Saturna trustees replace groundwater project with multiple-family zoning review
The Local Trust Committee voted to remove the completed groundwater project from its future-projects list and ask staff to examine multiple-family residential zoning and policies.
The Denman Firestarter · Governance · 2026-09-22 · Saturna Island
The Saturna Island Local Trust Committee voted to remove the Groundwater Sustainability Project from its Future Projects list and replace it with a Review of Multiple Family Residential Zoning and Policies Project.[1] The minutes say the committee did not want to increase the number of potential lots relative to the Official Community Plan, but wanted to examine ways to develop undeveloped lots sustainably without increasing density.[1]
The committee discussed shoreline policy and subdivision regulations before making the change.[1] The minutes say the subdivision regulations are silent on water supply, septic requirements, highway standards and drainage, leaving the Ministry to make decisions where local regulations and standards are absent.[1]
The meeting recording includes discussion of whether different zoning types could accommodate multiple-family housing.[2] The recording also says the original Official Community Plan cap on lots would remain, while development could be optimized in a more sustainable way.[2]
The committee also adopted Saturna Island Land Use Bylaw No. 143, which had received second and third readings and approval from the Executive Committee.[1] The minutes record that the meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m.[1]
Sources
-
Saturna Island Local Trust Committee Regular Meeting Minutes — April 30, 2026
SA-2026-017 It was MOVED AND SECONDED, that Saturna Island Local Trust Committee request staff remove Groundwater Sustainability Project from the Future Projects list and replace it with Review of Multiple Family Residential Zoning and Policies Project. CARRIED
link checked · passage found in the document we hold
-
Transcript of the meeting recording (260430D)
The original OCP caps on lots continues, but is there a way to be more innovative and optimize how you develop those lots to make them better for the community?
link checked · passage found in the document we hold