[0:01] meeting in order. Um
sorry
[0:07] nine by acknowledging that we're located
in treaty one land traditional land of
[0:13] the nishakota
deni and the bird of native nation.
[0:20] Okay we're going to
>> adopt the agenda do adopt the agenda
[0:25] second by school. All in favor and
carried. Then we'll move on to adoption
[0:33] of the minute of the August 26.
I'll move adoption.
[0:39] Ros the adoption. Second by uh angle.
Any question of the minute? Seems none.
[0:49] Everybody in favor
and is carried. Then we move on to the
[0:54] checklist. Uh, be it resolved that the
checks and EFTs in the amount of
[1:00] $378,490.38
[1:04] be approved for payment.
>> Make a motion.
[1:08] » I'll second.
>> Okay, we got Stalwicks to move and
[1:11] second by uh Sagazai. Any question? Any
looking at the all this and so on.
[1:19] Everything is looking good anyways.
>> Yeah.
[1:21] » Yeah.
>> Good. Everybody's in favor. Everybody is
[1:25] then that's carried. Then we move on to
finance statement of August
[1:34] 26th.
>> I'll move the finance statements.
[1:37] » I move I guess
second.
[1:40] » Just a quick quick question just giving
as we move towards the second half of
[1:44] the year.
>> In good shape
[1:46] » in good shape. This is the time of year
if we have
[1:49] » we find ourselves needing to
>> be cautious. We can it's easier to
[1:53] recover than it is in November or
December. So
[1:56] » Ann and I have looked at it. We're
>> we're happy. Perfect. Thank you. That's
[1:59] answers the question.
>> More question seems none. Everybody's in
[2:04] favor. Everybody is then carried.
Okay. So we move on to 91 the LUD
[2:11] district of richer community of the
September 2nd. I'll make a motion.
[2:18] Yeah.
always move second by no.
[2:22] » Sorry guys, I wasn't there.
>> Any any
[2:25] » Hey, I think it's still
>> Yes, he's read that.
[2:29] » Thank you.
>> I've gone through this once before.
[2:33] » So, you can't tell us anything.
>> I cannot tell you too much.
[2:37] » I don't think there was much. Anyway,
from what I read, it was right. I read
[2:41] the minutes. There wasn't much.
>> Yeah. No, it wasn't. as usual.
[2:44] Essentially, um there was some repairs
being done which council has already
[2:47] discussed in front of the richer are
actively done if not already. Um the
[2:52] fall town cleanup for the LUD of Richard
residence is happening as usual. Uh
[2:56] we're still planning the holiday cheer
contest coming up.
[2:59] » Um so that's an annual thing that we do.
So that was just again we're changing it
[3:03] a little bit for this year. Um just
mainly in the manner that the uh judging
[3:07] will take place. Um, so we're going to
have a municipal vehicle or we're hoping
[3:11] to have a municipal vehicle, have all of
the the the committee members as judges
[3:15] go around in one go. Um, so with the
marked vehicle, there'll be less
[3:19] community concern if there's just
slowmoving cars on the roads and things
[3:22] like that um for safety and it's
probably a better idea that way. So
[3:27] it'll be one night of judging so
everybody can turn on their lights for
[3:29] that one day and then that'll be that.
Um, and then speed limit signs. So
[3:34] speeding is a concern in the town of
Richer. So, they're wanting to post more
[3:37] of those uh 30 km an hour zones. So,
with more signage, they're hoping to
[3:41] alert people of those restrictions so
that they can slow down and keep the
[3:44] community safe. That's
>> good. Good. Okay. So, everybody's in
[3:49] favor, then it's carried.
Good. So, we'll have a public hearing at
[3:54] 10:00. There's two candidates. Then we
move on to
[4:00] there's no
new business. September 7 uh 15
[4:05] committee as a whole cancellation
[4:09] » they resolved that the committee of the
whole meeting be scheduled for September
[4:13] 15th be cancelled um we don't currently
have anything on the agenda so unless
[4:18] somebody wants to put something on Yeah.
So I think the summer that usually we
[4:23] have a meeting that we cancel we never
cancelled one it's one of the first one
[4:27] anyway
>> so so moved
[4:28] » so yas second by uh angle everybody's in
favor then it's carried
[4:35] okay uh the next is 142 sidm open house
invitations
[4:41] » that's happening tomorrow I want to say
>> um
[4:47] Randy has agreed to go and I've RSVP I
didn't think anybody else. Nobody else.
[4:52] Let me
>> I'm I want to go too.
[4:54] » Yeah.
>> Okay. So, Randy and Richard.
[4:56] » Yeah.
>> All right.
[4:58] And All right.
>> Do we need to move it? Angle move.
[5:05] Second by Nadu. All in favor? Then is
carried.
[5:10] Good. Uh the um Uville drain
[5:16] information at this point.
>> Information from what I could see. Yes.
[5:20] not nothing to discuss about
>> there's further information I guess from
[5:23] from there is activity while we looked
at this at the committee of the whole
[5:27] last last committee of the whole I think
one of the previous meetings the earlier
[5:32] stuff was there the uh August 26th
information so this is
[5:38] further to that yeah
but it
[5:42] » okay then just
>> at some point they may want a meeting
[5:45] » yeah but it's wait yeah and hopefully We
can if there's something that's going to
[5:51] happen there of major issue we can get
that arranged for in our budget for the
[5:55] year end up spending tens of thousands
of dollars doing it. We better budget
[5:58] for it.
Sure. Okay. Then we move on to 111 the
[6:03] RMover public gearing application.
I guess it's formation again. I don't
[6:08] know if there anyone to talk about.
[6:13] I think then I guess we'll move on to
now the 152 subdivision
[6:20] Kingsdale Place
[6:26] want to read the resolution.
>> So okay this is for whether we're going
[6:33] to require
them to install Bell MTS. So it's really
[6:39] I mean
>> or Valley Fiber. I thought we agreed
[6:42] either one. one or the other. I thought
as well
[6:45] » telephone communication
>> telephone line telephone line
[6:49] » and yeah
>> so I can read the resolution what the
[6:53] options are. Be it resolve the council
deny this request or approve this
[6:58] request and instruct administration to
have a development agreement amendment
[7:03] drafted reflecting the requirement for
BellMTS telecommunication services to be
[7:08] installed for subdivision file
4175-21-8543
[7:14] on the following conditions. All
purchasers of the affected lots or those
[7:19] current registered owners be informed of
this amendment. That this development
[7:24] agreement amendment be registered on the
affected titles at the cost of the
[7:27] developers and that all costs associated
with the amendment described above be
[7:32] paid by the developers including legal
and registration fees among others.
[7:37] » Shouldn't so just shouldn't that be the
change in requirements and that if
[7:40] that's if we're if we're denying the
request it means we're holding the
[7:43] requirement. If we're denying the
request, if we approve this request, it
[7:49] would be instructing administrators to
have the development agreement drafted
[7:52] reflecting the change in requirements.
>> No, it's an amendment to the existing
[7:56] development agreement that's currently
registered as a caveat on title,
[7:58] » which requires it.
>> Yes.
[8:00] » Yeah.
>> The development agreement requires it.
[8:01] So, we're approving their request to no
longer require it, but we're required to
[8:06] modify the development agreement to
remove that um to to amend it according
[8:11] to this resolution granting their
request. If we did not change would we
[8:15] not amend our whole
>> yeah reflecting the requirement
[8:18] » development agreement requirement like
MTS
[8:22] » or we we made developers
I'm just to amend before doing
[8:28] » development draft
amendment drafted reflecting the
[8:32] required
[8:36] » well pre doesn't say removed covered
costs how about in this particular one
[8:40] that's I think what the or
>> not full cost Okay.
[8:48] » Where does the minister
>> was going to add something?
[8:50] » Instead of reflecting, we can put
removing the requirement.
[8:53] » Because it isn't like it's
>> that would clarify.
[8:56] » Yeah. If it's not clear to me in my
reading, then I'm suggesting it's not
[8:59] clear,
>> right? The process is the same. We need
[9:01] to have an agreement drafted at the
developer cost to be able to um modify
[9:07] the the terms of the original contract.
>> Yeah. So is that something that you
[9:11] think the contractor would agree with?
Is that understanding
[9:14] » would be less expensive than the
installation from what we understand?
[9:18] » This is the question to council though.
Are we going to force the developer to
[9:23] um have MTS put in [clears throat]
>> where where
[9:27] » that's
>> this is the by the gun range.
[9:30] » Yes.
>> So how's how's cell phone communication
[9:33] in that area?
>> You went out there. It was spotty but it
[9:36] did work.
>> Yeah. You had said you had gotten like
[9:38] one bar. Somebody had to
>> Yeah. Exactly.
[9:42] » Like we could make a call.
>> We I couldn't check emails on my phones.
[9:47] » I just
>> So So that's why we included in the
[9:51] recommendation to council that every
single registered property owner
[9:54] currently there needs to be made aware
that this is not coming because when
[9:57] they agreed to buy the land, they were
told this is coming.
[9:59] » That was my question. That's the line
that they were.
[10:02] » But I mean where the property is,
there's lots of properties around there.
[10:06] It can't be that far for MTS to bring.
>> Do we know that the approximate cost to
[10:11] bring
>> 80,000 MTS will pay half
[10:15] » 80? Like 80,000.
>> I know they say
[10:18] » so it would be 40,000 on the developer.
>> 40.
[10:23] » Yes.
>> That's
[10:24] » MTS agreed to partner 5050. I think
>> it's the number that seems high. Makes
[10:30] sense.
>> No, I I think you're informing the the
[10:32] people who are going to purchase the
land in regard to the condition. There's
[10:36] people that already
>> have already built their home.
[10:38] » They've already purchased. They've
already built their homes and they've
[10:40] already been told that this is coming.
>> Yes. Basically,
[10:42] » that's a problem.
>> Exactly.
[10:45] » Oh, and in the defense of the MTS, one
of the thing is because now any there's
[10:50] competition.
>> So, this whole structures are changing
[10:54] having maint.
[10:57] They're still not bringing in fiber
there. They're still bringing in old
[11:01] copper wire. But if you think from the
resident's perspective, like you're told
[11:05] one, you're told this is coming and now
I don't know.
[11:11] » Are you the developer in this?
>> Okay.
[11:14] » Well,
I don't know in what sense people are
[11:19] told. They've never been told that
there's any internet coming there.
[11:22] » Okay.
>> And this I don't know why they would
[11:25] know. The development agreement is
registered on title as a tool of
[11:28] communication to inform the potential
purchasers of the land of the terms and
[11:33] conditions that they're agreeing to by
purchasing this land. So sometimes those
[11:37] agreements include requirements for
drainage that it's their obligation to
[11:41] maintain those drains at their expense
or things of that nature. One of the
[11:44] things in that development agreement is
that the developer is to install uh you
[11:49] know street lighting and
telecommunication lines and those those
[11:52] utilities. Unless they read it.
[11:57] » If they do do their due diligence, they
will know.
[12:01] » It doesn't matter if they read it or not
>> because we've built a house there.
[12:05] » Yeah.
>> And like telephone service was great the
[12:08] whole time.
>> We've had full service the whole time.
[12:11] We've had every there.
>> How many homes are or like it's all
[12:18] subdivided. How many houses have been
built there?
[12:20] » Eight or 10. I believe
>> the total subdivision is eight lots.
[12:23] » One one is already occupied, two or
three other construction.
[12:28] » I want to know what administration
thinks like with your
[12:33] » This is up to
>> no recommendation. No,
[12:35] » honestly there is I mean again it's a
decision. It is a huge cost for the
[12:40] developer on the one hand.
>> On the other hand I do understand the
[12:43] safety side of things. So
>> yeah.
[12:46] » Yeah. But does that that cost that cost
is generally the same for all developers
[12:51] is it not
>> challenge in this case was when we
[12:54] applied for the subdivision bell refused
to come in for the beginning because
[12:59] they say it's not in their jurisdiction
to cover it.
[13:02] » Wow.
>> So it's under valley fibers.
[13:06] » Do we for internet are we talking phone
like do they still bring phone line in?
[13:11] Yes. Or [clears throat] is it all fiber?
Like those are two different things.
[13:16] It'll be fiber. It would be fiber, but
it would
[13:18] » probably fiber you. Okay.
>> Yeah, fiber does both.
[13:21] » You don't get landline at all anymore.
>> Well, probably fiber will get you a
[13:25] landline through the internet, right?
The new the new ones that are going in
[13:29] are not hard wire like it's all internet
based. So, they're
[13:33] » okay. Cuz I thought you still got a line
coming your house.
[13:37] » But it's not going to be the same kind
of line. Like my phone line is a land
[13:40] line. It runs when the power goes off.
>> Yeah, that's what I was These won't run
[13:44] when the power goes off. These are f
these are connected to the fiber
[13:47] network.
>> Yeah, but they have backup generators.
[13:50] » Yeah. Yeah. But I just get the
difference between landline and
[13:53] » but also do you have that do you have
that email andor letter from MTS stating
[13:57] that?
>> Yes, we do. We have I didn't see that in
[14:01] there
>> in the file.
[14:02] » Yeah. No, I think because of the change
of having competition and so on, I think
[14:07] protecting making it the contractor a
lower cost and it's still protected.
[14:11] We're connected by
>> if it's Valley Fiber's area and Valley
[14:16] Fiber provides landlines.
>> I don't think there's a monopoly for one
[14:20] region for one
>> they have a well whatever. Yeah. Like I
[14:24] wouldn't care if it's Valley Fiber or
MTS. It doesn't really matter as long as
[14:28] » for the safety reason but because
>> now where are we sitting
[14:32] » liabilitywise?
We've had this in the contract and now
[14:36] we're taking it out of the contract. I
mean that's liability is coming on us.
[14:42] in 21. I don't know that Valley Fiber
was included in the the circulation for
[14:47] subdivisions. I think that's more modern
development. So, this contract, the way
[14:51] it was approved by the province and the
municipality was strictly BMTS.
[14:55] » See what I mean? We're we're kind of
under obligation because it was in the
[14:59] original contract and if we deny it now,
then we could be putting ourselves in
[15:04] trouble.
>> Yeah.
[15:06] » Have we talked to our lawyer about this?
>> No. But we have recommended again that
[15:11] at least we notify the public of the
change um as a minimum. If council feels
[15:15] we need to consult with our lawyer to
get a more legal opinion then that's
[15:18] something we could do. Um but ultimately
like we can see the pros and cons for
[15:22] both. A lot of people nowadays just go
to like a internet phone like not
[15:27] everybody
>> I can see pros and cons as well but
[15:29] » so I mean really there's pros and cons
of of either side of this decision. Um
[15:33] it's really up to council. The I'm
sorry. I guess I'm old school, but is it
[15:37] Do they bring landline like just
strictly landline to properties? That's
[15:41] what I thought.
>> They do LMTS own landline.
[15:44] » It's not the same as it used to be, but
it's fiber. So, they're internet phones,
[15:49] right?
>> Yeah. MTS does not bring four lines
[15:52] hosting like general.
>> Okay.
[15:56] » If you if you do like a single lot
subdivision, there's no requirement to
[16:00] bring MTS to that.
>> No. But
[16:02] » lot. No, but this is a normally if it's
a one lot subdivision, you're off an
[16:06] existing municipal road allowance,
right? Where the the lines would already
[16:09] be in
>> it's out the out front. I guess
[16:12] » there is no existing line to tap in.
>> This is a brand new road that they put
[16:15] in. So the the onus is typically on the
developer to provide the utilities
[16:19] within that new road allowance. question
is whether the real question is whether
[16:24] those kind of communications are
considered now a utility
[16:28] » and then moving forward what is the
municipality's standard like because
[16:31] this would be precedent setting because
in the past we've always required the
[16:34] developer to have this installed. This
is the first time that we've been made
[16:37] aware that the um utility company has
informed the developer that they will
[16:42] not automatically do the installation
unless there's a cost sharing uh at the
[16:48] developer's choice. Is is that is that a
new development?
[16:52] » It is a brand new road. Yes.
>> No, no. I'm saying is it a new
[16:55] development with MTF Bell MTS? Like is
this something that we're going to be
[16:59] dealing with in the f further on down
the line?
[17:02] » Possibly.
>> For sure.
[17:05] » Yeah.
>> I'm personally okay to like
[17:09] approve like approve the request
personally because I I think
[17:14] » I know tons of people that have no
landline. They just
[17:17] » only have a cell phone. So then you're
putting in this $80,000 infrastructure
[17:21] that potentially not be used by anyone.
>> And I and I don't disagree and I think I
[17:26] would vote in favor of that as well. But
I think there's a bigger issue we don't
[17:29] want to lose sight of and that's doing
it right moving forward because this to
[17:34] me
>> we do need more information.
[17:35] » Well, it just changes the whole thing of
what we will allow to be included in
[17:39] those in those development agreements.
Do [clears throat] we just no longer
[17:42] make that available for MTS or or Valley
Fiber to require that? Right. Is is that
[17:50] communication line no longer a
municipally controlled uh utility or
[17:55] demanded utility? We don't control it,
but we can demand it. This is asking us
[17:59] not to demand that that supplement. And
>> we're kind of caught in that change that
[18:04] we I think we've seen coming. Yeah,
you're right. We've seen this coming.
[18:07] Now we have to do something about what
our requirements are. And it what it
[18:12] does I think is it makes it harder for
the developer because the developer
[18:15] ahead of time had known this. They could
have decided well now I have to realize
[18:20] my lots are worth I'm making up the
number $5,000 more each because I have
[18:24] to put out that kind of money to get
that in just like building the road cost
[18:28] me $100,000. Building the road and
adding fiber to it cost me $145,000. Now
[18:35] I have to share that in the development
of each lot. We did now we're caught in
[18:40] the middle of the developer not having
anticipated that
[18:45] » but that's a well it was in the original
contract
[18:48] » so
it
[18:51] » due diligence is like you need to
research that and find out what what it
[18:56] is right but
>> no I think I think that we need more
[19:01] information I think that our our lawyer
needs to look at this to see if we're
[19:04] liable in any way
>> and and and and what and what
[19:09] » and how do we move forward
>> for the future
[19:12] » liable um in reality I I I don't but I
mean we can still run it by the lawyer
[19:21] if that's what you guys want
>> I don't see the liability on this
[19:23] neither
>> and I'm more concerned about how we how
[19:26] we set up our moving forward and and our
our expectations of of the utilities
[19:33] » yeah me too exactly so
>> I think we'll have to do due diligence
[19:36] work for the next contractor and she
fine.
[19:38] » If somebody wants to bring hydro to
their lot or natural gas, they're paying
[19:42] the 10, 12, $15,000 out of
>> That's not negotiable for electricity,
[19:48] » right? And that's not the developer
that's having to put that in. That's
[19:50] that's the land owner who's buying the
lot that has to
[19:53] » It's the developer if they're building a
new road.
[19:55] » If they're building a Okay.
>> Correct.
[19:58] » Well, it depends where the house would
be located. If the house now is little
[20:02] too far and it's additional cost
>> new road that is built through the
[20:06] subdivision, the developer is
responsible for putting those hydropoles
[20:09] along the road allowance as well as the
street lights.
[20:11] » Yeah.
>> So that is the developer
[20:13] » along with the wire that comes into
>> right. Right.
[20:16] » The way they close then the house
>> just needs to pay for it from go from
[20:20] the road to the house which would be the
same kind of thing with the phone lines
[20:26] to the
>> if they're kind of still required. And I
[20:28] I'm not sure like right now I'm sitting
on the fence both ways because
[20:34] uh moving forward
where do we go?
[20:37] » I'm I just I just one of the things that
I'm going to ask the developer because
[20:40] we have you here and I don't know it's
maybe I should know this. When hydro
[20:44] comes down that road are you paying
hydro to bring hydro down that road?
[20:49] Well
>> the communication with MTS has been
[20:51] » but I'm asking about hydro. Yeah. So
you're paying the hydro to bring that
[20:55] down the road as well.
>> Yes. Okay.
[20:57] » So, this is a change in policy and they
no no longer will do single dwelling
[21:02] homes and then it says it says that uh
Bell MTS Bell Canada will be responsible
[21:08] for notifying notification to the
municipalities of this service decision.
[21:13] In other words, they've changed their
policies on this.
[21:16] » Yeah, I don't I don'tation
>> I don't remember receiving notification.
[21:20] » No, but I'm just saying so that's
something that we should get on.
[21:24] » Well, that's what Ry's saying. were
caught in between
[21:27] » and I I just
>> I don't think that uh like I mean that's
[21:31] just an added expense probably you
didn't plan for. Right.
[21:34] » Is it fair?
>> If our lawyer says that we have no
[21:36] liability for changing this, I'm fine
with changing it.
[21:40] » Right. That's where I'm standing.
>> Okay.
[21:45] » The communication with MTS has been in
general they will come in at the same
[21:49] time when Hydra is coming in
>> and they will just go underground the
[21:53] same time but they have not been
And they were surprised when I told
[21:58] them, well, like the road is done, like
we need your services. And they're like,
[22:01] well, usual, like we're always being
notified when Hydra's coming in. And we
[22:06] were being circled the whole time um on
the update. And they were not aware to
[22:11] start all this development because in
general like whenever the subdivision or
[22:16] the letter circles, they are usually in
the loop
[22:19] » and they would come in at the same time
and then there would be no cost,
[22:22] » right? And in this case, because it's
not in their jurisdictions, it's in
[22:26] Valley's fiber jurisdiction. They have
not been aware of this the whole time.
[22:29] » I haven't read anywhere in here where it
says it's Valley Fibers jurisdiction.
[22:33] » That would be that's not uh that that's
you guys. No, NTS and Bell may have that
[22:39] kind of agreement. We don't have that as
a we don't have a jurisdiction from
[22:43] Valley Fiber. We have a plan for
development. It's not a jurisdiction
[22:47] thing.
>> Yeah.
[22:47] » They can go anywhere they want.
>> Yeah.
[22:49] » Yeah. So jurisdiction is maybe not the
right word. So they would have put it in
[22:53] for
>> had they done
[22:56] » had they been
>> well had lies on a dude.
[23:00] » Well, I'm not sure that's what they're
saying in their correspondence though.
[23:02] » That's not what they're saying.
>> Yeah.
[23:04] » 21. This was the response from Bell when
they reviewed the application for
[23:09] subdivision. They required easements
from the subdivision
[23:13] um and and so on. So they were included
in the communication at the onset of
[23:18] this. something changed in between 2021
and 2026 that caused them to rethink
[23:23] their position and then send
communication directly to the developers
[23:26] saying that they would only do it with a
cost sharing.
[23:31] » That's a policy change.
>> It's funny that the RMS never received
[23:37] those policy changes like so that we can
act accordingly, right?
[23:41] » Unless they just include it with each
review of new subdivision applications.
[23:44] But this is being retroactive, right? So
a developer brought this to our
[23:47] attention. That's the first that we
heard about it.
[23:49] » Yes.
So maybe we should get on these guys.
[23:54] » These been agreements come when you like
register your your like mileers or
[23:59] whatever like that legal document that
when you register your subdivision you
[24:05] have with your lawyer with hydro and MTS
like for all the utilities. So like it
[24:11] should have they should have had
>> Yep. And then here the responsibility
[24:16] for contacting them is the developers
when the lines go in which I believe is
[24:20] what happened here and that's when um
they were informed that
[24:26] it's only with cost sharing that the
lines would get put in.
[24:30] » Looks like Belle kind of said they're
not doing it because it's too
[24:34] competitive now. But then that that's
not us. Well, what kind of right do we
[24:39] have to go back to bal and say, "Well,
no, this was an agreement back in 2026."
[24:44] » Well, that would guess that would be the
developer that would have to go back
[24:47] onto them.
>> Yeah, that's not our job.
[24:51] » We just need to know what their policy
is.
[24:53] » Went to MDS and trying to get it done
for
[24:56] them for a long time
>> and it's not gonna happen.
[24:59] » No,
>> I would move that we approve the
[25:03] request.
>> I would support it.
[25:04] » Yeah.
>> Okay. So we got a mover. Do we have it?
[25:08] Great. So as I moved it second any more
discussion
[25:14] everybody's in favor
>> and that's with the conditions that
[25:18] » that's right.
>> Yeah.
[25:19] » Yeah.
>> Then it's carried caveat.
[25:24] » We got we got
>> be here and help us.
[25:27] » Sorry. We have to get some clarity from
MTS.
[25:29] » Well no moving forward we
>> moving forward now we know that there's
[25:33] a challenge now.
>> Yeah. But now we've set a press once
[25:35] once again though we still need clarity
in from them. Yeah. Wow. Because we
[25:40] can't just assumption
I believe I believe
[25:45] » what would have been start today. Yes.
But there's no other one now. So
[25:48] » I I believe there's a policy change
based on their email chain. But at the
[25:53] same time we need to know from them so
that we going forward we can make those
[25:57] changes.
>> Right.
[25:58] » And I don't think it's necessarily sent
to president. And I think it just it's
[26:01] he's caught like in a weird situation
just like we've had before. Now we just
[26:04] have to catch up to
>> Well, that's true.
[26:06] » We can review our templates and our
municipal standards as well. So
[26:09] » yeah, now that we know. Absolutely.
>> There you go.
[26:13] » So
>> you're off the hook. Yeah.
[26:15] » Good for you.
>> Yeah. But I guess
[26:17] » you understand recommend that any new
property owners understand that. Again,
[26:22] not everybody not everybody reads the
development agreements just because
[26:25] we've now we've changed it and it would
reflect differently. It would be
[26:29] probably prudent to let people know
there is no MTS line there
[26:33] » before they buy the land. Absolutely.
>> Yeah. It just be the prudent thing to
[26:36] do.
>> Good.
[26:39] Thank you everyone. Then we're going to
move to consent agenda.
[26:44] » No, there's another development
agreement.
[26:46] » Development agreement. I move that we
sign the development agreement.
[26:51] » I can second.
>> There we go. Move by Sai. Second by
[26:55] Nando. Any question? Is there something
in there about MTS?
[26:58] » Yeah, that's an agreement subdivision
4175269243
[27:03] for grant ADLE. Um and that again is um
one of the the conditions of approval
[27:10] being satisfied.
>> Great. Good. Everybody's in favor. Then
[27:15] one carries do. Good. Thank you. Then
consent agenda.
[27:20] » I can move consent agenda.
>> I'm move consent agenda. Angle second.
[27:25] Is there any
part of that that uh someone want to
[27:30] talk about or
[27:36] » I don't know.
>> Yeah. Then uh everybody's on favor
[27:43] then it's good. It's just no question
then I guess uh we're going to move in
[27:49] camera. We got half hour
moves angle second going to
[27:57] camera
[28:11] go into public hearing
and angle
[28:18] » did you want to introduce
>> I'll introduce the table we got word one
[28:23] word two Wasco Go to word three. Uh what
is it again?
[28:31] » I read [laughter]
[28:35] words.
>> Four. Okay. Angle five and six. There's
[28:44] a joke that people some people know.
[laughter]
[28:49] » There are two hearings scheduled for
this meeting. uh one is conditional use
[28:53] 14-26
and the other is conditional use 17-26.
[28:58] All requirements of the planning act for
the scheduled hearings have been adhered
[29:02] to. Notices were distributed to the
applicants and to the surrounding
[29:05] affected property owners as well as
posted in the municipal office.
[29:10] The procedures for the hearing are
hearings are as follows. For each
[29:15] hearing, we will first hear from the
applicant, then from anyone who would
[29:18] like to speak in support of the
application, followed by anyone who
[29:20] would like to speak in opposition of the
application. Every speaker who would
[29:24] like to make a presentation or ask
questions regarding the proposal must
[29:28] first register. Okay, that's irrelevant.
You guys are the applicants. Um, every
[29:34] speaker present in the council chambers
is requested to please move forward to
[29:37] the delegation table, identify
themselves, where they reside, and
[29:41] proceed to make their presentation. All
questions must be directed through the
[29:45] chair of the meeting. Um, council has a
right to ask questions for clarification
[29:50] of the presenters through the chair and
I guess I think the rest is good. So the
[29:57] first hearing that we have on the agenda
is 14 is variation order 14-26.
[30:04] David Banman vary the following bulk
requirements as a condition of
[30:09] subdivision file 4175-22-8752.
[30:17] Um proposed is minimum westside
requirement from 25 ft to approximately
[30:24] 13 ft for existing deck and minimum west
side requirement from 25 ft to
[30:31] approximately 9.9 ft for the existing
shed at 31086 road 43 North in an area
[30:39] zoned agriculture.
Uh I don't believe the applicant for
[30:43] this one is here.
We didn't receive any um
[30:48] » respondents, nothing.
>> No submissions at all. So
[30:52] » So I have Randy and Brad having moved
and seconded to go into that hearing.
[30:56] » I'll move that we close this hearing
then.
[30:59] » Second.
>> Moved by Sarai, second by Namo. All in
[31:03] favor carried and then we'll move on to
the second one. I'll second move. Second
[31:10] one. Second by
[31:16] » this is for conditional use 17-26.
Applicant is Dorene Peril.
[31:22] A public hearing was held on August
12th, 2026 for conditional use 1726, but
[31:28] an administrative error occurred which
could have impacted the outcome of the
[31:32] hearing. This new hearing was scheduled
to ensure all relevant information was
[31:36] presented to council for consideration
to allow for a previously used mobile
[31:41] home on site and to allow a detached
secondary suite at 174 Pro Boulevard in
[31:48] an area zoned rural residential. First,
we will hear from the applicant. Please
[31:52] come to the table.
>> We hear everybody else discuss first or
[31:57] no? No, we'll hear your concern and then
we'll
[32:04] » David Parin from 900 John Bruce Road
East Winnipeg currently. Um, first I'd
[32:10] like to ask if this is a meeting, are we
going over the entire conditional use
[32:17] application again or just the conditions
that are on the conditional use
[32:20] application that's already been
approved?
[32:22] The only concern we have if there is a
concern or what is the condition that
[32:26] you're not agree you express why you
don't agree and press what is your
[32:33] » this really is a fresh hearing. Yeah.
>> So yes the approval that you received we
[32:38] we re revoked that last meeting so that
we can have a new hearing. So you're
[32:42] hoping to have changes to what we
approve.
[32:46] » Those are the one you wanted to discuss
about
[32:48] » like anything that you didn't like on
the approval.
[32:50] » Yeah. So, I didn't like certain things
out of the conditions on the conditional
[32:54] use acceptance, but um first, just for
the record, how how is it possible that
[33:00] the entire conditional use application
was um you know, if it's already been
[33:06] approved, how is it no longer approved?
just just for
[33:09] » in order to have a new meeting that you
requested, we had to I can't remember
[33:14] the exact term, but
>> we had to review uh reverse and rescend
[33:18] » resend
>> a the resolution.
[33:21] » Yeah. Okay. Great. So um the previous
meeting
[33:26] so I'll just start by saying
[33:32] right
[33:35] I'm speaking on behalf of my mother
Darin Parin the registered owner and
[33:39] applicant of conditional use number
17-26 at 174 P Boulevard boulevard um I
[33:46] am asking council to remove conditions
two and three and retain conditions six
[33:51] unchanged
Um, my concern is that the costly new
[33:55] well requirement was discussed using the
incorrupt belief that no shared well
[33:59] agreement existed.
During the August 12th meeting, the
[34:04] display transcript records the
neighbor's letter stating, quote, "There
[34:08] is no formal well agreement and the
property owner has not agreed to
[34:11] contribute financially for regular use
or maintenance of the well." The
[34:15] statement that there is no formal well
agreement is incorrect. There is a well
[34:19] a written well agreement dated September
29, 1990 protected by caveat number
[34:24] 13527631.
It provides for using the well in common
[34:29] addresses rights concerning the well and
pipes and includes successors and
[34:32] assignees. Um
section 76 subsection 4 of the real
[34:37] property act provides that the easement
rights and related covenants it
[34:40] describes run with the land. This means
the relevant rights and obligations
[34:44] continue with the affected properties
when ownership changes.
[34:48] Applying for a secondary suit suit does
not by itself cancel those rights. Their
[34:53] scope depends on the agreement and
relevant circumstances running with the
[34:56] land does not authorize unlimited use.
But an additional dwelling does not
[35:00] automatically make the agreement
disappear either. If council believes
[35:03] [clears throat] the proposed connection
falls outside the agreement, please
[35:06] identify the wording, facts, and legal
basis for that interpretation. A
[35:10] disagreement about what an agreement
permits is not proof that no agreement
[35:13] exists. Um, cond condition two requires
the necessary well and driveway
[35:18] agreement to be in place. It does not
expressly require new agreements. I'm
[35:23] asking council to recognize our existing
documents and remove that condition as
[35:27] unnecessary. If council considers them
insufficient, please identify exactly
[35:31] what is missing.
Um, the allegations from the neighbor
[35:36] about financial contributions is a
separate issue. Any enforceable cost
[35:40] sharing obligation remains applicable,
but a disputed payment allegation does
[35:43] not by itself establish that a new well
is necessary. If council believes a
[35:47] maintenance or funding problem threatens
reliable water service, that concern
[35:51] should be supported by evidence. There
is also existing infrastructure to
[35:55] consider. The property survey shows the
pro the proposed new mobile home. I
[36:00] intend to connect it to the existing
wellpipe and previously served that
[36:04] previously served the old mobile home.
that pipe has remained in place and
[36:08] continued to be used since it was
disconnected from the previous mobile
[36:11] home. The proposed connection remains
subject to the new agreement and
[36:15] applicable requirements.
The meeting transcript shows why
[36:20] correcting the misunderstanding about
our agreement matters. At approximately
[36:23] 1 hour 4 minutes, 18 seconds into the
YouTube recording of the previous
[36:26] meeting, a participant began a statement
that included there's no shared well
[36:30] agreement. At approximately 1 hour, 4
minutes and 57 seconds, the discussion
[36:34] included, "Yeah, right. We could require
that." Then later, at approximately 1
[36:38] hour, 11 minutes, and 33 seconds, a
participant said, "We can require them
[36:41] to put a well in." 3 seconds later, that
was followed by, "I think that would
[36:45] satisfy that complaint." These remarks
connect the proposed new well
[36:49] requirement to satisfying the complaint,
while the discussion also included an
[36:53] incorrect understanding of our existing
agreement. Section 106 subsection 2
[36:57] clause A of the planning act allows
council to quote impose any condition on
[37:02] the approval that it considers necessary
to meet the requirements of clause 1B.
[37:06] Those requirements concern compatibility
with the surrounding area, health and
[37:10] welfare effects on surrounding
properties, and consistency with
[37:13] applicable planning bylaws. The planning
act section 106
[37:17] council can address legit legitimate
planning concerns raised by neighbors,
[37:21] but it satisfying the neighbor is the
only reason for requiring a new well.
[37:25] Coun council cannot lawfully use
condition 3 for that purpose. The
[37:29] complaint must be assessed on its facts
saying a new well would satisfy it does
[37:32] not establish why that particular con
condition is necessary. Manitoba's
[37:37] shared well guidance recognizes
residential systems with two to four
[37:40] services connections. Three homes
sharing one well is not automatically
[37:44] prohibited. Manitoba Manitoba's shared
well guidance um and I got it quoted
[37:49] here. Um, and then so condition six
already requires that the applicant is
[37:54] responsible for being in full compliance
with the requirements of federal,
[37:57] provincial, and municipal authorities at
all time, including obtaining any
[38:01] required approvals and permits and
achieving building code compliance.
[38:06] So, we already remain subject to those
requirements.
[38:10] During the septic discussion, at
approximately 1 hour, 10 minutes, and 6
[38:14] seconds, the display transcript records.
That's right. that that's that has
[38:19] nothing to do with us. That's the
province that regulates that. So I rec I
[38:24] recognize that provincial regulation
municipal planning authority can operate
[38:28] together. However, condition 3 requires
a new well regardless of whether the
[38:31] existing shared system could meet the
applicable requirements. The parts of
[38:35] the transcript I am referring to do not
identify a failed capacity test, an
[38:39] unsafe water result, or a direction from
the office of drinking water requiring a
[38:42] new well. If council has other
supporting evidence, please identify it
[38:46] so we can respond. After considering the
actual agreement and existing
[38:50] infrastructure, what specific planning
concerns make a separate well necessary
[38:53] and why would condition six be
insufficient to address it? That is the
[38:57] explanation I'm asking council to
provide before maintaining this
[39:00] substantial expense. So, please
reconsider this the condition using the
[39:04] correct facts. Remove condition two and
three and retain condition six
[39:07] unchanged. Um, and then to top it off, I
also have a text with the neighbor, uh,
[39:12] Aaron from last night that said, "My
meeting I I had texted him. I said, "My
[39:18] meeting with council was tomorrow. I was
hoping to check in about what we
[39:21] discussed after August 12th. Are you
happy with our arrangement regarding the
[39:25] driveway and shared well, and are you
okay with us connecting the new mobile
[39:28] home to the existing well system, too? I
was hoping to ask you in person tonight,
[39:33] but I'd appreciate hearing where you're
at before tomorrow's meeting." Aaron
[39:37] says, "Yeah, we have no problem with it
as long as you help out if needed."
[39:41] Karen changed what your mom wanted us to
change and we sent that in. So hopefully
[39:46] all is good now. Let's try and get
together next week or something. Let me
[39:50] know how tomorrow goes, man. And I said,
I Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you.
[39:57] » Okay.
[clears throat]
[40:00] » Oh, go ahead. You
>> got a question? Well, I was just saying
[40:04] so there was there was an existing
second dwelling on that place at one
[40:07] time, just one, right?
>> The original mobile home.
[40:10] » And so so you the reason I think
>> you're you were changing the usage of
[40:16] that well, right?
>> Because you you already had a well
[40:19] agreement with one building, but not
with the second one. So you were
[40:23] changing the usage.
>> Yeah. And so that's the the Real
[40:26] Property Act. The well agreement runs
with the land, not the individual
[40:30] building. Right. But the well agreement
go ahead.
[40:39] » But there was that's that's that was my
question. So at one
[40:44] » trailer is going to go exactly where the
trailer was because
[40:48] everything still
>> So there was two dwellings on that house
[40:52] on that property at one time.
>> Ever one residence on the property that
[40:56] was permitted at a time.
>> Okay. So the mobile home was
[41:00] decommissioned when the house was
finished.
[41:02] » That is correct. So it's always a single
family property. Now they're asking
[41:06] permission from council to have a two
family prop like two residences on one.
[41:10] » So I don't we
>> How old is the well? What's the
[41:12] condition of the well? What's the
condition of the pump? Have you ever
[41:16] contributed to the hydro for the pump?
>> Um so that that matter would be like a
[41:21] private matter that's outside of this
agreement.
[41:24] » That's outside of this room.
>> It's between them.
[41:27] » That's between us. Yeah.
And it was your neighbor that raised the
[41:30] concern
>> and it's but if you look the neighbor
[41:34] rescended their comments
>> got something already prior to the
[41:38] meeting
>> he didn't
[41:41] » sure he says
>> okay
[41:44] » he said uh
>> have a second email she said
[41:46] » the correspondence from Corin Barley
that's right
[41:48] » when when he's done I will read it but
>> sure
[41:51] » wanted both read
>> okay
[41:53] » both so
>> we were first looking at that there was
[41:56] no well agreement that we had seen
Let's see here.
[42:00] » Right. But it's been provided now. Now
it's been provided. Yeah.
[42:02] » What we'll do is you're done for now.
>> Well, we'll
[42:06] » Yeah. Right.
>> Can we have a copy of that?
[42:10] » Well, no. No. I don't I like just
>> to the office after.
[42:13] » Yeah. That's not official
correspondence. That was sent directly
[42:15] from the applicants to municipality.
That would be considered more hearsay
[42:18] and I don't feel it would be admissible
public hearing.
[42:20] » Yeah. But they use them in court.
Nevertheless, we're going to go to
[42:23] what's so what we'll do is she's going
to tell us read this few letter and then
[42:29] we'll bring you you could sit down for
now we'll bring you back after you
[42:33] listen
>> just sit there I mean
[42:34] » well you can sit there too
>> nobody else here waiting
[42:36] » yeah yeah nobody you go ahead
>> okay uh so this is an email from Corin
[42:43] Barley we did reach out to her she
wanted both emails read so that's what I
[42:48] will do
>> y
[42:49] » hello please see my letter to council
below about this matter. Um, I am
[42:55] writing to formally oppose the
application for an additional dwelling
[42:58] on the neighboring property. My concerns
are based on the following four points.
[43:03] Shared well and increased water usage.
The neighboring property is currently
[43:07] serviced by a shared well located on my
property. There is no formal well
[43:11] agreement and the property owner has not
agreed to contribute financially for
[43:15] regular use or maintenance of the well.
A second dwelling and third building as
[43:20] there is also a large shop on the
property would increase demands on this
[43:25] shared water source. I do not support
extending the existing arrangement to
[43:29] service an additional household. Two,
increased use of the shared driveway.
[43:34] Our properties are also share a
driveway. A second household will would
[43:39] increase traffic and use of shared
access. This creates concerns regarding
[43:44] maintenance, wear, safety, privacy, and
overall impact on my property.
[43:48] Compatibility with the neighborhood.
This is an established lowdensity rural
[43:53] residential area with properties of
approximately 2 acres or more. Adding a
[43:57] second independently occupied dwelling
increases the density of a single
[44:01] property and in my view is inconsistent
with the existing character of the
[44:06] neighborhood.
The existing house is currently being
[44:10] rented out by tenants, which concerns me
that this will be a pattern for the
[44:15] second dwelling as well. If the property
owner would like to reside on the
[44:19] property, there is no need for an
additional dwelling. Four, precedent and
[44:23] future development. Approval could
encourage similar applications on other
[44:27] properties in the area. If additional
dwellings become common on existing
[44:32] 2-acre lots, the character and density
of the neighborhood could change
[44:35] significantly without subdivision or
corresponding infrastructure planning.
[44:40] This would have serious implications for
roadways and infrastructure funded by RM
[44:44] tax dollars. For these reasons, I
respectfully request that council deny
[44:48] the application in order to maintain the
low density neighborhood expected by
[44:53] Lacule residents. Thank you for my for
considering my concerns, Corin and Aaron
[44:58] Barley. That is the first email and this
was the followup.
[45:03] Um, this came after the public hearing
for point two. I would like to clarify a
[45:10] statement from a letter I previously
submitted to council. There are legal
[45:14] caveats registered on land titles
relating to both the shared driveway and
[45:19] the and the well. What I should have
been more clearly stated is that there
[45:23] have has not been a separate verbal,
written or written agreement between the
[45:27] parties regarding how the terms of the
well agreement are to be applied in
[45:31] practice. Specifically with respect to
financial contribution from 174 PRU for
[45:37] regular regular use of the well and
associated maintenance costs as
[45:42] contemplated in registered well
agreement. We will refresh this
[45:45] discussion with David Parent in hopes of
coming to an agreement. My apologies for
[45:49] any confusion caused by my earlier
wording. Copies of the registered caveat
[45:54] can be obtained through Manitoba land
titles.
[45:58] Um
>> you um just read the email from Janice
[46:02] as well first.
>> Yes. So as for the information which is
[46:07] from the water office of the water
drinking water um the existing shared
[46:12] well agreement cannot be simply assumed
adequate. One of the key things here is
[46:18] it considered a semi-public it is
considered a semi-public water system
[46:22] because it services more than one
residential connection. Even though it
[46:26] services four or fewer residential
connections, it would need review as the
[46:31] old shared well agreement and well
record does not demonstrate that the
[46:35] well can be reliably accommodate
additional demand because of the age and
[46:41] proposed use. It would be up to the
owners to show that the registered
[46:45] caveat shared well agreement site plan
available well records and contact
[46:49] information for the water system owner
before providing further direction as
[46:53] adding a secondary suite would need
review. Essentially the caveat by itself
[46:58] does not establish adequate servicing.
Okay,
[47:07] » that's what I received from the
>> We also had comments.
[47:13] » And can I also add something? Hold on.
>> So, just before for the public comments,
[47:18] we also had the operations manager and
the richer fire chief who expressed no
[47:21] concerns.
>> Um, so that was relayed in the first
[47:23] public hearing, but I I feel should also
be
[47:25] » No, it's in here in the same
[47:31] » Go ahead. Okay, Dave.
>> Um, I also the so if that letter was
[47:36] from the province, um, I would like to
think that the email from Janice to the
[47:40] province did not mention that the
infrastructure and piping that I will be
[47:44] using is current and has already been
existed and it is not new infrastructure
[47:49] because that is relevant to the ODW
office of drinking water.
[47:52] » No, but the mobile home is
>> it that that's not their it's the piping
[47:57] that's already there that they care
about. And so that's why I suggest that
[48:00] we keep condition six that requires me
to get all provincial um what however
[48:07] » that's right. So I would like remove two
and three but we can keep six because
[48:11] that takes care of that matter anyways.
>> Okay.
[48:14] » But okay but what she's talking about is
the existing wealth that exists right
[48:18] now is may or may not be adequate.
>> That's right. But that's
[48:22] » because it's been in there since 19
whatever 74.
[48:27] » What I'm
>> at least 1990.
[48:29] » What I'm well whenever
>> what I'm disputing out of that is that
[48:32] regulation from the ODW has came into
effect after 1990 because that
[48:37] infrastructure that's already there
>> has already been there prior to that new
[48:41] regulation put in by the ODW. That's why
I'm saying let's let matter six
[48:46] » take care of it.
>> Okay. Just clear though that that that
[48:51] was never two residents. Now you're
asking for two residents.
[48:54] » You may have had in conjunction two
residents, but from our perspective that
[49:00] property has never had two residential
buildings on it.
[49:04] » Yes.
>> Right. So let's be clear that that's
[49:06] it's not the same.
>> That's why
[49:08] » that that's that is this is a different
environment. This now puts a second
[49:12] residential property on it.
Again, I'm I'm not disagreeing with you,
[49:16] but let's be clear. It's not the same.
>> I that I understand, but the the
[49:21] infrastructure has never been removed
and it's been continuously in use since
[49:25] the home itself has been removed, but
the infrastructure or the inground water
[49:29] pipes have never changed and have
continued to be in use this entire time
[49:33] since 1990
>> as as a single family.
[49:36] » As a single family.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, let's be clear. Yeah.
[49:39] So,
>> any more questions?
[49:45] No. Is there a way to test
[clears throat] the existing like to
[49:49] have that information to know that the
well is sufficient the ODW?
[49:53] » Yes. Yeah. The province will require
that anyway. So we
[49:56] » which would be number six.
>> That's it.
[49:58] » They have to do an adequate service
testing on the well. Yeah. So the
[50:02] province will send someone to do that
and then provide them with the
[50:06] information if it will be accepted or
not.
[50:08] » Yeah.
>> And so and it's not our responsibility
[50:10] anyway. So it it ask.
>> That's right.
[50:15] » That doesn't matter.
>> Yeah.
[50:17] » Well, they never asked me to.
>> Yeah.
[50:22] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, that again in her
[50:24] » once again is a conversation that you
have to have with that.
[50:27] » She should have that with me, not send
it to a letter. It's false information.
[50:33] » So, does the province, sorry, does the
province like require this before we
[50:37] move forward with any even decision?
They have to do testing before they can
[50:39] tap in.
>> So the direction I got from them was
[50:42] that they
>> that's out of our hands even.
[50:44] » Yes.
>> But they taking charge of this
[50:47] possibility of the new development to
have provide the proper water and waste
[50:52] water too. So the province takes care of
that
[50:54] » in order to move forward with you adding
your secondary dwelling. You will have
[50:58] to provide them with that information.
Yeah. They will do all their servicing
[51:01] and testing and then give you a yes or
no.
[51:03] » They would also be looking after the
wastewater side of things. Then we'd
[51:06] have to approve it.
>> Yeah. Right.
[51:08] » So it would suggest that we put this uh
not not adjourned but uh
[51:13] » well we can
think
[51:16] » and have that condition that they have
to meet that
[51:20] » requirement for the well testing
>> like yeah
[51:22] » all provincial requirements is what
those generally agreement says all all
[51:26] requirements which includes the septical
requirement. I'm just a little bit
[51:30] concerned uh in the general scope of
things, not very specifically you, but
[51:34] we have to think big picture is that
there are the issue of two agreements, a
[51:38] driveway agreement and a shared well
agreement that need to be in I would
[51:43] assume good order and I'm not sure they
are right. And that's my concern is that
[51:48] to prove this like I that's not
>> well but the shared driveway agreement
[51:54] » but this is not our responsibility. It's
it's a legal legal between the two.
[51:59] » That's a similar matter.
>> Well, we require them
[52:02] » and so does lawyers.
>> Yeah.
[52:05] » Yeah. We require them for
>> I'm not I don't think that would be a
[52:12] » Yeah.
>> I think overall we were somewhat misled
[52:16] that there was no shared
>> agreements which they both existed. So I
[52:21] don't think we would have gone up to
where we've been
[52:25] » if if we didn't have that misleading
information. That's my take on it. But
[52:30] » so and and and by
good faith in regard to knowing that you
[52:35] couldn't assess the first meeting and so
on. We're doing that today. It's just to
[52:39] listen to the information that we didn't
have first meeting. No question about
[52:45] that. I think we got a lot of clarity
today that helps us to revisit the the
[52:50] decision.
So if there is a no more question in
[52:54] regard to all these
>> well I think because it's a new
[52:57] » well secondary dwelling.
>> Okay.
[53:00] » Um and there is a shared will agreement
that there's obviously laps and there is
[53:04] no proper agreement that we could
request that an agreement be in place.
[53:08] » We but there's there is a proper
agreement though. Yeah. It hasn't lap.
[53:11] Oh, no. Well, this Sorry, maybe that was
the wrong
[53:14] » way to put it that
>> um
[53:20] it hasn't been properly
um
[53:24] » well, I think I think what what needs to
happen now, our hands are tied. They
[53:29] need to satisfy six whatever the thing
is with the province that they have to
[53:32] go get the testing done before we can
even make a decision.
[53:35] » No, we can make a decision. We can make
>> But we can make a decision with that
[53:38] condition because they have that
information.
[53:40] » We make a decision. Yes,
>> based on that condition that that's fair
[53:43] enough that not our not us.
>> I think it it relieves us from
[53:50] responsibility in regard to make a
decision of how we want them to handle
[53:54] the wealth because the province making
that decision
[53:57] » 100%. That's
>> but one of the complaints was that
[54:00] » regardless.
>> Yeah. One of the complaints we had was
[54:03] that there was no payments or
>> cost
[54:07] between
we look at everybody's complaints too.
[54:11] » Yeah.
>> Right. We look at lighting.
[54:12] » What's the cost of running a pump? A
well pump
[54:17] 25
[54:21] replace a pump.
>> No, replacing the pump is different.
[54:25] » We're talking about going cost
>> electricity every month.
[54:31] Sorry guys. tower.
>> Yeah, it does.
[54:33] » Sorry guys.
>> The entire drive from my
[54:35] » That's the thing. I think that's one of
the condition for you not having a cost
[54:38] in the world in regards to have them
using clean driveway.
[54:43] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. You see that on a map?
[54:47] » Like
>> the part that branches off,
[54:49] » right?
>> So to me, if she would to me ever Yeah.
[54:54] Well, that's this is what I'm doing.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And and that's why it is
[54:59] » new
and shared by way and
[55:03] » if you look at both of them they've been
in place for the same date for the same
[55:07] year
>> from the beginning. I think had those
[55:10] been provided to us at the first
meeting, it would have been
[55:14] » Yeah.
>> Bill would have been having the province
[55:16] approved that the wild capability to
service another property and uh
[55:21] » I'm glad you guys came in because I
think differently like I I do glad you
[55:26] guys came in to talk to us. If council
would like to still address once we've
[55:30] rescended the previous approval, we can
have the condition be uh that the
[55:35] property owner is responsible for
ensuring the necess the necessary shared
[55:38] driveway and shared well agreements are
in place um are reviewed in light of the
[55:43] intensification of the use.
>> That's all.
[55:45] » So that way it's still outlined that it
is the responsibility of the applicants
[55:49] to to initiate those discussions, but
that's between the parties involved, not
[55:54] » the driveway is on their property. that
that's that's an illegal ask. That's
[55:58] » regardless, the use is being
intensified. So, we want to make sure
[56:01] that both parties are protected and
we're putting the responsibility on the
[56:05] owners to have that conversation and
update if required for for both parties.
[56:10] That's a suggestion for council if you
feel that would be appropriate to
[56:13] mitigate the land use conflicts in this
situation.
[56:16] » I think the province will satisfy that.
We're talking about just
[56:21] » I know
>> I would like to reiterate something that
[56:25] I've already said in this meeting. Um so
something like that would not be a legal
[56:29] ask from council because that is a
private matter outside of this room and
[56:33] that's what 106 subsection 1B talks
about. You cannot make us do something
[56:38] like that. stuff
>> and I agree because then the release of
[56:43] of responsibility in regard to the
understanding they have between
[56:49] » but they also don't have to approve the
entire thing. Yeah.
[56:53] » So let's keep that in mind.
>> It's it's my understanding there's a
[56:58] large shop on the property that I assume
has water service to it. So we're not
[57:04] getting all the information.
>> Where did you get this?
[57:06] » Like there's no stamp on it. There's no
That's my letter that I prepared. But
[57:09] you look upro
>> I wrote that.
[57:13] » Um is there is there water usage on that
in that shop?
[57:17] » Yes.
>> What's now? So now you got four
[57:20] dwellings on one.
>> Yeah. What's that? A dwelling
[57:22] » or sorry sorry four buildings on one
well. So your garage that has a air
[57:28] compressor like your car that's for
>> it's considered a connection
[57:32] » if it's if if it's but if it's if it's
attached to the house it's not
[57:39] » at this point if if the province is
going to take the charge of of checking
[57:44] that the the well is sufficient to
supply another dwelling unit. I think
[57:49] that's all we need to worry about.
>> Yeah. So yeah, I I think it was really
[57:55] good information that we lacked we got
today and so on. I think I don't know if
[58:00] there is anything else. I think we could
close the hearing and have a discussion
[58:04] and make a decision in regard provided
we don't need more information. That's
[58:07] the only thing I want to make sure of is
we don't close the hearing thinking we
[58:11] need more information and have to do it
again. If we had
[58:14] » the hearing,
>> we could receive more information
[58:18] » and and I don't know if we I'm just
cautious that we don't we don't jump too
[58:22] quickly to deciding we have all the
information we need to make a decision.
[58:26] » I would like to know I would like to see
if we can actually
[58:29] » put make an agreement come into place
between them
[58:33] » or cost share on the well that's it's
binding.
[58:36] » That's I don't think we could do that.
But well,
[58:39] » I mean there's more information that we
could figure out legally do it right or
[58:44] do it correctly. Okay.
>> And probably Janice can help us here. We
[58:48] do as part of our responsibilities get
to say whether or not people need
[58:53] agreements, right?
>> And yes, have to make sure we're just
[58:56] following the proper protocol.
>> Yeah. That we say you have to have an an
[59:01] acceptable Yeah. So, one already exists
though. But yeah, again, and whether
[59:05] that's acceptable or not is is the
question, right? And again, we don't get
[59:09] to it's not up to us to review that, but
we get to require we get to require the
[59:14] legal document.
>> Yes.
[59:15] » Right. We get to require the legal
document for both a driveway uh a I
[59:19] guess current and and legal document.
What's the right term for
[59:24] » And we want to make sure we receive all
of the information.
[59:27] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I agree with
[59:32] that. again because again is it current
again this is the question
[59:35] » it's not current obviously
>> is it current and legal if you change
[59:38] the use of the land you made this as two
single as two single I I don't not
[59:43] looking for input from you guys just
asking my fellow counselors
[59:46] » whether that
>> because we're changing the use of the
[59:49] property from single fing from a single
dwelling to two dwellings
[59:54] » but in a case
>> do they own that what we're looking for
[59:58] I think is to ensure that those those
agreements ments are you know that we're
[1:00:04] going to make sure that they're
consistent though we've made that change
[1:00:08] » are those documents again how that is
applied so anyway just that's the
[1:00:12] concern so I'm again we're we're
requiring we're relying on the other
[1:00:18] entities to ensure that that the other
legal part
[1:00:23] » okay
any more question for
[1:00:27] » are you suggesting that we adjourn and
not close
[1:00:30] » I I'm actually looking time of year. I I
think adjourning is just laying things.
[1:00:35] » I mean, that's fine. I don't mind.
>> No, I think we could make a decision.
[1:00:38] There's no question about it's all with
the provin responsibility and so on. I
[1:00:43] mean,
>> yeah, they still have to do the testing.
[1:00:47] » Well, we can Yeah.
>> No, I I I think we should
[1:00:50] » You would not support the
>> I would support Randy and say we should
[1:00:53] » I'm not clear. No, I'm not I'm not
saying that. I I'm just asking those
[1:00:56] questions of council before we before we
make that decision. And I'm just I'm
[1:01:00] going to ask administration. Do you have
a view on whether we should adjourn or
[1:01:03] close?
>> This last this last
[1:01:08] uh clause in the well-shared agreement.
The right privileges and easements
[1:01:11] hereby grant and conferred upon granter
of the grantee are and shall be of the
[1:01:18] same force and effect to all intents and
purposes as a covenant running with the
[1:01:23] land to this grant of easement including
all covenants and conditions here and
[1:01:28] contained shall extend to be binding
upon. So to me it runs with the land.
[1:01:33] » But but but the land's changing is is
again I'm not I'm not the lawyer here.
[1:01:38] Sure. use of the land is changing. If
you built again I'm using the they sort
[1:01:43] of this is a caution is that if we had
approved a
[1:01:48] four-story multi-use development there
does that well agreement still stand if
[1:01:53] we'd approved a gas station there a car
wash
[1:01:56] » and that did the province will
not you guys it's up to office of
[1:02:01] drinking water which is the province
which is clause six which I'm asking to
[1:02:05] say
>> and that's
[1:02:07] and I played the I'll play the role as
the tenant that's beside that they're
[1:02:11] using my water take for example now if I
had to share the cost of the well and
[1:02:16] now now we have four or three party to
the share of the well so that's good
[1:02:22] because now if there is an improvement
to the well because the well failed in
[1:02:26] two years now I only have to share the
cost of the third of the cost because we
[1:02:30] have an agreement for three dwelling
>> anyway I we can leave it for the lawyers
[1:02:35] I think that the lawyers are the only
ones
[1:02:36] » so I would share it for sure because now
I know if I need a new well. I only pay
[1:02:40] the third of it because there's two
there's three dwelling on the well. So
[1:02:44] there's two side of the story. There's
the the tenant that a new request and
[1:02:50] the one who owns the well.
>> But that's not how it works though.
[1:02:55] » It's an agreement that they have to come
and that would be the agreement that I
[1:02:59] would have.
>> That's what it says. That's true.
[1:03:01] » Yeah. I think the clarification that's
needed for that document is does the
[1:03:07] original shared well agreement from 1990
take into consideration the
[1:03:13] intensification that is now going to
happen.
[1:03:16] » Yeah.
>> And I I'm not sure it does.
[1:03:19] » No,
>> I personally believe I personally don't
[1:03:22] believe that we as a council have the
right to change a well agreement
[1:03:28] » that is between the two parties.
>> That's right. We have an existing well
[1:03:31] agreement that's between the province
and the two parties and I just don't
[1:03:34] believe that we have the the right.
We're overstepping our bounds.
[1:03:38] » Yeah,
>> that's what
[1:03:40] » well with any intensification or lawyer
about a new I agreement.
[1:03:45] » I I just can't imagine I can't imagine
that extended or added usage is
[1:03:50] something that they have to agree on and
if it's a civil matter then they have to
[1:03:54] hire their own lawyers to take care of
that.
[1:03:58] Yeah.
Everybody knows well agreement.
[1:04:04] » I just don't believe we have any legal
right to
[1:04:06] » Yeah.
>> to force them to do anything.
[1:04:09] » But do you know or you just
>> I'm I'm I'm
[1:04:12] » You're not a lawyer though, right?
>> It doesn't matter. It It's Sometimes
[1:04:15] when you take a look at at contracts,
it's common sense.
[1:04:19] » Yeah.
>> And and it's common sense on that one.
[1:04:21] » Yep.
>> Yeah.
[1:04:24] And I I think if if we inquire with our
lawyer, I'll bet you any money that
[1:04:28] they'll tell us that we cannot
change a civil agreement.
[1:04:33] » We cannot we don't have the right and
with the clause that the government
[1:04:37] » well
>> I mean this is covering all they take
[1:04:40] responsibility. We're off the hook. It's
not for us to decide do they have good
[1:04:44] water? Did he use the neighbor?
>> Yeah.
[1:04:46] » I mean we want to protect the neighbors
and so on.
[1:04:49] » I think you read the understanding. I
mean, the the fact that you have an
[1:04:55] email from the neighbor saying they're
okay with it. It's an email. I have to
[1:05:00] believe that it's legit.
>> Text
[1:05:07] came back to I think between them, I
think there's a better relationship that
[1:05:11] we thought was there.
>> That's how I see it.
[1:05:18] » Yeah.
>> We maintain that. Yeah. So they're like,
[1:05:21] "Okay, well, I guess my your 50 bucks I
want every year, you're probably pay pay
[1:05:28] for the solar."
>> Yeah.
[1:05:30] » Yeah. And that's a like you said, it's a
matter between you guys and and she said
[1:05:35] or he whoever the the letter, the note
that we got, it sounds like you guys are
[1:05:40] going to come up with an agreement in
regard.
[1:05:42] » A lot of it was
>> the province will impose anyway the
[1:05:45] condition of the water and the supply of
the water. the province will state that
[1:05:49] and they don't have a choice. They can't
do it until the province said, "We're
[1:05:53] now you do this, you do that, you comply
to this, you go ahead."
[1:05:56] » Right. For me,
>> I looked it up for the annual cost for
[1:06:00] hydro for a well is between 35 and $90
per year.
[1:06:05] » Oh, there you go.
>> driveway. So, I think the relationship
[1:06:09] between them not having an an argument
is because I got in my driveway, you got
[1:06:14] my well. Okay. Mhm.
>> And that's it.
[1:06:18] » Average are running two hours per day.
>> Yeah. I just I just feel like that's
[1:06:22] that's an amendment issue between you
you two that has nothing to do with us.
[1:06:26] » We've been
>> Yeah.
[1:06:28] » Yeah.
>> I don't know.
[1:06:30] » So, I think we're going around again and
I don't think there is any question or
[1:06:34] update that we need to ask or we get
ready to close the hearing and go on to
[1:06:40] make a decision or
>> I would move that we close the hearing.
[1:06:43] I'll second that. Okay. S close. Second
by Stalwick. All in favor? Thank you.
[1:06:51] Then now we're going to make a decision
and get back to you. Uh
[1:06:58] okay,
[1:07:01] we're willing to make a decision now.
We're going to deal with it. You could
[1:07:05] wait and hear our discussion.
[1:07:10] Firstly, we had the variation order for
um reason subdivision.
[1:07:16] » I'll move that we approve the
variation order.
[1:07:21] » Second sir.
>> Okay. So this is moved by and second by
[1:07:27] Stalwick. That's to vary the
>> more discussion
[1:07:31] » to vary the minimum west sideyard
setback requirement from 25 ft to
[1:07:34] approximately 13 feet for the existing
deck and the minimum west sideyard
[1:07:37] requirement from 25 ft to approximately
9.9 ft for the existing shed as a
[1:07:42] condition of their subdivision
application for property located at
[1:07:45] 31086 road 43 north in the northeast
quarter of section 5 township range six
[1:07:51] in an areas zoned agriculture.
>> Perfect. Any more discussion on that
[1:07:56] one? Everybody else in favor and this
one is approved. Moving on to the
[1:08:01] second, the 1426.
[1:08:07] » I'll make a motion that we make those
amendments.
[1:08:09] » I'm going to read it. And
>> so the I've kind of drafted a whole
[1:08:13] bunch of stuff at the bottom there. So
we we might need to tailor it.
[1:08:16] » So that's the after the last four.
>> Essentially, well, what I'm hearing from
[1:08:20] council is we want to resend the
original resolution to be able to make
[1:08:23] changes. Correct.
>> Okay. So that's the first thing. Um so
[1:08:27] so uh where and whereas a notice of
motion was made by council stwick to
[1:08:32] reconsider resolution 2026450 respecting
the hearing decision for condition use
[1:08:37] number 17-26 made on August 12th 2026 be
it resolved that council and then you
[1:08:44] can skip to the resin the original
decision made by resolution 2026450 and
[1:08:50] the conditional use order 17-26B
approved with the following conditions.
[1:08:59] » So here um the use of the property be
for permanent residential use only
[1:09:03] unless otherwise permitted by the
municipality. Um so again the terms uh
[1:09:08] that was something that was included in
the first one but it was very restricted
[1:09:11] to only like Airbnb like can't be used
that which is it's basically saying the
[1:09:16] same thing just using broader language.
Um the second based on the conversations
[1:09:20] here, the municipality does need and
does have the right to impose a
[1:09:25] condition that all dwellings are
serviced by water, portable water. So
[1:09:30] here the property owner is responsible
for ensuring the necessary provisions
[1:09:32] are in place for portable water to
service the property, whatever that
[1:09:36] might be. Is that something that
council?
[1:09:38] » That's that's good wording. I like that.
Now, did we want to address that the
[1:09:43] property owner is um recommended to
update the shared well and driveway
[1:09:48] agreements or no?
>> So,
[1:09:50] » I don't think we need to.
>> Shared driveway agreement and shared
[1:09:53] well agreement in place are reviewed in
light of the intensification of the use
[1:09:57] to the satisfaction of all parties
involved.
[1:10:00] » I I think that's fair because now they
have
[1:10:03] » three properties on there being used.
>> Sounds like it's not a big deal. So
[1:10:06] they're
>> so the property owner is recommended to
[1:10:12] have the shared well uh shared driveway
agreement and shared well agreement in
[1:10:15] place reviewed. So that would be your
responsibility to start the conversation
[1:10:18] if that means talking to your neighbors.
>> You said recommend it. Whoa, whoa, whoa,
[1:10:21] whoa.
>> Correct. Yeah. So now, does council want
[1:10:23] to require or recommend? Because council
can require portable water be on the
[1:10:27] property, right? But again, I don't know
that the municipality.
[1:10:32] » We could only recommend.
>> We could only recommend.
[1:10:34] » I think they're already in conversations
with their neighbors.
[1:10:36] » I'm fine with recommend.
>> Yeah, I just recommend.
[1:10:39] » And and and these these people here, I
apologize,
[1:10:42] » are they already are okay with it. If
the other if the other party
[1:10:47] » if the other party has an issue with it,
they're the one that have to initiate.
[1:10:50] » Yeah.
>> And all we do is recommend
[1:10:52] » not a requirement at that anyway.
>> Yeah. Which you're already in
[1:10:55] discussions with him anyways. Clearly
text. So
[1:10:58] » all
>> and then the other two conditions I
[1:11:00] believe were in the original. So the
applicant's responsible for ensuring the
[1:11:03] secondary suite is situated and designed
with a driveway that allows reasonable
[1:11:06] access for emergency vehicles and
services. And finally, the applicant is
[1:11:10] responsible for being in full compliance
with the requirements of all federal,
[1:11:13] provincial, and municipal authorities at
all times, including obtaining any
[1:11:17] required permits, approvals, and
achieving building code compliance. That
[1:11:20] would include the well, the water um
satisfying office of the drinking water,
[1:11:24] manageable environment, and conservation
for the wastewater, um any other kind of
[1:11:29] manageable hydro requirements for the
electricity. That covers everything that
[1:11:32] they might need from other jurisdictions
as well as our own. Okay.
[1:11:39] I would
>> you move that to Judg
[1:11:43] by Stalwick.
I already moved it.
[1:11:47] » Oh, you already moved it. Yeah, it's
he's
[1:11:49] » then you second.
>> Sure.
[1:11:50] » So Stalwick moves a second. Any more
question then? Seeing none, everybody's
[1:11:57] in favor then Carrie.
>> So then you got your request. Thank you.
[1:12:04] » Thanks for coming in you guys.
>> For sure. Randy.
[1:12:07] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:12:09] » Evan's going to pop by. Absolutely.
Okay. Yeah. Um,
[1:12:14] » yes. [clears throat]
>> All right. So, I think that was the last
[1:12:18] of the Do we want to join the meeting or
not?
[1:12:21] » I just want to bring something to
council's attention after
[1:12:23] » and I wanted to just further discussion
as well
[1:12:26] » in the meeting. Well, I just about this
issue just I would
[1:12:30] » during the live streamed meeting or as
an aside because
[1:12:33] » an aside I don't need like it's not
doesn't require a vote or anything.
[1:12:36] » We close the meeting or turn second
whatever you call it. So including
[1:12:42] second by I