[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

Council Meeting - September 9, 2026

Transcript