot with a second residence will not be subdividable.
Decided or changed
Bylaw 249 amended (maximum one secondary dwelling per lot) and read a first time as amended. DE-2025-010: a February special meeting on the suitable land analysis. CARRIED.
In their own words
“They confirmed there will not be opportunity to subdivide a property with a second residence and short-term vacation rentals are not allowed.”
Regular meeting with community information meetingSubdivision
The hearing that was cancelled: Bylaws 248 and 249 abandoned
About 43 residents attend the information meeting on deleting the density bank. Staff explain that 869 parcels have capacity for residential development, that the bank holds seven densities, and that the Trust controls subdivision through minimum lot size and zoning. Letters ask the committee to keep the bank. The committee cancels the public hearing, folds the density-bank question back into the main project, and stops both bylaws.
On the table
Staff report: Phase 2B item 17, “Permit subdivision (where not currently permitted) in exchange for donation — REINTRODUCED”; Phase 2C: “The recent Suitable Land Analysis (SLA) data demonstrates there are few areas suitable for increased residential use in large amounts.”
K’ómoks First Nation’s letter of 13 March 2025 asked the committee to defer the bylaws until it could assess the impacts of removing permits and the bank.
Decided or changed
6.1: “The Local Trust Committee cancelled the public hearing.”
DE-2025-012: include analysis of density-bank alternatives and accessory dwelling units in Phase 2C. CARRIED.
DE-2025-013: “That the Denman Island Local Trust Committee proceed no further with Bylaw Nos. 248 and 249.” CARRIED.
Direction: “Remove Item 17 in its entirety”; staff to review “the San Juan Island system of a permit lottery in context of a density cap”; reductions to maximum floor area “as a tool to address gentrification.”
In their own words
“Islands Trust establishes minimum lot size requirements and zoning that allows or disallows subdivision, and the Ministry of Transportation and Transit processes subdivision applications”
“it would be related to lot size. So, there's a minimum lot average. There's a minimum lot size. So, in some zones, it's quite large … you'd need to have at least, I don't know, 10 acres in order to subdivide”
The build-out count: 153 potential additional parcels
Staff bring a Subdivision Potential map labelled Draft April 2024 and the reformatted bylaw. The map counts 863 existing parcels, 121 vacant, and 153 potential additional parcels, giving 1,016 in total. The 153 is not a count of existing properties able to subdivide or guaranteed approvals: the map excludes several access, servicing, geometry, tenure and covenant constraints. The committee endorses a single-process charter. On the recording a trustee proposes capping lots; the planner responds that this is easier to do.
Reformatted bylaw, existing minimum lot areas: R1 1.0 ha; R2 2.0 ha with 4.0 ha average; R3 35.0 ha; A 15.0 ha (A(1) 64.0 ha); F 64.0 ha; RE 15.0 ha; CN 64.0 ha; PK 64.0 ha.
Density bank history: “994 (1026 minus 32)… A 5% cap was set, limiting additional densities to 49… currently 7 densities.”
Decided or changed
DE-2025-018: endorse the revised charter (Option 2, one process). DE-2025-020: a joint meeting with the Hornby LTC. DE-2025-021: endorse the engagement approach. All CARRIED.
In their own words
“i think it's easier to limit the number of lots yeah … here's a suggestion it can cap the number of lots that's easy to do yeah i would do that today if i could”
“it is actually interesting when you look at that subdivision map where some of the potential is. It's not necessarily in places that make a whole lot of sense”
The “aha moment”: remove subdivision potential from all lots
Four engagement papers are put before the committee. The density-bank paper recommends replacing the bank with policy and, under “Remove Development Potential in Areas that are not Suitable,” proposes proactive downzoning of parcels with unused subdivision potential; its third question to the public is “Do you support removing subdivision potential?” The cluster-housing paper offers small homes on one lot “without subdividing the land” as the replacement. On the recording, staff describe the shift in their own thinking and the trustees respond. The committee endorses the direction on all four topics. No minutes of this meeting are in our archive.
On the table
Attachment 1, Density Bank: baseline “994 units… (826 zoned + 128 subdividable)”; “Remove Development Potential in Areas that are not Suitable… proactive downzoning… Rezone parcels with unused subdivision potential, especially those with: 1. High ecological value 2. Agricultural Land Reserve 3. cultural heritage significance 4. High vulnerability to climate-related risks”; question 3, “Do you support removing subdivision potential?”
Attachment 2, Lot Coverage and Floor Area: 15 / 10 / 5 per cent by lot size and a 250 m² (2,690 sq ft) cap on principal dwellings.
Attachment 3, Cluster housing: “several small homes… grouped together on one lot without subdividing the land”; “Cluster zoning can be used instead of subdivision.”
Decided or changed
Recorded on the follow-up list: the committee “endorsed the proposed direction related to the following four topics: density bank; floor area and lot coverage limits; small unit detached clustered housing; and increasing permission for secondary dwellings.” Web launch 24 July; market day 26 July; workshop in September.
In their own words
“But one idea is that, you know, potentially removing subdivision potential from all lots on Denman.”
“this was an aha moment for staff … creating lots and creating lots that have potential to subdivide and create more lots in the future. That is traditional planning and that's traditional urban planning that was slapped onto the islands”
“there's subdivision potential in areas right along the coast … not ideal places for well any any development … heritage values sea level rise erosion … salt water intrusion”
“what it would mean to remove subdivision potential because i think there … is a group of people who would really resonate with the idea of like actually yeah no no one is going to profit from this again”
“subdivision is certainly controversial on some islands … not a lot of people want to subdivide anymore because you know subdividing is is not a profitable enterprise … it's not the wild west anymore”
“it's coming out to about 150 potential lots that could still be developed on Denman. So if you were, say, to remove the potential from half of those, that's 70”
Growth options and the decision July 2025 – April 2026
A survey of 36 to 38 respondents, an options report, and on 20 January 2026 the committee’s stated preference to remove subdivision potential altogether. In March it chooses the version that allows private subdivision only with a community benefit and a rezoning; legal advice says the instrument is minimum lot size; the April draft leaves the number blank.
Community engagement, 25 July – 30 September 2025Subdivision
The survey: 36 answers on subdivision
The online survey that accompanied the market day and workshop drew between 33 and 38 answers per question. On subdivision, 7 of 36 opposed it outright, 8 supported it only where land is donated for affordable housing, 12 supported it outside unsuitable areas, 7 supported it where potential exists, and 2 were unsure. The answer options are reproduced below; this small consultation does not establish an island-wide mandate. Two-thirds supported removing the temporary use permit; opinion on a floor-area cap was closely divided. The results were published on 11 February 2026. We found no attendance figures for the market day or workshop in the recovered documents.
On the table
Q5 “Do you support further subdivision?” (n = 36): No further subdivision 19.44% (7); No, except where donated for affordable housing 22.22% (8); Yes but not in unsuitable areas 33.33% (12); Yes where potential exists 19.44% (7); Unsure 5.56% (2).
Q4 density bank (n = 33): maintained as is 15.15%; replaced with stronger policies and zoning 42.42%; improved by refining 30.30%; unsure 12.12%.
Q2 could cluster housing replace subdivision (n = 38): yes 36.84%; no 18.42%; unsure 21.05%. Q7 maximum floor area (n = 36): yes 41.67%; no 44.44%. Q8 remove the temporary use permit (n = 33): yes 66.67%.
The business case reports $49,250 spent to date and asks $5,000 more. The options report lists, under “Density Bank, Subdivision, Base Density,” the first written formulation of ending general subdivision: allow it only for parks, cultural heritage, seniors, special-needs, affordable or attainable housing and community service. It is not marked as a priority. The build-out maps are shown in the room, not printed. On the recording a trustee suggests starting with a 200-metre shoreline band; a member of the public asks whether the committee is considering no more subdivision except for affordable housing. No minutes of this meeting are in our archive.
On the table
Appendix 2, Component #2: “3.1 Removal of Density Bank – replace with policy framework” (priority); “3.2 Subdivision Limits – Allow new subdivision only for: creation of parks and protected areas, First Nations cultural heritage protection, seniors, special needs, affordable or attainable housing, community service needs” (not marked); “3.3 Density Changes … R2 Zone: Reduce max dwellings to 4 per lot (currently 1 per 4 ha); R1 Zone: Limit to 2 dwellings within 200 m of shoreline (currently 1 per ha)” (not marked).
Business case: budget to date $49,250 (2022/23 $13,500; 2023/24 $8,000; 2024/25 $12,000; 2025/26 $15,750); first reading anticipated February 2026. Charter v3: public hearing summer 2026, adoption fall 2026.
In their own words
“first on the subject of subdivision, my suggestion is this is sort of pending the endorsement from the Comox First Nation … a 200 meter setback from the ocean. so it would be allowing subdivision outside of that range”
“my initial place was that i was going to start with just like no no no um there's subdivision except for affordable housing i decided to … tackle that sort of as a first step”
The decision: “remove subdivision potential altogether”
The options report puts the number on the table: about 150 additional lots under current rules, about 90 of them within 200 metres of the shore. Staff recommend removing the remaining potential and allowing subdivision only by rezoning. The minutes record the committee’s preference for the island-wide version over the shoreline version, a cap of four dwellings on Rural lots, two on Residential lots near the shore, and a 300 m² combined floor area. Staff are told to draft. On the recording, a trustee explains why the whole island rather than the coast.
On the table
§3.2: “Under current policies, there is potential for ~150 additional lots on Denman Island… Most potential subdivision (~ 90 lots) falls within 200 metres of the shoreline.” Recommended: “Amend the Denman Island LUB to remove remaining subdivision potential (approximately 150 lots). Permit subdivision only through a successful rezoning application.” Alternatives: status quo; restrict within 200 m only; parkland-only.
§3.2: “The LTC must determine whether to replace minimum lot sizes with evaluation criteria… If not, minimum lot sizes will need to be updated and reconsidered.”
Base density: R2 “max of 4 dwelling… reduction of ~25 units impacting ~6 properties”; R1 within 200 m “impact 11 properties and remove outright permission for ~27 dwellings.” Build-out comparison “~1749 current compared to ~1697” with suites counted.
Staff report, p. 82: “any additional referrals will push timelines forward and challenge the ability for the project to be completed by the end of the local election term.”
Decided or changed
Minutes, Subdivision: “The intention is to create policy that reduces subdivision potential to protect environmental and cultural values”; “The preference is to remove subdivision potential altogether rather than specific areas or lots and allow the option for subdivision through rezoning applications”; “List examples of rezoning criteria for a community benefit in exchange for subdivision.”
Minutes, Density bank and cap: “There is no clear method to maintain the density bank as it is set up”; “Remove the density cap.” Base density: four dwellings in total on R2 lots; two per R1 lot within 200 m of the shoreline. “There is agreement to a 300m2 maximum combined floor area.”
DE-2026-002: “request staff to proceed with the drafting of bylaw amendments based on decisions made at the January 20th, 2026 meeting.” CARRIED.
In their own words
“150 or so additional lots 90 of those fall within that 200 meter … My inclination was to say that we remove it all. … it seems more and more appropriate to do that sort of across the whole code … it strikes me as more ethical to do it across the board”
“So if I'm hearing, I think there's agreement on the idea of removing the outright permitted subdivision and moving to a [subdivision determined by] rezoning. So what we'll do is we'll come back with criteria related to the rezoning.”
“when you look at them, you can't really figure out why they're there … It's based on some kind of historical decision making. Carving up lots. It is the highest form of impact, the land, because you've got private owners that aren't necessarily coordinating their uses”
Three options; Option 2 chosen; “something really big”
The planner presents three approaches to restricting general subdivision potential. The minutes describe existing zoning permission in terms of parcel size and water requirements; other subdivision approvals and constraints still apply. Trustees prefer Option 2: private subdivision only with a community benefit and a rezoning; community-benefit subdivision without one. Draft policies go to legal review. On the recording the planner discusses using a much larger minimum parcel size to require rezoning.
On the table
Option 1: private subdivision needs rezoning; community-benefit subdivision does not. Option 2: private subdivision only if it includes a community benefit, and needs rezoning; community-benefit subdivision does not. Option 3: only community-benefit subdivision, no rezoning; no private subdivision.
Public comment the same day: “the need for affordable housing on Denman Island may be up to 300 units.”
Decided or changed
“Trustees expressed preference for Option 2. The planner offered that draft policies and regulations for Option 2 would be sent for legal review.” No resolution number.
In their own words
“One is to increase the minimum lot size to something really big so that all of the lots that are falling under residential essentially can't subdivide unless they go through a rezoning. And that is probably the most straightforward way to require a rezoning for subdivision”
“we're trying to remove that indiscriminate rezoning to just create more market lots. That doesn't help us at all … you can subdivide, but you need to have something giving back to the community”
Special meeting: draft bylaws for reviewSubdivision
The draft bylaws: “X” where the number will go
The first full drafts arrive with about 33 residents present. They retain X placeholders for minimum parcel area. On package page 31 the OCP draft carries editorial comment [MM3]: “Placeholder. Waiting on GIS data for minimum parcel size.” The initials do not establish who wrote it. The report proposes replacing the density bank, requiring a community benefit for private subdivision through rezoning, and reducing maximum buildout by about 100 dwellings. The recording describes minimum lot size as the tool following legal review; the underlying advice and GIS calculation have not been recovered.
On the table
Staff report, p. 3: “The previous density bank has been removed and replaced by policies that reduce the density currently permitted by: Requiring subdivision to occur through rezoning; and Reducing the number of principal units on larger lots in R1 and R2 zones. As a result, the base density projection, even after allowing additional permissions for secondary dwelling units, is close to 100 units lower than under the previous regulations.”
Attachment 3 build-out: current 151 potential additional parcels by subdivision (A 26, R1 64, R2 61), 1,075 potential principal dwellings, 1,244 total; proposed 0 parcels by subdivision, 1,027 principal, 1,143 total.
Draft plan §1.2.3: first appearance of the housing-need figures, 109 units in five years and 359 in twenty, from the 2025 Islands Trust Housing Needs Assessment.
Charter: first reading 12 May 2026; public hearing September 2026; second and third reading September 2026; adoption “2027 (TBD).”
Decided or changed
DE-2026-014: endorse the revised charter. DE-2026-015: “request staff to present draft bylaws for First Reading based on decisions made at the April 17th, 2026 Denman LTC meeting.” CARRIED.
Trustee edits recorded: remove Village Policy 6; remove the 10-unit limit and Step Code from Housing Policy 28; the planner to count lots affected by the sea setback and to cost the anti-strata covenant; options for legacy land-shares to come back.
In their own words
“the key points in that legal review were that you can't essentially outright … take away outright permission for subdivision, but you can by using minimal lot sizes, that's basically your tool there.”
“And I like the idea of removing subdivision because it reduces the population growth on this islands. And we've heard that over and over again, how are we going to stop becoming [Salt Spring]? So just, this is my editorial.”
“everything that's been contemplated in this document is adopted, then ultimately you are looking at 100 units less built up. But that's many more units that are potentially more affordable.”
The first-reading text of 12 May sets 64.0 hectares in every zone. Referrals go out; K’ómoks, the Province and the Conservancy reply; a community information meeting hears the rationale for the threshold. At second reading the housing-need figures are deleted from the plan and the 64-hectare policies are untouched.
Regular meetingSubdivision
First reading: 64.0 hectares in every zone
Between 17 April and 12 May the draft’s minimum parcel-area placeholders are replaced with 64.0 hectares. Bylaw 264 applies this general minimum across zones and Part 8, alongside specified-purpose provisions and a bylaw-amendment route. Bylaw 260 also contains the 64-hectare policy. The April draft had explicitly awaited GIS data; the recovered record does not identify the person who selected the number or provide the calculation or comparison of alternatives. The minutes record no discussion of that numerical choice.
On the table
Bylaw 264: 5.1(12) R1, 5.2(13) R2, 5.3(11) R3, 5.5(19) A, 5.6(18) F, 5.7(5) C, 5.8(6) L, 5.9(5) IN, 5.10(3) CN, 5.11(4) PK: “Minimum lot area is 64.0 hectares.” Part 8.1(4): “The minimum lot area for all zones is 64.0 hectares.” 8.1(5): “Nothing in this Section prevents the Local Trust Committee from permitting subdivision through a bylaw amendment.” 8.2: permitted purposes (a) to (h): boundary adjustment, consolidation, Indigenous heritage, park, conservation, community use, Indigenous housing, affordable-housing parcel.
Bylaw 260, D.5: “It is one of the most negatively impactful mechanisms for increasing housing density and shaping settlement patterns”; Policy 6 “The minimum lot size for subdivision should be 64 hectares.”; Policy 7 “Minimum lot size requirements do not apply to uses identified in Policies 3 and 4, except in the case of boundary adjustments and subdivisions intended for residential use.”; Policy 8 “The minimum lot size for residential use created through subdivision should not be less than 1 hectare.” Appendix D (density banking) deleted; Policy 12 (density cap) deleted.
Also: R1 maximum two dwellings; R2 one per 4 ha to a maximum of four; 300 m² floor area; 15/10/5 per cent lot coverage; whole-home short-term rentals prohibited; groundwater-fed pools prohibited; 18,000-litre cisterns.
Decided or changed
DE-2026-018 and -019: amendments before reading (sea setback 30 m back to 15 m; cistern threshold 90 m²; 8,400 to 18,000 litres). DE-2026-021: Bylaw 260 read a first time. DE-2026-022: Bylaw 264 read a first time. DE-2026-023: referral. DE-2026-024: a community information meeting in July. DE-2026-025: a public hearing after the referral period. All CARRIED.
Referral sent 21 May 2026 with replies requested by 17 August 2026. Its summary of Bylaw 264: “Increase minimum lot size requirements to remove outright subdivision potential for the creation of additional private lots.”
With about 100 residents present for other business, staff report two meetings with K’ómoks First Nation on the referral, the information meeting set for 11 July and the hearing for 15 September. A rezoning for eight affordable homes is deferred until the hearing because competing applications exceed the seven densities left in the bank. Nothing is said about subdivision or the 64-hectare minimum.
Decided or changed
DE-2026-039: defer the 3Ravens application until 15 September 2026. CARRIED.
In their own words
“there's not enough density in there”
The planner, in reply to a trustee asking whether the plan’s 5 per cent could be used. Recording 260623D at 2:11:50
The Nation’s elected Chief Councillor writes that K’ómoks supports the project, asks that the shoreline setback go back to the 30 metres of the first draft, and reserves the right to withdraw consent. Staff do not incorporate the 30 metres, recording that the committee had been explicit in removing it.
In their own words
“K’ómoks would like to add the recommendation that the 15m setback to protect shorelines is extended to 30m, which was described in the first draft”
Special meeting: community information meetingSubdivision
The information meeting: the rationale for the threshold
About 19 residents attend a 64-minute meeting at the community hall; Trustee Borthwick arrives 21 minutes in. The planner’s presentation, as minuted, says the density cap and bank are replaced by policy, that subdivision through rezoning “may be supported where it provides a community benefit,” and that the changes produce “an overall reduction in total density of 100 dwelling units.” A resident complains that the only local notice was on the last page of the Grapevine two days earlier. On the recording, which resolves no speakers, the presenter gives the only explanation on record of how the minimum was set.
On the table
Minuted answers: “One dwelling unit per 4 hectares of lot area” for a 4-hectare Rural lot; the 200-metre line “is not being amended, and a 200-metre setback is not being considered… This policy applies to rezoning applications for the purposes of subdivision only”; “Islands Trust does not have authority to enforce on building codes.”
“In conclusion, a Trustee noted the housing policies had been initiated twelve years ago.”
In their own words
“What is currently permitted in terms of total dwelling units and what is being proposed results in a reduction of 100 units. The proposed changes have attempted to not increase the possibility of having more houses and they specify subdivision is not allowed unless the proponent is providing a community benefit.”
“the mechanism that is preventing the subdivision of properties is essentially the parcel size. That's always been the mechanism … we've looked at what the largest possibilities and we've gone higher than that. So it's at [64] so that no property could actually subdivide unless you go through a rezoning … unless you're doing it for nonprofit housing, they're exempt”
“We say no more subdivision unless you are providing a community benefit … There's no island in the island's trust that's doing this. We are at the forefront”
The Province: the numbers are welcome; they are not targets; the map is missing designations
The Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs writes that it is “great to see” the twenty-year housing-need numbers in the plan, that they are not targets and the phrase “housing targets” should be changed or removed, that the plan must state the location, amount, type and density of residential development needed for at least twenty years under s. 473(1)(a) of the Local Government Act, that Schedule 2 “appears to be missing land use designations,” and that the submission package must document non-responses to referrals.
In their own words
“It's great to see that Denman Island has incorporated the 20-year HNR numbers and included policies supporting a range of housing types.”
The Conservancy: for the lot-size increase, against the bank’s replacement
The Denman Conservancy Association recommends approval subject to conditions. It supports the larger minimum lot size and the removal of outright subdivision, and objects that the replacement for the density bank is vague and offers no incentive to donate densities; it notes it recently donated four with an estimated value near $1 million. Staff reply: no changes proposed, and an in-process rezoning would leave the bank empty in any case.
In their own words
“We are supportive of initiatives in the proposed bylaws that increase minimum lot size, remove outright subdivision potential for creation of private lots and reduce the number of permitted dwellings on larger lots.”
Second reading: the count comes out; the 64 hectares stay
The staff report states the effect plainly: the amendments “remove outright subdivision potential and reduce the number of units permitted outright on larger lots,” for a maximum build-out “approximately 100 fewer units than under the current regulations.” The subdivision policies are reordered; the 64-hectare figure moves from Policy 6 to Policy 5, unchanged. In the meeting the committee deletes the two sentences carrying the housing-need figures, and the only exchange on subdivision is about rainwater. Both bylaws are read a second time. Draft minutes (motions DE-2026-055 through 076) were published later, inside the agenda package for the 15 September special meeting; the account here is from the recording, the package and those minutes.
On the table
Staff report, p. 143: “they also remove outright subdivision potential and reduce the number of units permitted outright on larger lots. As a result, the estimated maximum buildout under the proposed amendments is approximately 100 fewer units than under the current regulations.”
Table 1: the Ministry’s point answered by changing “housing target” to “future housing capacity”; on the map, “The existing OCP Schedule 2 Land Use Designation Map remains in effect.” Table 2, on a request to reconsider a density cap: the bylaws “reduced outright permitted units to about 100 less than the pervious buildout… it goes beyond the potential of a density cap.”
Redline: D.5 reordered (64 ha becomes Policy 5; exemptions Policy 6; 1-hectare residential minimum Policy 7); Policy 4 reworded so zoning amendments for subdivision “should generally only be considered if the Local Trust Committee is satisfied that the proposal demonstrates clear community benefits”; R3 renamed Land-Share Housing with 19 units and 186 m² homes; no change to any zone’s 64.0 hectares or to 8.1(4).
p. 150: “Note that no changes that alter use or density may be made following the public hearing.”
K’ómoks First Nation asked to extend the setback from the sea to 30 metres; the committee recorded that changing it would put many houses in legal non-conforming status, and sent the question to the future projects list. The Denman Conservancy’s ecosystems statement was directed to be added to the staff report background (it appears in Bylaw 260 as the “Significance of Denman Island Ecosystems” section).
Decided or changed
Bylaw 260 amended “as specified in attachment one of the staff report, and as discussed at the local trust committee meeting of August 24th, 2026” (moved by Trustee Borthwick, 4:12:57; carried 4:13:40; DE-2026-070). The recorded amendment deletes the housing-need sentences verbatim and inserts the “Significance of Denman Island Ecosystems” section. Bylaw 264 amended (4:13:58; carried 4:14:27; DE-2026-071, a one-word correction to s. 3.7(1)).
Bylaw 260 read a second time (4:15:03–4:15:15; DE-2026-072). Bylaw 264 read a second time (4:15:17–4:15:31; DE-2026-073). Public hearing 15 September 2026.
Added to future projects: a critical aquifer protection development permit area (DE-2026-074); the setback to the natural boundary of the sea (DE-2026-075).
Bylaws 262 (OCP Amendment No. 2) and 263 (LUB Amendment No. 2) — the Emcon/Denman Community Housing Society rezoning for eight affordable housing units — were read first and second time and referred (DE-2026-057 through 061), with a letter to Emcon’s CEO on process timing (DE-2026-056).
Bylaw 265, the Bylaw Enforcement Notification Bylaw amendment, was adopted (DE-2026-076).
In their own words
“it references the urbanics consultants, a suggestion that we need 109 additional housing units and in the next 20 years 359 additional housing units, which we … are actually not looking at increasing the population of [Denman] at all. So why would we put that in there?”
“We have a subdivision provision, like I can subdivide a chunk of my property if the parcel that I'm subdividing off is gonna be used for affordable housing.”
Trustee David Graham, with Planner Chadwick replying “Yes, yeah, you'd still need to do a rezoning or do that.”. Recording 260824D at 3:47:21
“The density bank is going to be gone which actually allowed for real houses and represents $150,000 at last reckoning for every single density bank put in there and the actual build out capacity is gone”
Written submissions close at 4:30 p.m. on Monday 14 September. The hearing is Tuesday 15 September at 10:45 a.m. Third reading, Executive Committee review and, for the plan amendment, the Minister’s approval follow; the charter says adoption in 2027.
Special meeting: community information meeting 10:30 a.m., public hearing 10:45 a.m., Denman Activity CentreSubdivision
The public hearing
The notice describes Bylaw 264’s first purpose as “Increase minimum lot size requirements to prevent subdivision that would create additional private lots” and its second as “Reduce the number of permitted dwellings on larger lots.” Written submissions are accepted until 4:30 p.m. on Monday 14 September at northphsub@islandstrust.bc.ca or 700 North Road, Gabriola Island; a printed submission may still be handed to the hearing secretary in the room. After the hearing closes the committee may receive nothing further. Third reading, Executive Committee review and, for Bylaw 260, the Minister’s approval follow; the charter says adoption in 2027.
Special meeting: public hearing and third reading, Denman Activity CentreSubdivision
Third reading carried: on to the Minister and the Executive Committee
The hearing closes and the committee moves at once to the readings. Bylaw 260 is read a third time and carried; Bylaw 264 is read a third time and carried. The committee takes the staff recommendation in full: Bylaw 260 is forwarded to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs for approval, and both bylaws are forwarded to the Secretary of the Islands Trust for Executive Committee approval, final consideration and adoption to follow. The deferral alternative printed in the staff report — “defer consideration of Third Reading … to a future meeting of the incoming LTC” — is not moved. With the hearing closed, the rule stated in the report binds the committee: it “may not hear further submissions without holding a new hearing.” The levers that remain sit with the Minister, with the Executive Committee, and with whichever committee adopts the bylaws — after the 17 October election, an incoming one. Draft minutes are not yet posted; the outcome above is as witnessed in the room, and the resolution numbers will be cited when the minutes appear.
On the table
Staff report of 3 September 2026, recommended motions 2–5: that Bylaw 260 “be read a third time”; that Bylaw 264 “be read a third time”; that Bylaw 260 “be forwarded to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs for approval”; and that Bylaws 260 and 264 “be forwarded to the Secretary of the Islands Trust for Executive Committee Approval.”
Staff report of 3 September 2026, the procedural steps after the hearing closes: “1. Consideration of Third Reading (this may include amendments to alter the bylaws). 2. Send the OCP Bylaw to the Minister for approval. 3. Forwarding of the bylaws to Executive Committee for approval. 4. Final LTC consideration and adoption.”
Staff report of 3 September 2026, Alternative 2: “The LTC may choose to defer consideration of Third Reading of Bylaw Nos. 260 and 264 to a future meeting of the incoming LTC … the incoming LTC is not expected to begin considering applications and projects until early 2027.”
Decided or changed
Bylaw 260 read a third time and carried. Bylaw 264 read a third time and carried. (Special meeting, 15 September 2026; outcome as witnessed in the room — resolution numbers to be added from the minutes when posted.)
Bylaw 260 forwarded to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs for approval; Bylaws 260 and 264 forwarded to the Secretary of the Islands Trust for Executive Committee approval; final LTC consideration and adoption pending those approvals.
The deferral alternative printed as Alternative 2 in the staff report of 3 September 2026 was not taken.
In their own words
“Following the close of the hearing, the LTC may not hear further submissions without holding a new hearing.”
Sources. One hundred Islands Trust documents that mention the Housing Review were read in full from our archive: every Denman LTC agenda, agenda package and set of minutes from July 2021 to August 2026 that touches the project, the two consultant reports of 2023, the Housing Advisory Planning Commission’s final report, the survey results, the hearing notice, and Land Use Bylaw 186 itself. Thirty-nine Denman LTC recordings from January 2023 to August 2026 were searched for every passage about subdivision, minimum lot size, the density bank, build-out and growth options. Each entry names its document; each quotation gives its page or its timestamp.
Transcripts. The recordings are transcribed by machine. Where the diarisation resolves a voice to a named trustee or planner, that name is used. Where it does not, the speaker is given as “a trustee” or “the planner presenting,” with an inference from context marked as such. Members of the public are never named. Obvious mishearings are marked in brackets. Four 2026 recordings (17 March, 17 April, 12 May, 11 July) have no resolved speakers at all; their links go to the Trust’s own player.
What the record does not contain. Our archive lacks minutes for 26 June 2025, 16 December 2025 and 24 August 2026. Some mapping is reproduced in agenda packages, including the subdivision map labelled Draft April 2024 in the May 2025 package; the underlying GIS inputs and the calculation used to choose 64 hectares have not been recovered. Other gaps include the April 2022 charter text, the consultants’ engagement plan and survey instrument, the 2010 subdivision map, the legal review, and the complete written direction on subdivision from K’ómoks First Nation. The April 2026 draft awaits GIS data; the July recording gives the general rationale for a high threshold. Neither identifies the full numerical analysis. An absence from our recovered sources does not mean a record does not exist.
Corrections, 10 September 2026. The chronology now distinguishes the February 2024 conditional subdivision restriction from the broader June 2025 discussion; corrects the May 2025 map’s date and its count of potential additional parcels; identifies the April 2026 GIS placeholder comment; and distinguishes published maps from unrecovered underlying GIS data. Transcript speaker labels remain subject to verification against the original recordings. If any date, figure or quotation is wrong, write to us and it will be corrected here.