[0:03] like to call this meeting to order.
Welcome here everyone. At this moment, I
[0:08] would like to give the opening to
councelor Michael Sw.
[0:11] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of council
will likely recall that at the last
[0:16] council meeting, councelor Semons noted
that he was giving his last opening at a
[0:20] council meeting. Well, I'm in a similar
situation since this will be also my
[0:25] last time that I give the opening at a
council meeting. And since this is my
[0:30] last opening, I felt it was appropriate
to share some general reflections about
[0:35] municipal politics and good city
governance, I don't plan to get in into
[0:40] anything too personal at this point
because I'll likely share some thoughts
[0:43] at the final council meeting in October.
In addition, we still have several
[0:48] meetings to go before this council term
ends, and I don't believe in saying
[0:52] goodbye until it's actually time to say
goodbye. Plus, I still have until
[0:56] September 22nd to get my nomination
paper in, if I suddenly change my mind
[1:00] about the whole provincial politics
thing. I've been on part of council now
[1:05] for five council terms, which means that
I've been on city council for 20 years.
[1:10] Well, 20 years is far from a
record-breaking length of time to serve
[1:14] on council is definitely longer than
average. And being on council for 20
[1:19] years has given me a unique opportunity
to see the inner workings of our city.
[1:24] As a result, I think it's appropriate
for me to shed some light on some
[1:29] things. However, if you're hoping that
I'm going to reveal some deep dark
[1:34] secret about our city governance or
expose the hidden corruption at the
[1:38] highest levels or reveal that all
members of council are actually
[1:42] Freemasons who are in the pocket of
George Soros and helping to bring in a
[1:46] one world government, you're going to be
sorely disappointed.
[1:50] So, the first thing I've noticed is that
we have an absolutely fantastic staff
[1:55] here in the city of Steinbeck. Now, I
know it's expected for politicians to
[2:00] say nice things about their staff, but
in this case, I mean it quite sincerely.
[2:05] Our staff members are highly
professional and they do a great job of
[2:10] getting council members the information
that we need to make good decisions.
[2:14] I'll never forget a council meeting
several years ago when I was in the
[2:18] mayor's chair and we had an applicant
during a public hearing who happened not
[2:23] to be from this area was trying to get
support for his project. And now in his
[2:28] report to us, city manager Troy
Workington had highlighted some concerns
[2:32] that staff had about the proposal. And
in a poorly thoughtout attempt to get
[2:38] buy in from council, the applicant urged
us during the hearing to ignore what the
[2:43] bureaucrats were saying and just go with
our judgment instead. And I remember
[2:48] shooting right back at this applicant
that in Steinbeck we don't call our
[2:52] staff members bureaucrats. We regard
them as professionals. So, on behalf of
[2:56] all of us in council, I want to say
thank you to our staff for all the
[3:00] incredible work that you do on a
day-to-day basis for us. A second thing
[3:06] I want to note is that our council
meetings, and this is over the 20 years
[3:10] I've been on council, are run well. I've
served with two outstanding mayors, and
[3:16] one thing that Mayor Girtson and Mayor
Funk have in common is they both know
[3:20] the importance of keeping council
meetings focused and on topic. As a
[3:24] result, our public council meetings
typically last only about an hour or so
[3:30] with the exception of when we have a
contentious public hearing. And that is
[3:34] fine. That's because there's nothing
inherently noble about having lengthier
[3:39] meetings. Longer doesn't necessarily
mean better. I'm proud of how well our
[3:44] meetings are run, how respectful we are
to each other during a debate, and how
[3:50] professional we look during the meeting.
And it's too bad that more people don't
[3:54] check out the YouTube videos of our
council meetings because I think there's
[3:58] value in them and I'm quite proud to
showcase the way that we do things in
[4:01] our city. Finally, I'm pleased that our
city over the years has remained focused
[4:06] on areas that legitimately fall within
municipal jurisdiction. We really do
[4:12] focus on basic infrastructure, on police
and fire protection, and on recreation
[4:18] projects for our community.
I'm proud that we don't spend our time
[4:22] making symbolic climate emergency
declarations or issue a different
[4:27] proclamation for a new cause every week
or raise multiple flags in front of city
[4:31] hall. Instead, we keep focused on the
basics and that helps to keep our city
[4:37] great. As I mentioned at the outset,
this council term is not quite done, so
[4:41] this is not goodbye. We've got a lot of
work left to do, starting with the
[4:45] public hearings that we have coming
right up. So, let's get to it. Thank
[4:49] you, Mr. Mayor,
>> thank you. Councelor Swagstra,
[4:54] uh, council, we have the agenda in front
of us. Looking for a motion to adopt.
[4:59] Councelor Heert, second by councelor
Penner. Call for the question. All in
[5:03] favor? Oppose? That is carried. Council,
we have the minutes of August 18th,
[5:08] 2026, the regular council meeting. They
start on page one. We've all had a
[5:13] chance to review. Looking for a motion
to approve. Councelor Heert, second by
[5:17] councelor Seammens. Uh, call for the
question. All in favor?
[5:21] » I was missing from that meeting. I don't
think it was extended.
[5:23] » We were gonna I'll get that right right
away.
[5:27] » Okay. Yeah. Call for the question. All
in favor? Post that is carried.
[5:32] » Are there any business rising from the
minutes?
[5:36] » Motion to excuse Penner from that
meeting. Yeah, we will uh I have a note
[5:41] here to excuse councelor Susan Penner
from the August 18th council meeting
[5:46] » and
>> and also we'll excuse councelor Damian
[5:49] Penner from today's meeting as well. So
call for the questionot.
[5:54] » I mean uh motion motion to approve.
>> Councelor Heert, second by councelor
[5:58] Heert. Call for the question. All those
in favor
[6:02] that council will move directly into the
public hearings. We've got 6A. This is
[6:09] the reasonzoning bylaw 2285. This is
referring [clears throat] to 58 Geese
[6:15] Street. At this time, council, I will
close the council meeting, open the
[6:20] public hearing, and Mr. Warine, could
you please introduce this file?
[6:26] » Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, zoning
bylaw 2285 uh for property with a civic
[6:32] address of 58 East Geese Street. Uh, is
being applied for by Jordan Loen with
[6:36] the owner of the property being 3XL
Holdings, LTD. Uh purpose of bylaw 2285
[6:43] uh is to reszone the subject property
from RLD residential low density to RMD
[6:48] residential medium density to permit a
multif family development to be
[6:51] constructed. Notices as are required
under the planning act have been issued.
[6:56] There is one item of correspondence on
file a copy of which was given to
[7:00] council in their mail bins earlier
today. Um in addition to that, community
[7:06] planning office indicates that uh there
are no provincial concerns identified
[7:11] with this application. Um the uh subject
property is a double lot and it
[7:17] presently contains a single uh unit
dwelling structure. The applicant
[7:21] proposes uh as was mentioned to develop
a a two-story 12-unit multi-unit
[7:26] residential structure on the site. Uh
the adjacent land parcel to the west of
[7:31] the subject property is also zoned RMD.
Uh the uh proposal would also be subject
[7:37] to the city's infill policy.
Recommendation from administration is
[7:41] for council to approve second reading to
this bylaw subject to a development
[7:44] agreement and subject to any new
evidence that may be provided at this
[7:47] public hearing.
>> Thank you, Mr. Wardine. Um is the
[7:51] applicant here today?
>> Yeah.
[7:53] » Do you wish to speak?
Okay,
[7:57] » just uh take the podium, get your
[clears throat] name and address and um
[8:01] then continue.
>> Good evening. My name's uh Jordan Lohan.
[8:06] I live at Triple 4 Hler Street South in
Steinbeck. Uh bought this property, got
[8:11] possession this year. Uh thought it was
a good uh property to add some density
[8:17] to our kind of inner mile of Steinbeck
that's regoing a lot of rework. the
[8:23] properties towards its end of its life
cycle
[8:26] um
uh with the large lot uh and only going
[8:32] two stories for RMD which allows three
stories. I thought it could fit with the
[8:36] neighborhood uh I counted 13 RMD lots uh
within a block and a half uh of infill.
[8:44] So that's down First Street the corner
of Ellis and Geese. There's a couple
[8:48] other ones before you get to Wood Haven.
Um I have a site plan that's uh meets
[8:54] all the requirements of uh issuing a
permit I suppose uh site uh setbacks
[9:01] required parking dumpster recycling
landscaping buffering I'll have to get a
[9:06] lock rating plan to address all the
drainage of course um yeah I think it it
[9:11] is a good fit and fits with the
direction the city wants to go with
[9:15] revitalizing some of the older areas so
>> okay thank you councel Any questions for
[9:21] the applicant?
I see none at this time. So, um, we'll
[9:27] probably call you up later on for sure.
Okay.
[9:30] Is there anyone here with comments,
questions, or objections to this file?
[9:37] Okay. Yeah. Take the podium.
Yeah. And again, I'll I'll have it just
[9:43] state your name and your address because
everything's recorded and then you can
[9:47] go ahead.
>> Okay. Um, we're Christa and Ryan Vote.
[9:52] Um, we live at 17 Westview Place. Um,
our property is directly affected by the
[9:59] proposed development at 58 GB Street.
Um, we've lived there since 2013. It's
[10:06] been uh pretty much an open field in the
back. There's uh Swift and all that
[10:11] stuff there. where the like depending
how far this is going to be set back.
[10:16] This is going to be directly in our
backyard.
[10:20] There's mature trees back there. It's a
beautiful setting.
[10:24] Uh we're worried about privacy.
Uh we're worried about the lights. We're
[10:29] worried about people cutting through our
properties to get to their places. I
[10:34] mean, people already cut through there
now. Um there's also concerns of
[10:39] flooding. Gizrect already can't handle
large rain, large flooding. So, how much
[10:46] more runoff is this going to make for
our properties?
[10:50] Um, yeah, it's just like we're directly
affected. Like, depending how far back
[10:55] this thing is going to be built, um,
it's going to be pretty much right in
[10:59] our backyard.
[11:03] So, and what's that going to do to the
prop like for our property value for
[11:07] resale if we want to put our house up
for sale in in a few years? I mean, I
[11:13] definitely would think before, you know,
having 12 units looking into my
[11:19] backyard.
I mean, like I'm all for, you know,
[11:25] increasing, you know, homes in Steinback
and that kind of stuff, but I think it
[11:30] needs to take consideration. Like for
West View Place, depending how far back
[11:34] they put this, we're going to have, you
know, traffic, we're going to have
[11:39] noise, we're going to have lights, we're
going to have different people. The
[11:43] other question I have is, "Love the
lights going up at the corner of Geese
[11:49] Breton and 52." Great idea. There's
going to be no lefthand turns going into
[11:54] Tim Hortons, right in the mornings. What
is this? What's going to happen when we
[12:01] have all these apartments and people
trying to leave their places and all the
[12:04] people that go to that Tim Hortons are
now going to be using Geese and First
[12:08] Street to go to Tim Hortons. There's
going to be such a lineup there.
[12:14] Okay. So then I mean that just comes
down to traffic concerns. Um
[12:19] » yeah, but I mean I mean you're putting
>> we have like we're working on that.
[12:23] We're we are talking with the Tim
Hortons. They they do have to make sure
[12:28] they can
>> age everyone on their lot.
[12:31] » Really? I mean that's probably you know
that's that's a later concern. But this
[12:35] is this is going to be like
>> like depending how far back it is and if
[12:40] I'm correct,
>> they're going to be taking down the
[12:43] house and the trees and setting it back
and then we're it's it's going to be
[12:48] pretty much right in my backyard.
>> Okay.
[12:53] » Mr. Mayor,
>> you have to come to the podium.
[12:57] » Come to the podium. Sorry.
>> No, I was just taped, right?
[13:00] » Yeah.
>> We can't hear you from where you were
[13:02] talking.
>> Yeah. Uh yeah, my name's Ryan Vote and I
[13:04] was just going to mention because
there's also going to be that other
[13:06] complex that's probably going to be
going forward in that back field. So, um
[13:11] we're just adding a lot more uh traffic
to that area. Um
[13:17] we've we heard rumor that they were
going to open up L 252,
[13:22] which uh which would relieve some of the
the congestion there. So this will be
[13:28] because the property on Lond was just
approved to build their three-story one.
[13:33] So that's already going to be back
there. And then we're if they set this
[13:36] one further back, we've got two
apartment buildings pretty much into
[13:40] everyone's backyards on Westview Place.
>> Okay,
[13:44] » Mr. Mayor.
>> Yes.
[13:46] » Are they Is this not going on lot 58?
That is So that does not line up with
[13:51] Westview Place
on the map. So this is a property 58
[13:56] where this proposed project is going.
>> Yeah, we're right on the corner
[14:00] » and 58 is we're right on the corner.
>> Yeah, this
[14:04] backyard
>> 62
[14:05] » 62 and then 58
>> not right backyard but I mean it's
[14:09] enough like I already have lights
shining into my place from Swift.
[14:13] » Yeah,
>> already had to deal with that. I I'm
[14:17] like
>> especially if it's a two
[14:19] » Okay, it's better that at least it's a
twotory and not a threetory that I was
[14:23] concerned about. Yeah, that that part is
better. Just concerned with how far back
[14:27] like where I I didn't get a good picture
of it, but like is the parking lot going
[14:33] to be in the back or the front?
[14:38] » Yeah. Um, excuse me. I I'll I'll speak
because I got a mic. Yeah, the parking
[14:43] lot will be in the front. That That's
what's showing. But there will be all
[14:47] the setbacks like all like all
everything's going to be observed.
[14:51] There'll be no variances needed for this
build. So it'll be it'll be 25 ft from
[14:57] the property line in the back, right?
Just like is what's required. Okay. So
[15:02] So that's that that is that is going to
be so it's not going to be right at the
[15:07] back of the property. It won't be in
your backyard because you do have a
[15:11] property between you and this one.
>> Okay. But are those trees and all that's
[15:17] grown up there going to come down?
Well, norm any anytime that like this
[15:24] will come out in the development
agreement. Anytime this happens,
[15:28] there'll be plantings that have to be
put in. So, there will have if trees
[15:32] come down that does sometimes happen.
Yes. But trees will also be planted as
[15:36] well. So, so that there's a there's a a
minimum amount of planting that has to
[15:43] happen with every development and that's
in development agreement. Am I correct
[15:46] about that? Uh, Mr. working.
>> Uh there are certain requirements. Uh if
[15:52] it's uh street edge landscaping, yes,
there are requirements in the city
[15:56] zoning bylaw. However, for any existing
uh vegetation that is on the site, that
[16:01] is uh up to the developer to determine
what that landscaping plan will entail.
[16:08] » Okay. Thank you.
>> And then the drainage that never got
[16:12] addressed either.
>> Okay. Well, drainage. Okay. So in
[16:15] development agreement,
every property as you as you redevelop
[16:20] it, you have to deal with all your water
on that property. It can't put any water
[16:26] onto like any more water than already is
going onto your property. It can't go
[16:30] anymore. So this will this will actually
most of the time infill uh developments
[16:37] like this they actually improve drainage
because there's like right now there's
[16:43] no there's nothing stopping this water
from running into the swale but now this
[16:48] developer will have to come up with a
development in the in agreement and he
[16:53] will have a drainage plan that will take
care of the the the water on site. So he
[17:00] yeah he can't go dumping water into
unless there's a unless there's a
[17:05] designated swale for everyone to drain
into.
[17:08] » Okay. So it's not like it would be
there'd be drainage like specifically
[17:12] for rain going right onto the street.
>> Right. He can't put his he can't put his
[17:16] down spouts into the neighbor's yard.
>> Right. He's got to take care of his
[17:19] water on his site.
>> Yeah. No, it's just cuz Yeah. Like she
[17:23] said, the main concern is geese floods
all the time. when we get heavy rain and
[17:27] all that kind of stuff like we already
have to watch
[17:30] » our our crawl space or our
>> what is thank you basement and stuff so
[17:35] and make sure the pump is working so you
know what are 12 more units going to
[17:40] » I mean that's valid but but in the
development agreement they have to the
[17:44] drainage will be taken care of for this
property
[17:47] » okay
>> yeah okay in the in development
[17:48] agreement but they're valid valid
concerns drainage is a valid concern all
[17:53] the time because we are so flat
But but that uh that that will be worked
[17:58] on with our city staff.
>> All right.
[18:00] » All right. Thank you.
[18:05] » Is there anyone else?
>> Okay. Go ahead.
[18:16] » My name is George WZ. I'm a resident of
30 GB for many years. Um my concern
[18:24] would be very much the same would be
would be water on the street and uh you
[18:31] did mention that the every developer is
looks after their water on their
[18:35] property [clears throat] but what
happens to the water that comes off the
[18:39] paved lot
that I've noticed that over the years
[18:43] like you guys have done a wonderful job
over the years because we've been there
[18:48] a long time uh and that ditch beside us.
We have a a drainage ditch beside us run
[18:54] running to the 52 that has been improved
greatly over the years. However, it is
[18:59] to the point where something has to be
done because there's more and more water
[19:05] accumulating on the street right in that
pocket. So I am very very concerned
[19:11] about that water
and I think this this any of these
[19:17] developments which with paved parking
lots
[19:22] the developer can't control that water
and that's going to run onto the street.
[19:27] Gizburg is already
uh basically
[19:32] almost a river in a heavy rainstorm.
So, I would I would urge you to take a
[19:40] serious look at at some other solution
to that to that problem of that
[19:46] accumulating water there because the
that ditch just does not keep up. And
[19:51] you have you have another development
kitty corner to us coming up. That
[19:57] development's driveway is going to be
right in the center of that pool of
[20:02] water. And you're going to have some
very very upset people when once that
[20:06] development is up and they're trying to
leave their property and they won't be
[20:10] able to because cars are stalling out
left, right, and center in that pool of
[20:14] water. So I would urge you to to take a
serious look at that.
[20:20] » Well, at the at the time of development
of that lot, there will be a development
[20:24] agreement and drainage will be addressed
at that time with that lot. So, so
[20:29] » well that lot that lot has already been
approved.
[20:33] » Yes, but the it's been approved but the
the has there been work done on it
[20:39] already?
>> Yes.
[20:39] » Okay. Well, then there's there'll be a
there'll be a drainage plan that's tied
[20:44] to that permit.
>> Okay.
[20:46] » Okay. So that that will that drainage
plan will will be uh will have to be
[20:52] executed executed by the developer and
that will will that should most likely
[21:00] make that that area that drainage
better. Like I'm not a I'm not an
[21:04] engineer. I'm not a like I don't look at
like I don't know how to necessarily
[21:09] drain water other than your drainage the
lowest spot.
[21:12] » But but our engineers work with the
developers. They look at each piece of
[21:16] land and they they do make the drainage
better when those properties are are
[21:21] filled in. Back back in the day when
Greece geese was built there that would
[21:27] have predated development plans that
would have been predated uh drainage
[21:32] plans and that's that but now as we're
developing we're in we're improving
[21:37] those drainage plans.
>> So
[21:39] » when you look at that a lot of times
infill development improves the
[21:43] drainage. Mhm. Well, I I I again I I
just want to stress that this needs to
[21:49] really be seriously looked at.
>> Thank you.
[21:51] » Yep. The other concern I would have like
someone else here mentioned is is
[21:56] traffic. Um yes, there's lights going up
there which are going to help. Uh, but
[22:03] Gizbrebrick is kind of a main artery out
of that whole area of of Steinbeck. And
[22:09] I'm just wondering if there isn't a
possibility of opening up some other
[22:14] arteries. I think the property right
beside Lond is actually a street, is it
[22:20] not? Lond Lond.
[22:25] Um where we Well, we're not actually we
need to focus on this this uh this
[22:32] hearing right now. We're talking about
58 East, right?
[22:35] » Yes, we are.
>> And and so you have you have traffic
[22:38] concerns.
>> Yes.
[22:40] » And that's good. I I to start guessing
where what's going to happen with L
[22:48] where that's going to be what what kind
of drainage plans going to be for that
[22:51] for lot 81 and 80 as they develop. I
don't I don't want to get into that. We
[22:56] want to focus on
>> geese
[22:59] » 58 greet. That's what we're talking
about today.
[23:02] » Thank you.
>> And and yes, the traffic is directly
[23:07] affected though like
>> so that is that is the is the second
[23:11] concern I have.
>> Okay.
[23:15] » Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
[23:23] » Any anyone else? Go ahead. Yeah.
>> Hi. Uh Trevor Newfeld. I live at 316
[23:30] McKenzie in Steinbeck here. And um I ju
I was just uh just had a few thoughts
[23:36] and questions, concerns I guess about
this property. um uh the the previous
[23:42] man who was uh speaking here, I believe
that the the connection for him, I
[23:47] realize he was uh maybe speaking about
another property, but his wisdom of see
[23:54] his idea about the opinions addresses uh
of of different places, I should say, um
[24:00] rather than just possibly putting this
addition or this building on this
[24:04] property would sort of address um city
planning as opposed to developer for
[24:10] setting up an opportunity to earn extra
income. And I guess that is uh is is I
[24:16] think that's a valid question um for
this and and others as well. Does the
[24:22] city have a plan um instead of infill
that would be more appropriate and less
[24:28] damaging potentially for the immediate
residents? That could also gain um uh
[24:35] the amount of people that you want to
bring in, the tax increases, the
[24:40] revenue, the business uh business, what
potential all that. Um, one thing I had
[24:46] heard the developer talking about was um
I may have mis I may have misunderstood
[24:52] but end of he saying it has sort of
reached its end of life um home. I I I'm
[24:58] not sure about clarification on that.
We're living in a beautiful home built
[25:02] in 1943. That home is a lot newer than
our home. Not saying that every home has
[25:07] been built at the same quality, but
unless I misunderstood, I don't think a
[25:11] home is at It's like a car. it will keep
working till you stop fixing it. U so to
[25:16] say that a home is at the end of its
life, if I understood that correctly, is
[25:21] I think it's very inaccurate. It's
opportunistic. Um I get that. Um the
[25:27] fact that there's an open lot beside it
as well. Um, I would imagine that like
[25:32] if you're replacing one family with 12
families or 20 or 24, I mean in this
[25:39] case 12, but in in any situation,
why that many to replace one residential
[25:46] property
of one family with 12 families and
[25:51] that's small compared to what some are
that are being done. That's huge for the
[25:57] residents. So for these these folks and
others who probably are too scared to
[26:01] come up here and talk I I think that um
it's not maybe necessarily we can say
[26:06] it's not right in their backyard uh or
as it was said it's maybe adjacent or
[26:13] whatever. I didn't didn't look at the
map on that. But I mean, imagine for all
[26:17] of for all of you if I could get each
one of your addresses and use AI to put
[26:23] a 24 12plex, 20 plex, whatever on your
neighbor's property,
[26:30] it becomes personal and it's not
personal for me to say that because any
[26:34] well, it's not any more personal that
way than for um this to be approached to
[26:40] them, right? So, I mean, you you
>> [laughter]
[26:43] » Every single one of us can potentially
with the idea of let's go with
[26:48] development, we can all potentially if
we don't respect the the zoning that is
[26:53] already in place and use future planning
city planning to go whoa he has a point.
[27:01] Maybe we can use future areas like I've
seen in some cities they have a
[27:06] beautiful zone of residential like low
low density and they keep it that way.
[27:10] Then they have right maybe next to it
they've got different levels. So that's
[27:14] that's a thought. Um in this case why
not build a duplex or if if they want to
[27:21] develop develop a property on a home on
each property. That'll bring in much
[27:25] more income. Not as much as a 12plex but
a lot of the rent people who are going
[27:30] to rent these 12plexes also potentially
long term aren't going to look after it
[27:35] necessarily as well. We've seen that in
other places and even some of them along
[27:40] McKenzie that have been built in the
last few years. There's a whole run of
[27:43] them there. Will you support homeowners,
counselors and mayor and deputy mayor,
[27:48] will you support homeowners that have
been paying very good tax money already?
[27:54] Um, and think about that in the infill
opportunities that will be presented and
[28:01] are being presented. Would you enjoy or
accept this in yours? Um
[28:06] uh why would the developers not maybe
first go and try to choose lots that are
[28:13] available? I've checked there are some
that are available for this exact type
[28:18] of thing. I'm not sure. I think it's
less expensive maybe for the developer
[28:23] to do it here as opposed to others. I'm
not sure. Um makes sense maybe. Um tree
[28:30] replacement. I said a clarification
question on your um because you said
[28:35] something about if trees are going to be
cut down they will be replaced.
[28:38] Fantastic. 100 million% support that.
But if we look at precedents
[28:44] um McKenzie down um a massive forest was
taken down. I don't know how many 12 24
[28:53] plexes are in there right now. Literally
from one balcony to the next. They can
[28:58] almost reach over and shake hands. I'm
exaggerating, but it's extremely close.
[29:03] And some may don't mind living there,
and that's that's fine, but a massive
[29:07] force was taken down for that. I was
really hoping to see some sort of um
[29:12] activities, you know. So, I know I'm
getting off topic, but that is just to
[29:16] address that issue. Where will those
trees be planted? How many were taken
[29:21] down? And where will those be replanted?
Um, yeah, I guess that's all I have to
[29:26] say for now.
>> Thank you.
[29:32] Go ahead.
[29:37] Um, my name is Hannah. We live at 54 GB
Street, which is right beside this
[29:41] property. Um, oh,
went sideways. Um, we just bought this
[29:48] property a year ago. And one of the
things we really loved was all the trees
[29:53] right beside and most of them are in our
neighbor's yard, um, which we don't have
[29:57] any control over. Um, so one of my
concerns is with this development coming
[30:01] in, I realize a lot of these trees are
probably going to get cut down and a lot
[30:05] of that privacy between our two
properties is going to disappear. Um, is
[30:11] I granted that I'm assuming this
apartment is going to take up most of
[30:14] the width of the property. Is there
plans to put a fence up or anything for
[30:18] privacy between the yards?
>> Okay.
[30:21] Uh, we'll have the developer come back
and answer these questions. Uh, I'm I'm
[30:25] making notes.
>> Perfect. Uh, so that's question one. Um,
[30:30] question two is there is, uh, you can
see on the property there is a tree that
[30:33] is on our yard, but it is sticking over
into theirs. Um, so I'm worried that as
[30:38] they're, uh, building some of that tree
will get, um, trimmed, and I'm not sure
[30:45] how well that tree will survive. Um,
so yeah, I guess my concern is that tree
[30:50] would from our property would be damaged
from the development.
[30:56] Um,
and I guess my last question is, um, if
[31:02] this does go through, how soon would it
get built? Um, just curiosity of, yeah,
[31:08] we have, we have a newborn, so just want
to know when we can expect a lot of
[31:12] noise right beside us. Um, I think
that's all I have. Thank you.
[31:17] » Thank you.
[31:24] » Okay. Is there anyone else with
comments, questions, or objections?
[31:29] Okay, I'll ask the developer if you did
you want to come and answer some of
[31:34] those questions.
If you uh I don't know if you you I saw
[31:38] you taking notes, too, but uh I also
have some notes. If you uh
[31:44] » I'll run through them and see if we can
tick as many boxes as we can here um to
[31:49] the votes. Um yeah, you were wondering
about setback. It'll be 25 ft from the
[31:54] rear. That's as close as we can go.
[clears throat]
[31:58] As far as trees,
existing part of the allure of infill is
[32:05] the existing trees. If we can keep the
trees, that's great. That's part of the
[32:10] reason this makes sense. Um, the other
reason, uh, Mr. Newfeld, right? Um, you
[32:16] said it's it's cheaper. It depends a
little bit on it. Like going and buying
[32:21] a new RMD lot, going three stories new
bare land in a field. It can be cheaper.
[32:28] It can be more expensive. It depends a
bit on the density and the price of the
[32:31] lot. But in general, because I'm not
going three stories, I can't put as many
[32:36] doors on this. It probably is more
expensive than going and buying an empty
[32:41] lot. Um, but the advantage, the reason
that I would do it or do do it is
[32:47] because, um, I talked to one of the
owners of Swift and he's got a guy that
[32:52] rents down First Street and like the
walkability. Um, home ownership's
[32:57] getting tougher and tougher. People need
a place to live and rent. So to have,
[33:02] you know, a couple hundred jobs down the
road at at rest haven nursing home
[33:05] that's walkable, Swift, Loen, our
biggest employer in Steinach, to be
[33:10] within walking and biking distance to
work. That's part of the reason these
[33:14] infills work. And when you go down Wood
Haven further or McKenzie West, you get
[33:20] a little further from the industry,
which then makes people drive, which
[33:24] makes them, you know, less desirable to
some people if they don't have cars.
[33:29] » [gasps]
>> Um, so 25 ft. We'll try to keep as many
[33:33] trees. One, it costs money to cut trees
down and haul them away. And two, we
[33:38] want more trees. They're good. They help
uh and the less trees I then have to
[33:43] plant as well because you get credit for
existing trees if they stay. Um
[33:49] part of a development agreement is
uh if a residential medium density
[33:55] property gets developed next to single
or low density, you have to fence the
[34:00] property line. So there will be a fence
around the property if you're worried
[34:04] about cutting. Um it'll be fenced.
Um the flooding concerns um just so you
[34:12] know um I have to pay an engineer, a
civil engineer to develop a plan. They
[34:18] come and survey it and there's something
called runoff coefficients and when it
[34:23] rains, think of the property more like
uh a bucket that you poke a pen through.
[34:30] It's a metered amount that's allowed to
come onto a street or into a ditch. It's
[34:35] not like a plate where it can all just
spill off the parking lot. So that's
[34:38] part of applying for a permit and
getting a development. So I wouldn't
[34:43] know this for sure, but right now the
way it is, it can just run off where it
[34:47] wants. I would suspect that once there's
a plan in place, it will actually
[34:51] release less water as quickly into the
city right away [clears throat] than it
[34:57] does now. That would be my guess because
you're only allowed to release so much.
[35:02] Um, you were concerned about light
spillage. Uh there is a bylaw actually
[35:07] for light spillage in parking lot
lighting. Um LED lights are endlessly
[35:12] penetrating now. So if it's exterior
lighting, it's supposed to be shielded
[35:16] in parking lots. And then the pot lights
that might go in a set or on a balcony
[35:21] should be downward. So
um traffic lights are going up should be
[35:28] ready this fall which helps. Uh Mr. W
you talked about uh street and yeah the
[35:35] road is a designated a collector itself
it's it's supposed to be able to handle
[35:40] this now whether it does or parking or
the traffic and Tim Hortons that's
[35:45] probably outside my control but the
actual street itself is designated as a
[35:50] collector street. Um
that's the majority of um Hannah right
[35:58] um you moved in a year ago. We're going
to fence it. I if that tree is like
[36:05] until it's staked out, we don't know for
sure. But if I can keep it, the building
[36:09] is set back from the property line 6 ft,
6 or 8 ft, I forget exactly. So, the
[36:16] satellite may not get exact line of
sight over top where it is, but we may
[36:20] have to prune some of the branches on
our side, but we would do everything we
[36:23] can to to keep the tree for sure. And uh
if this does go ahead, I do the building
[36:29] and contracting too. So I'll give you my
cell number. And uh if you ever have
[36:33] concerns or you know depending on nap
schedule, I've had four kids. I know
[36:37] that that that can be a thing that you
know we'll there's also noise bylaws for
[36:43] how early we can start and stuff. So
I'll give you my number. We can figure
[36:47] out and if there's concerns you can call
or text me anytime.
[36:52] » I think that's most I don't know
>> a timeline. I know it's going to take
[36:56] » Oh yeah, it for sure won't be. It for
sure won't be this year. Soonest would
[37:00] be after road restrictions next year. So
June, that'd be like the absolute
[37:05] soonest it would happen. So
>> thank you.
[37:13] Uh I will before I close the public
hearing ask one more time, is there
[37:16] anyone else with comments, questions or
objection to this file?
[37:21] Okay, seeing none, I will close the
public hearing. Open the council
[37:25] meeting. Council, how would you like to
proceed?
[37:29] » Council Speaker.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll make a motion
[37:32] to approve.
>> Second by councelor Heert. Go ahead,
[37:35] Councelor Special.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to
[37:38] thank the applicant for uh presenting
the plans clearly and also neighbors and
[37:42] other residents for coming out and uh
and expressing their their thoughts and
[37:47] asking questions. Uh whenever we look at
a potential resoning like this, we have
[37:52] a public hearing like what we're doing
now where we hear the information that's
[37:55] presented and we do our best to come uh
to a decision. Uh in this case here,
[38:00] there are a number of factors that point
in favor of allowing the reszoning. Uh
[38:04] one of those is that um uh there is
already uh a property right behind it
[38:08] that is currently zoned uh residential
medium density. So, uh, the fact that
[38:13] this is right beside that that, uh, it's
not it's not that uncommon at all to
[38:18] have one residential property be a
medium density property beside another.
[38:23] Uh, the chain, this is a large lot, uh,
much larger than your typical, you know,
[38:29] single lot that you're going to see
built uh, happen now in Steinach. And
[38:34] so, this large lot will now have 12
units. Uh on the face of it, going from
[38:39] 1 to 12 sounds like a lot, but in the
world of medium density, it's actually
[38:43] not a massive increase, especially when
you consider the size of the lot. It's
[38:46] only going to be twotory, which frankly
many houses are two stories. And so, um
[38:53] you got 12 units on a large lot. That is
not uncommon for a residential medium
[38:58] density. Um as far as the question that
was raised regarding traffic, uh well,
[39:03] what would the impact be? Well, my
estimate would be that if you have 12
[39:06] units, you'd probably have 12 cars. Um,
so maybe 12 extra cars per day. Is that
[39:13] likely to have a massive impact on
Gizburg Street? No. I mean, there's a
[39:17] lot of traffic on Gizburg Street. A lot
of people driving through Gizburg
[39:20] Street. Frankly, with a lot of collector
streets, the main traffic isn't actually
[39:23] from the people who live right there.
It's the traffic from all the people
[39:26] that are trying to get from one place to
the other that are going through there.
[39:30] And obviously we know that there are
issues in the area. That's why we've
[39:34] been lobbying the province for years to
finally put those lights in. And they
[39:39] the province says those lights are
actually going in this year. And that's
[39:42] and that's good. But I we should not
look at 58 G Street as a significant
[39:47] impact on the traffic because again 12
cars that's probably what uh what the
[39:53] impact is going to be which in the grand
scheme of thing is not is not a huge
[39:56] difference. uh drainage concerns. I
think been adequately addressed here
[39:59] that um uh that whenever a property is
redeveloped then there is a development
[40:04] agreement where water has to be held on
the property and can only be released at
[40:07] a certain a certain uh pace which the
applicant has explained very well and
[40:12] very clearly and uh the question was
raised you know as far as why here and
[40:17] why not somewhere else. Well, it's
always a question that that can be asked
[40:21] whenever you have any kind of resoning.
Um, and yes, it is true that when
[40:26] developers build these types of
properties, they are hoping to earn
[40:30] money from it. But I want to be clear
that if you don't have if developers
[40:34] don't earn money from projects, you have
no development. So yes, the city has
[40:39] plans. We have our we have our official
community plan where we set this is what
[40:43] the general categories are, where we
expect growth to occur. We have our
[40:47] zoning bylaw which is more specific as
far as the exact zoning categories. But
[40:52] the city doesn't do development. The
city doesn't build neighborhoods. We
[40:56] don't build houses. It would be a
disaster if we didn't have private
[40:59] developers. If we if we started saying
no to every development and saying that
[41:04] no, we don't want to we don't want to
have development where developers are
[41:07] making money, we would just have no
development. And so u not all
[41:11] developments are good. And that's why in
a public hearing, um, developers and
[41:16] neighbors don't know and how it's going
to go until we actually have the
[41:19] hearing. But in this case, I think that
when you consider that you have a medium
[41:23] density property, uh, already right
beside it, you already have uh, you have
[41:27] a large lot. It's not a massive increase
in density, you know, on a medium
[41:31] density to go to 12 units. The drainage
will be addressed. It's not a
[41:35] significant impact on traffic when you
look at the grand scheme of things. And
[41:38] frankly, I think that the applicant did
an extremely good job of answering the
[41:41] questions and presenting a clear and
comprehensive plan. So based on all
[41:44] those factors, I think it's it's
reasonable to approve the resoning.
[41:48] » Thank you, counselor. Anything further?
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will first
[41:53] of all make uh a point that I live on
one of those streets that has 200
[41:56] apartments right on my street and I'm
okay with it. Actually, impacts, traffic
[42:00] impact is actually not bad at all, and I
have good neighbors down the street. Uh
[42:05] there's it's a solid place as far as
that goes. Secondly, I want to just say
[42:09] I agree with what councelor Sora has
said, but the lot behind this lot is for
[42:14] medium density and there's going to be
medium density there in the future. So
[42:17] they basically attach to each other. The
fact that it is basically not against
[42:21] any other property right now, I think
speaks well for it. And as far as
[42:26] traffic goes, like councelor Swager
says, I don't think that will be an
[42:29] issue and especially with the lights
going on on 52. So, no, I have I have no
[42:33] problem with it. I I appreciate the
concerns that you all have and I think
[42:37] at the end of the day, this will turn
out to be a good good thing for the
[42:40] community and for the neighborhood.
Thank you.
[42:43] » Anything further, council? Go ahead,
council.
[42:46] [clears throat]
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh just a couple
[42:50] comments. I'll vote in favor of of the
motion as stated. Just a couple
[42:54] comments. Uh
52 feet from my patio door is a
[42:59] three-story building. There's nine
balconies that look on my deck, so I do
[43:04] know what that feels like. And uh we
moved there and uh there was an addition
[43:08] done and I'm okay with it. Uh very okay
with it. So I understand what it is, but
[43:14] I also stand understand the threat of
somebody building in your neighborhood.
[43:18] Uh it's very real and there are concerns
and uh but they can be alleviated. I
[43:23] appreciate uh the response by the
developer. That's important. My son also
[43:28] lives on Geese. He lives across the
street from Mr. Wis and I know full well
[43:34] the amount of water that flows down that
street when when the creeks start to
[43:38] back up in Steinbeck and that doesn't
start in Steinbeck that starts in the
[43:43] arm of Hanover and that whole creek
backs up. It backs up a long way when
[43:47] there's a torrential downpour. We're
very flat and our streets become the
[43:52] collector. That's how we can't build
pipes big enough to uh take all the
[43:57] water all the time. there's just uh not
financially feasible. So there we we do
[44:03] have a lot of water and I was driving
down that street the last big rain. So
[44:07] there those are also concerns but I also
appreciate the fact uh our engineering
[44:12] department our development agreement it
works over and over it has worked where
[44:17] only x amount of water is able to be
released and it was explained as a
[44:21] bucket with a hole in it. Uh that is one
way to explain it but it does work and
[44:27] uh hopefully it does work here too.
Hopefully I say hopefully I'm also not
[44:30] an engineer. Uh but I've seen it it
works and it works. One of the issues we
[44:35] have in Stein we have a lot of growth
and uh growth is painful in many ways
[44:40] and uh this is part of it. When we talk
about infill we talk about uh what that
[44:45] looks like. all these multif family
homes going in in Steinbeck all over the
[44:52] place and before they're completed
they're full they're rented we don't
[44:56] have vacancies in Steinbeck so uh it is
also critical that we continue to uh
[45:01] invite the people that live in Steinbeck
I don't know where they all come from
[45:04] and I don't know where they all work uh
and all those but I do know that uh we
[45:10] look at our our long-term plan we look
at our short-term plan on a on a yearly
[45:14] basis during our study sessions and It
is important that we continue to allow
[45:19] development. Uh we do deny developments
in different areas when uh it doesn't
[45:26] fit. But I do think that uh it does fit
here for all the reasons that were given
[45:32] and also I appreciate the words from uh
the contractor who has said yeah it's a
[45:37] walkability to to loan to a lot of the
different uh businesses that are within
[45:42] walking distance.
>> Thank you. Anything further of councel?
[45:48] Anything in closing?
>> Well, I'd like to thank everyone for
[45:53] coming out like to thank for your
comments and um you know some of the
[45:58] concern drainage is a real concern
always is and that's why we are so uh
[46:02] our our staff work so hard at drainage
and that's why we require all new
[46:07] development to deal with the water on
their own. And as as uh Mr. Loen said
[46:14] it's Yeah. It's like it's like a filling
up a bucket and letting a pinhole and
[46:19] letting it go out. That's that's how it
works. Um Mr. Newfalt, um you talked
[46:25] about it being in our backyard. Um we we
have moved but we a house we loved for
[46:31] many many years uh downtown here, 195
lumber. There was 72 units built behind
[46:39] us. Two two two buildings of 36.
And yeah, you know what? It was scary
[46:45] when it happened. It's completely scary,
but we uh with with plantings, fences,
[46:53] um setbacks, it it was amazing how
beautifully it worked, right?
[46:58] » Pardon?
>> You moved.
[47:01] » Oh, we only moved because we Okay, it
was a health thing. We had to move.
[47:04] Okay. Uh my wife developed bad knees and
we couldn't do the stairs. It was a
[47:08] two-story home. Otherwise, we'd still be
there. We love that place. And um um
[47:14] yeah, it um we hardly notice the
traffic. Yeah, there it it should have
[47:19] increased the traffic, but we didn't
notice it because the roads are built to
[47:21] take it. Um there's there's so many
things. Council's hear the story many
[47:26] many times. I'm saying this for you. Um
Anna from 54 GB, we had a situation
[47:34] where there was a huge tree on our
neighbor's yard and it was starting to
[47:38] really look bad. And so we asked them,
we hired arborists. We asked them if we
[47:43] could trim the tree. Arbor came in,
trimmed the tree. It was very expensive.
[47:49] And uh they didn't want to, they didn't
want to participate in the paying of the
[47:53] arborist. That tree because it hung over
it was on their property, but it was on
[47:58] our property. It ended up being the most
beautiful tree of them all because we we
[48:05] actually took care of the trimming and
trimmed it correctly. I do believe that
[48:09] Mr. loan will do the right thing with
that tree as well. Uh I've never seen
[48:13] that before where a developer said he's
going to give you your his cell phone
[48:18] number. You got a special thing there. I
think you can work a great relationship
[48:22] out here with that. Uh but I do want to
thank everyone for coming out. I do want
[48:27] to thank you for your concerns. But um
when when you talk about like council,
[48:34] this happened to you as you can hear
some of us. We've all had multif family
[48:37] in our backyard and multif family and
single family dwellings can actually
[48:43] work and live very harmoniously
together. They do. Uh and and we you've
[48:50] got 200. You've got I don't know how
many you have, but we had 72. And it
[48:55] does work. So u
call for the question. All those in
[49:00] favor? Opposed? That is carried. Thank
you.
[49:10] We have 6B. This is
variance V 202617.
[49:18] This is referring to 210 Hover Road
West. At this time, I will close the
[49:24] council meeting, open the public
hearing. Uh, Mr. Orcadine, can you
[49:29] please introduce this file?
[49:37] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The application
for variance under file V-20226-17
[49:42] for 210 Hover Road West uh is being
applied for by Leonard Frail, who also
[49:49] is the owner. Purpose of the variance
application is to permit an east
[49:53] sideyard setback of 10.85 85 ft for an
accessory building
[49:58] uh in the DR2 development reserve 2 zone
uh where that zone requires a minimum uh
[50:05] sideyard setback of 15 ft. Notices as
are required under the planning act have
[50:10] been issued. There is no written
correspondence on file.
[50:14] Uh the building location certificate
provided uh shows an existing accessory
[50:19] building on the site uh which already
has a sideyard of 10.85 ft. Uh the
[50:24] proposed building is adjacent uh as
shown on the site plan um which uh is
[50:30] the purpose of the uh proposed reduced
sideyard setback. Recommendation for
[50:34] council is to approve the application
subject to any new information that is
[50:38] presented.
>> Thank you. Mr. Working is the applicant
[50:42] here today. Do you wish to speak?
>> Um I can
[50:48] again I'll ask you to take the podium.
>> Yep. My name is Leonard Frail, 210
[50:53] Hanover Road West.
>> Have lived there eight years.
[50:57] » We have a very good relationship with
the neighbor next door to us who would
[51:02] be directly involved uh in this. And the
main proposal for the the variance is
[51:09] just to line up the new building with
the old building which has been there
[51:13] guessing 80 years. Um it's a very old
farmstead
[51:19] and Yeah, the the line of stars on the
bottom is is mature uh pine trees.
[51:26] They're about 30 40 ft high. Uh don't
really want to cut those down. And so
[51:31] that's why we kind of want to set it
where it is. Uh the driveway that exists
[51:36] is still from the old farmstead and so
we're trying to keep it within those
[51:40] confines.
>> Okay.
[51:44] Thank you very much. Uh any questions
from council?
[51:47] » Yeah. Thank you.
Um, you can take your seat. Is there
[51:53] anyone here with comments, questions, or
objections to this file?
[52:00] Is there anyone here with comments,
questions, or objections to this file?
[52:08] I will ask one more time. Is there
anyone here with comments, questions, or
[52:11] objections to this file?
Seeing none, I will close the public
[52:17] hearing, open the council meeting.
Council, how would you like to proceed?
[52:22] Councelor Semons.
>> Motion to approve.
[52:24] » Second by councelor Susan Penner. Go
ahead, Council Se.
[52:28] » In 2018, the city of Steinbeck annexed a
lot of land from the a friendly
[52:34] annexation from the RM of Hanover. This
was and then we accept all the different
[52:39] variances and all the different
properties that come with it. This is
[52:42] the property that came with that
annexation and so uh what the rules that
[52:48] were under the arm of handover or 80
years ago potentially when this original
[52:52] building was built.
So uh in my opinion this this works. The
[52:59] neighbors not complaining about it.
They're h the neighbors are happy with
[53:02] it. It lines up uh with an existing
building that was built uh many years
[53:07] ago and it's a rural property uh that
has been under city jurisdiction since
[53:13] 2018 and I think it works.
>> Thank you. Any further?
[53:18] » Nothing further.
>> Anything further council?
[53:21] » Anything in closing?
>> No sir.
[53:23] » Okay. Call question. All those in favor
post? That is carried.
[53:30] Okay. Council, we have 6C. This is
conditional use CU 2026-10.
[53:38] This is referring to 75 Industrial Road.
It's on page 28 of our package. Uh, Mr.
[53:46] Wing, could you please introduce this?
[53:51] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Conditional use
file application CU-2026-10
[53:57] for 75 industrial road is being applied
for by Jordan Lohan. The owner of the
[54:02] property is one21-661
Manitoba LTD. Purpose of the conditional
[54:08] use application is twofold. Firstly, to
permit the construction of an an
[54:12] industrial multi-use
site as per zoning bylaw 2245 industrial
[54:18] multi-use uh is defined as a building
established to accommodate a range of
[54:23] primarily industrial businesses on a
single lot with individual units that
[54:27] can be rented or subdivided as part of a
condominium development. And secondly,
[54:32] to permit a caretaker's residence to be
located on the subject. Uh, zoning bylaw
[54:36] 2245 defines a caretaker's residence as
an accessory dwelling on a
[54:41] non-residential property occupied by the
person or family who oversees or guards
[54:45] the operation and it is a conditional
use requirement under that zoning bylaw.
[54:51] Notices as are required under the
planning act have been issued. There is
[54:54] no written correspondence on file.
Uh with respect to the application um
[54:59] the subject property is located in the
Steinbeck Industrial Park with land
[55:03] surrounding uh the subject zoned M2 and
nearby parcel zoned M1 light industrial.
[55:10] Uh the report from the city planner
provides comments with respect to the
[55:13] subject property. Uh and uh
in addition uh in the application the
[55:19] actual uses or tenants of the proposed
facility have not been listed. uh and
[55:24] the application indicates the intention
to permit multiple tenants with multiple
[55:27] uses. Uh the application would not
appear to have any negative impacts
[55:32] arising from the proposed multi-use
component for the proposed caretaker's
[55:36] residence. If council is prepared to
consider the approval, the applicant
[55:39] should demonstrate that it is that its
proposal in the M2 heavy industrial zone
[55:44] is appropriate as this zone permits the
po the most intensive types of
[55:48] industrial development which may require
substantial mitigation to avoid sound
[55:52] noise or odor impacts uh for the
property itself or for neighboring
[55:57] properties. Uh council should also
consider if approving this residence in
[56:02] this circumstance would broaden the
caretaker's residence provision uh
[56:05] beyond the intended purpose and permit
general residential use on an industrial
[56:10] property uh simply by associating the
occupant with general site security or
[56:15] oversight. Uh the definition uh that is
provided in the zoning bylaw is quite
[56:20] clear and as the applicant intends to
permit multiple tenants and multiple
[56:24] uses on the site and the functional
relationship between the proposed
[56:27] resident, the dwelling and an
identifiable operation that is being
[56:31] overseen or guarded uh is not clear or
determined. And accordingly, a
[56:35] recommendation uh is for council to
approve the proposed industrial
[56:39] multi-use component uh but to deny uh
the proposed caretakers residents under
[56:44] this application.
>> Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Um the
[56:49] applicant's here, would you wish to
speak? Sure.
[56:59] » Uh Jordan loan triple 4. Um
yeah, the owner numbered company, but he
[57:06] owns Steak Fire Protection. Um it's a
hold code that owns the property. Um his
[57:12] intent, um would be that he moves on to
the property uh for a couple main
[57:18] reasons. One of them, um he has a cabin,
so he's there three nights a week
[57:23] through the year. Um he's got a house in
Steinach as well, and to have the
[57:27] property as well is just a lot. Um, so
he wants to sell his house and move on
[57:32] to the property. This would be his
primary residence as the caretaker for
[57:35] the property. Um, not all dissimilar
than what Fern Fzen proposed uh, two
[57:41] Junes ago, I believe, which was passed
unanimously just around the corner.
[57:45] Never got built, but um, that's what he
did. Um, Samic Fire Protection already
[57:51] is an operating it's the key renter on
this part. It's the only one he owns it.
[57:57] uh he wants to develop some other ones
and uh he doesn't know who's going to
[58:02] rent them, but it would be like the
typical, you know, anywhere from a
[58:05] thousand to 2,000 square foot shops down
there, whether they turn into man caves
[58:11] or light industrial or whatever. The
reason for this original conditional use
[58:16] is just so the city enters into
development agreement so these don't
[58:19] turn into a wild west that you don't get
retail and you have parking and you have
[58:23] all your accessibility in the accessible
bathrooms and all those things
[58:27] ventilation that weren't happening on
these properties. So, so yes, he does
[58:32] intend to develop it. Yes, he intends to
lease them, but he would be the one
[58:36] doing security on the site. Um, and his
main business is the one operating there
[58:41] already. um up front as the existing
building. Uh one of the other key
[58:46] reasons he wants to do this is uh he's
on call 247.
[58:50] Um he does fire alarm testing and
response for uh dozens, hundreds of
[58:56] buildings in southeast Manitoba. His
tools, his equipment, his parts, and the
[59:00] keys to a lot of these buildings are
secured in that building. So for him to
[59:05] travel to work and then to reduces his
response time to a lot of these when
[59:11] bells are going at two in the morning in
a multif family uh building. So that was
[59:15] one of the key reasons he uh wanted to
do this as well.
[59:21] Um
yeah that was most of my points here.
[59:27] And uh yeah uh the other one he does
[clears throat] get a lot of people
[59:31] doorchecking here. Um, so to be on site
with, you know, some cameras, motion
[59:36] detector, early response for him to hit
command start on his vehicle and scare
[59:41] someone off, that would that would be a
lot of value to him to protect his
[59:44] business there. So that was the other
point.
[59:48] » Thank you. Uh, any questions of councel?
Go ahead.
[59:51] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Where in
relationship to these buildings is the
[59:55] caretaker suite going to be or is going
to be a separate building?
[59:59] » Uh, no. It'll be in uh the first
rectangle there to the uh above it. So,
[1:00:05] he'll be closest to his existing
building in the first phase of what
[1:00:10] could be three back there.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[1:00:14] » Okay. Anything further?
[1:00:18] » Okay.
Is there anyone here with comments,
[1:00:23] questions, or objections to this file?
[1:00:29] Is there anyone here with comments,
questions, or objections to this file?
[1:00:36] I'll ask one more time. Is there anyone
here with comments, questions, or
[1:00:39] objections to this file?
Seeing none, I will close the public
[1:00:46] hearing, open the council meeting.
Council, how would you like to proceed?
[1:00:50] » Councelor P.
>> Uh, quick question. Is this supposed to
[1:00:54] be two separate motions because there's
two points or just do it all in one?
[1:00:58] » Uh, I think it can be done in one
motion.
[1:01:00] » Motion.
>> Okay. I motion to approve the industrial
[1:01:03] multi-use component and to deny the
proposed caretakers residence.
[1:01:08] » Do we have a seconder? Councelor Heber.
>> Go ahead.
[1:01:12] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The intention of
the industrial park is not for main
[1:01:16] residences nor for man caves as far as
that goes. Um, industrial parks are
[1:01:21] exactly for what it says, industrial
use. It is not an area we want to begin
[1:01:27] having residences. Um, and you know, if
we approve this one, we are going to
[1:01:31] start getting a steady stream of people
just wanting, you know, a unit to
[1:01:34] oversee their property. Um, that is not
a direction I think we should be going
[1:01:40] um with this uh with our industrial
parks at all and obviously not in this
[1:01:45] situation either. Thank you. Easy
President.
[1:01:49] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh I did uh go buy
that property and have a good look and
[1:01:54] it's a very large property that can
accommodate multi-buildings
[1:01:58] on that on that lot there. Obviously,
what we have is multi-buildings. We got
[1:02:03] multi-tenants and we have multi-uses. U
this sounds more to me like a sort of a
[1:02:09] warehouse project. But when it comes to
the the development of the caretaker
[1:02:13] suite, I know reference was made to the
condominium
[1:02:18] subdivision just to the to the to the
east. Uh but that one was one where the
[1:02:24] developer was in agreement and uh the uh
nobody in the subdivision there objected
[1:02:30] to it. It's uh and it's a very small sub
subd district, but like [clears throat]
[1:02:35] I said, it's a condominium development
in uh this case. uh to have a actual
[1:02:41] residence on that lot. This is not a I I
don't
[1:02:48] I I don't see how this is a caretaker's
suite other than it's a straight a
[1:02:53] residential uh as as uh mentioned here
and therefore uh to have a residence in
[1:03:00] the light industrial I object to. So as
the motion was made I agree with the
[1:03:05] whole motion.
Anything further of councel?
[1:03:09] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I will support
the motion. I'll just note here that
[1:03:13] this is uh the particular zoning here is
M2 heavy industrial zone. So, it's not
[1:03:17] even light industrial. It borders light
industrial. Um but um uh sorry, the
[1:03:23] Yeah. So the when you consider the
industry uh that we want to attract
[1:03:29] having residential properties within our
heavy industrial zone or industrial zone
[1:03:34] in general is not the direction that we
want to go. So I do agree with the uh uh
[1:03:39] certainly we want the development to
proceed. That's why the motion is uh is
[1:03:43] approving that but not the caretaker's
residence because um that the point of
[1:03:48] industrial is not to have uh is not to
have residences there especially heavy
[1:03:51] industrial.
>> Thank you. Anything further? Anything in
[1:03:56] closing?
>> Nothing further.
[1:03:58] » Call for the question. All those in
favor
[1:04:01] that is carried.
[1:04:06] Council
>> will move now to uh nine administration.
[1:04:09] We've got the counts payable back at the
book. All had a chance to review.
[1:04:13] Looking for a motion to approve.
Councelor Heert. Second by councelor
[1:04:18] Heert.
Call for the question. All those in
[1:04:21] favor? Opposed? That is carry. Council,
we have the 9B financial statements for
[1:04:27] ending in July 31st, 2026.
Also back of the book, looking for a
[1:04:33] motion to approve. Councelor Heert,
second by councelor Stevens.
[1:04:37] » No comment. Call for the question. All
those in favor?
[1:04:41] That is carrying. We got 9 C. This is
reszoning bylaw 2273.
[1:04:49] This refers to 492 498 and 506 McKenzie
Avenue. Council, this is third reading.
[1:04:56] Starts on page 38 in our packet. Mr.
Wareen, can you please introduce this
[1:05:01] file?
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bylaw 2273 was
[1:05:05] a proposed reszoning bylaw for uh 492
through 506 Mckenzie Avenue and the
[1:05:12] public hearing uh was completed some
time ago. Uh the uh required um
[1:05:19] development agreement uh and conditions
for uh for the file uh have now
[1:05:24] proceeded and are nearing completion.
And uh with that, administration is
[1:05:29] prepared to recommend that council
approve third reading to its bylaw
[1:05:33] subject to the execution of the
development agreement.
[1:05:37] » Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wharting. Council,
how would you like to proceed? Councelor
[1:05:41] Heert.
>> Motion to approve
[1:05:43] » by Councelor Heert. Go ahead, Councelor.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As indicated, this
[1:05:49] uh is the third reading. first and
second reading were in March and in
[1:05:54] April of this year we had the public
hearing and uh again just to uh relate
[1:06:00] to this property. There's three three
properties in question. Two of them have
[1:06:03] buildings on there right now and uh
there's a church to the rear. I call it
[1:06:08] a transition zone to the east and we
have Bosch is to the northeast and
[1:06:14] there's number of medium density housing
in the area. I believe it fits in well
[1:06:20] into the area and uh I continue to
support this project.
[1:06:24] » Thank you. Anything further?
>> No further comment.
[1:06:27] » Anything further council?
>> Anything in closing?
[1:06:30] » Nothing. Thank you.
>> Call for the question. All those in
[1:06:32] favor? That is carried. We got 9D. This
is subdivision 4451
[1:06:40] 2026
9284.
[1:06:44] This is Heritage Parkway
and uh it starts on page 48 on your uh
[1:06:52] in your packet. Mr. Waring, could you
please introduce this file?
[1:06:56] » Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Subdivision
file 4451-26-9284
[1:07:03] uh is being applied for uh by a Bergen
on behalf of Steinbeck Campus
[1:07:07] Foundation, Inc. Uh the uh subject
property is located on uh Heritage uh
[1:07:13] Parkway. Uh as it is vacant, it doesn't
have a specific uh um civic address as
[1:07:19] of yet. Uh but the proposal seeks to
subdivide the subject property uh to
[1:07:24] accommodate an institutional facility
development. The subject property is
[1:07:29] zoned EI educational and institutional
and it is designated as institutional
[1:07:33] policy area under the city's official
community plan. Overall site is about
[1:07:37] 1.4 4 acres. The proposal seeks to
create one new lot from the existing
[1:07:42] parcel and the existing parking lot on
the site was created prior to the
[1:07:46] opening of Heritage Parkway as a public
road and serves the adjacent uh Eastman
[1:07:50] Education Campus facility. Uh it is uh
recommended that council approve the
[1:07:56] application under this file subject to
the approval of the required variance
[1:08:00] for the site area of proposed lot 2 and
subject to the city's required uh
[1:08:06] development fees policies and servicing
requirements.
[1:08:11] » Thank you Mr. Wine. Council, how would
you like to approve
[1:08:15] sir?
>> Motion to approve.
[1:08:16] » Second by council uh Susan Penner. Go
ahead.
[1:08:20] » Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. In this case
here, the uh as was noted, the applicant
[1:08:23] uh is seeking to subdivide the property
to for uh in into uh there's an
[1:08:28] additional lot. This accommodates
institutional facility development. Um I
[1:08:33] think uh uh this has been explained well
by our city manager in terms of the
[1:08:37] basic application. I don't see I don't
have any concerns. Uh this is of course
[1:08:41] subject to uh to a variance for proposed
law too, but uh I think it's appropriate
[1:08:46] to approve the subdivision.
>> Yeah. when areas uh we come across this
[1:08:51] regularly when areas are being developed
initially there's you know a guesstimate
[1:08:56] so to speak of what's going to be needed
where and uh it's not uncommon for uh
[1:09:01] developers to come back to us and say
you know we've noticed supply demand has
[1:09:06] shifted or you know something's changed
or we have an opportunity so it's very
[1:09:11] common for us to approve you know
changes to um development areas so I'll
[1:09:17] support the motion
>> thank Thank you. Anything further?
[1:09:21] Anything? Close it. Call for the
question. All those in favor post. That
[1:09:26] is carried.
9F. This is reszoning
[1:09:31] bylaw 2286.
This is referring to 282 Henry Street.
[1:09:37] Now, council
>> E.
[1:09:39] » Oh, sorry. E re Okay. Reszoning bylaw
2281. Got ahead of myself here. 330
[1:09:47] McKenzie Avenue. This is also first
reading. This starts on page 71 on our
[1:09:52] in our package.
Mr. Warin, could you please introduce
[1:09:57] this file?
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Zoning by
[1:10:00] 2281, as you mentioned, for property at
330 McKenzie Avenue, uh, is seeking to
[1:10:06] reszone the subject property from RLB
residential low density to RMD
[1:10:11] residential medium density to permit
multif family construction on the site.
[1:10:16] Uh it is recommended that council give
this bylaw first reading so that a
[1:10:21] public hearing on the matter may be
scheduled for later this uh fall.
[1:10:26] » Thank you Mr. Council. How would you
like to proceed?
[1:10:32] » Council Per.
>> Uh motion to approve.
[1:10:34] » Second by councilman. Go ahead council.
>> Yes. the um approving first reading just
[1:10:41] means that it opens the
what you know what's in question uh to
[1:10:48] have a public hearing so we can hear
from the neighborhoods. It's not a
[1:10:51] decision on the actual project but it
just opens it up uh to hear what the
[1:10:55] neighborhood uh has to say about the
project and after that is when we decide
[1:11:01] what will happen.
>> Thank you. Anything further council? Uh
[1:11:05] just very briefly, this is a lot that's
uh one of the areas that uh we talk
[1:11:11] about frequently as on councils there.
It's a it's a very deep lot in a on a
[1:11:19] collector street and that often causes
uh us issues with how to develop that
[1:11:25] and uh and the neighboring properties.
So it will be interesting to see what
[1:11:29] comes out at uh public hearing.
>> Anything further council? Go ahead,
[1:11:34] council.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I realize this is
[1:11:37] going to uh public hearing. Uh I did
look at the lot. I went there and I do
[1:11:43] have some concerns as to uh right now
the uh I'm not quite sure that it fits
[1:11:50] into that area. And like I said, some of
this will be discussed at the public
[1:11:53] meeting. But I also noticed there's a
house in the back that empties or onto
[1:11:59] the church parking lot. I don't know if
anybody noticed it's in the bush there
[1:12:02] right at the very back of this property.
Might even be on this property. There's
[1:12:06] a barn or a shed on there as well. So,
I'm listening to I'm looking forward to
[1:12:10] uh hearing what the uh developer has to
say about that.
[1:12:14] » Okay.
[1:12:19] Anything further council?
Anything in closing?
[1:12:22] » No.
>> Call for the question. All in favor?
[1:12:26] Opposed? That is carried.
We have 9F. This is reszoning bylaw
[1:12:32] 2286.
This is referring to 282 Henry Street.
[1:12:37] Again, this is also first reading. Mr.
Warint, could you please introduce this
[1:12:42] file?
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bylaw 2286 for 288
[1:12:46] Henry Street is also a proposed resoning
for the subject property from RLD
[1:12:51] residential low density to RMD
residential medium density. again to
[1:12:56] permit the construction of a multif
family building uh on the uh subject. Uh
[1:13:01] it uh again is recommended that council
give this bylaw first reading so that a
[1:13:07] public hearing may be scheduled for
later this fall.
[1:13:10] » Thank you Mr. Wing. Council, how would
you like to proceed? Councelor Swagster.
[1:13:15] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll give a make a
motion for first reading.
[1:13:18] » Do we have a second or second by
councelor Bill Heert? Go ahead.
[1:13:22] » Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. As uh uh often
happens, this is an application to
[1:13:27] reszone from residential low density to
residential medium density. This is
[1:13:31] first reading, which means that if we
give first reading that it enables a
[1:13:35] public hearing to be scheduled and so
it's at the public hearing that we'll
[1:13:38] hear from the applicant and also from
the neighborhood.
[1:13:42] » Anything further?
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh it seems like
[1:13:44] everybody wants to go from low density
to medium density and this is just
[1:13:48] another one, but uh we look forward to
the public hearing and see what the what
[1:13:51] the neighborhood has to say. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anything for Go ahead.
[1:13:55] » Again, I'd like to voice some concerns I
have regarding this development here. Uh
[1:14:00] Hospital Street is a very busy street.
It's the emergency vehicles uh going to
[1:14:05] the hospital, the police, and uh much of
the area is low density. Traffic is very
[1:14:10] heavy in that area. We've as council,
we've also talked in the past about even
[1:14:14] making that a one-way street. That
didn't go very far, that conversation.
[1:14:19] But, uh, I do have concerns, uh, of the
heavy traffic and I'm just wondering if
[1:14:24] we shouldn't have that traffic steady
before that building goes in because
[1:14:27] it's 12 units.
>> Okay.
[1:14:32] Anything further of council,
anything closing?
[1:14:35] » Uh, just very briefly, Mr. Mayor, I'm
sure that uh, Council He will raise all
[1:14:39] these things during the public hearing
uh, when second reading is being
[1:14:43] considered.
[1:14:46] » Yes, council. Um this is why we have
first reading so it can go to a public
[1:14:51] hearing so we can um invite the
neighborhood if there are any that have
[1:14:56] concerns or questions. This is where it
all gets talked about at at the uh and
[1:15:01] but it starts here at first reading.
Call for the question. All those in
[1:15:04] favor that is carry. We have G 9G. This
is Adeptus Advisory Group Charter
[1:15:13] Professional Accountants Inc. This is
their proposal for auditing services for
[1:15:18] December 26th. And we got to do this by
resolution. We've had them uh they've
[1:15:23] been doing our uh our audits for for a
few years now. Uh I think we've been
[1:15:29] pretty happy with this. And this is a uh
this is a quote for what the audit will
[1:15:34] be for 2026 if I'm correct. Council, how
would you like to proceed?
[1:15:42] » Motion to approve. Second by
councelor Hebert. Go ahead council.
[1:15:49] » I'm excited to that the future council
read what the audit will be.
[1:15:55] » You sound like it. [laughter]
>> Future council.
[1:15:59] » I can't add to that. Thank you.
[laughter]
[1:16:03] » Okay. Call for the question. All those
in favor?
[1:16:07] That is carried.
Council, we have come upon council
[1:16:12] question period. Are there any questions
of councel?
[1:16:18] Seeing none, we'll move on to
correspondence petitions. We've got 11A
[1:16:23] on page 102. This is the uh Royal Bank
of Canada temporary structure request.
[1:16:29] Uh council, how would you like to
proceed? Take his information at this
[1:16:33] time.
>> Do we need a motion?
[1:16:35] » We need a motion.
>> Have a question.
[1:16:39] » Okay.
>> Yeah, we need a motion.
[1:16:43] Okay. Um, Mr. Worky, would you introduce
this file?
[1:16:49] » Yes, I can gladly do so. Uh, this one is
unusual. It was uh not quite certain
[1:16:55] where in the agenda to uh present this
and it landed up in correspondence, but
[1:16:59] I do have a report.
>> Okay.
[1:17:01] » Uh there is a unique uh along with the
letter of request uh there is uh it is a
[1:17:08] unique circumstance. Uh the existing uh
RBC location at the corner of Rhymer
[1:17:14] Avenue and Main Street uh is uh a fairly
old property and the building has been
[1:17:21] built uh essentially to the rear
property line. While there is an
[1:17:25] existing exit door that exits the west
side of the property uh due to some
[1:17:29] operational considerations,
uh the uh management of RBC has
[1:17:36] requested permission to install uh a u
an accessible um
[1:17:43] ramp at that exit door uh for uh life
safety uh uh considerations for its
[1:17:52] staff. uh as this uh proposed location
of the accessible ramp would be on a uh
[1:18:00] u formal public rightway and essentially
a roadway. Uh this is unique
[1:18:05] circumstance. It uh it doesn't follow
fall under normal uh permitting uh or
[1:18:11] land use um application provisions. Um
the most similar scenario that uh
[1:18:18] administration could come up with was
the uh temporary or seasonal permit uh
[1:18:24] or permission that council has approved
for the main street uh patios on main
[1:18:28] street of which there are three uh
presently uh functioning in Steinach. Um
[1:18:35] recommendation from administration is
that council could uh consider this uh
[1:18:39] request u in a similar manner. Um and uh
with respect to uh to the ask uh it is
[1:18:48] recommended that council approve this
request for an accessible ramp uh for
[1:18:51] emergency use only uh to be permitted on
the public roadway at the location
[1:18:56] identified uh subject to an annual
administrative permit application review
[1:19:00] and approval process.
>> Thank you Mr. Council. How would you
[1:19:05] like to proceed?
>> Council Pinter
[1:19:08] » motion to approve.
>> Second by councelor Heert. Any comments?
[1:19:13] Well, this may be complicated uh from an
administrative perspective in terms of
[1:19:17] figuring out where this goes. I think
it's st pretty straightforward in terms
[1:19:20] of an accessibility perspective.
Obviously, we want um our you know
[1:19:27] buildings infrastructure in our
community to be accessible and this is
[1:19:31] particularly important because it's for
emergency use. So, I think it's actually
[1:19:35] a relatively straightforward request. Um
and in addition, if you look at the
[1:19:40] photos, there's a dumpster right there.
It's not like vehicle traffic is going
[1:19:43] right by that door. Anyways, that is why
I made the motion.
[1:19:49] » Thank you. Anything further?
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think safety is
[1:19:52] probably the word that we're looking at
here and emergency ramp would definitely
[1:19:57] fall to that and uh as councelor Penner
has stated the the reasons are they make
[1:20:03] sense. So, I would definitely approve.
>> Council, thank Mr. Mayor. I'll support
[1:20:09] this as well. I mean, I think that if we
are going to approve um patios on city
[1:20:15] rightway, I don't think it's
unreasonable to have a similar allowance
[1:20:20] for a ramp for accessibility and safety.
So, absolutely, this is an easy one to
[1:20:25] approve.
[1:20:28] » Anything further, council, anything in
closing?
[1:20:31] » Well, I I do have maybe one question.
Um, in terms of having to get a permit
[1:20:35] every year, is that reasonable or can we
just approve it and can just or is that
[1:20:40] just an issue because we don't know
where it fits in?
[1:20:43] » Administratively, it is preferable that
it's subject to an annual permit. Uh,
[1:20:48] there are specific operational uh
conditions that exist today uh that
[1:20:53] didn't exist before and that could also
change in the future. Uh, and then it uh
[1:20:58] it it permits the uh the ramp to be
removed if it's no longer required at
[1:21:02] some point.
>> All right. Thank you.
[1:21:04] » Okay. Okay. Well, council, I I also
agree with all the comments that have
[1:21:09] been said. So, call for the question.
All those in favor?
[1:21:13] That is carried. We've got uh 11B, the
St. Rat Rosa watershed
[1:21:19] district minutes of June 16th, June
17th, June 23rd, July 20th, and July
[1:21:26] 21st. Uh, council, how would you like to
proceed? Take his information at this
[1:21:31] time.
>> Thank you. There's no other business.
[1:21:34] Looking for a motion to adjurnn.
>> Councelor Heert, second by councelor
[1:21:39] Semons. Call for the question. All those
in favor? Opposed? That as carried. Next
[1:21:44] regular council meeting is Tuesday,
September 15th.