NEWS‎ > ‎

Municipal Council - What do Conservation Corridor signs mean?

posted Oct 17, 2016, 8:56 AM by Kathy Carr
No doubt citizens have seen the “Con­ser­vation Corridor” signs around the municipality. What do they mean? The Council of the Muni­cipality of North Cyp­ress-Langford met on Tuesday, October 11, and discussed this issue. Reeve Bob Adriaansen and all council members were in attendance.
Councillor Gerond Davidson brought this issue up, in response to a dispute in the Langford area. He brought out the Langford by-law that set up the conservation corridors in 1988. North Cypress also enacted a by-law around the same time.
The Conservation Corridors program was enacted with the Whitemud Watershed Conservation District to protect certain road allowances. At the time, council members noted road allowances in their ward that were not likely to be developed and they were designated for the program, and signage posted. These strips were retained as shelterbelts, for snow retention, and for habitat for wildlife. 
The council ultimately still had control over the road allowances, but any development was to be done only with council’s approval. If the corridors were to be bulldozed or destroyed without permission, the fine was $100, plus restoration costs.
If any work was to be done by a ratepayer on a conservation corridor, the by-law stipulates that he take out a permit to do it.
Davidson addressed a case in his area, where a strip was mowed through a corridor. 
There have been few cases over the years since 1988 that have received attention because of the legislation. The by-law also states that it is ‘null and void’ if not acted upon.
Restoration, in the case brought forward by Davidson, was not felt to be an issue. Nature would fill in the mowed area soon, as it is just bush. Council may erect a temporary fence until that happens if they desire. The landowner has constructed his own barrier on his property line, as he feared that the opening would encourage snowmobilers to go on his hayland. 
Rather than having two by-laws, CAO Jones suggested reviewing the by-laws and merging them into one. It was also suggested that the council be prepared to act on the rules of the by-law if they were going to keep it.

Planning Hearings
Council dealt with a proposal to subdivide a ten-acre parcel for a non-farm dwelling from a 26 acre parcel on Pt NW 32-10-15 (P & C Dick). As the proposal meets all the criteria from Planning’s perspective, J. McEntee, Development Officer had little problem with it.
The plan proposes to take ten acres off the east end of the property. It has been circulated through government departments.
Highways did have a concern regarding the access to the new subdivision. 
They want to avoid accesses that are close together off highway 351. They had three suggestions to make access acceptable – which council left for the applicant and Highways to decide. There were also concerns regarding the sewage disposal, and that will go through the Sustainable Develop­ment Dept.
There was also a conditional use and variation hearing for a subdivision proposal for a parcel of 2.2 acres on pt of E 3-12-14 (K & L Chandler.) This proposal is unusual because it is right beside a livestock confinement area. The by-law states that there must be a separation distance of 656 feet from a livestock confinement of less than 100 animal units (this is calling for 190 ft.) It also requires a variation order to bring the parcel size down from five acres, to 2.2 acres.
Because the subdivision is proposed for a family member, a development agreement has been drafted that add­resses such things as complaints about noise, smell and other accepted farming practices. How­ever, McEntee war­ned that “Kids can get mad at Mom and Dad, and because the parcel has its own title, they would be legally able to sell to anyone.” The development agreement may not apply to the next owner.
There being no objections from government departments, council gave approval to both the conditional use order and the variation order.

Other business
Resolutions were passed from the joint meeting held in Sep­tember. They agreed to purchase a quarter page ad in the Legion Memo­rial book, at a cost of $250 (shared 50/50). The balance of the resolutions involved attendance to meetings: S. Jones, G. Stephenson and D. Steen to a workshop on accessibility training; T. Fiskel was authorized to attend a FIPPA (privacy issues) workshop; T. Holland was authorized to attend a landfill training course; and A. Smith to attend the Tri-regional Recreation Conference at Elkhorn. All were cost-shared with Car­berry, and only the landfill training and the recreation conference involve costs other than mileage.
Water meter readings are up-to-date, except one. All overage charges have been reconciled. McEntee questioned how many connections are left. R. Drayson estimated there would be at least 20 left from the 125 allocated by the Town of Neepawa. He also questioned the maximum distance that would be serviced – and it was suggested that one mile from the pipe would be maximum. Drayson noted that the Co-op is pursuing their water needs at the new site, with the Town of Neep­awa.
There were some com­plaints about the calcium application. There was no second pass in the Langford area, as the initial pass is twice as wide as the first pass in North Cypress. If Residents want a second pass, they will have to pay for it.
Council was urged to continue with the full pass on Road 89W (versus spot spraying).
Brookdale is also looking at getting dust control.
The facilities of the Neepawa Vet Clinic has been inspected and found seriously lacking. It will need upgrades to conform to MVMA standards. Thus the levy is being increased from (two payments of) $1090 per year to $1695 (x2). Neepawa, Lang­ford (of NCL), Rose­dale, Land­sdowne and McCreary share in the cost of the clinic with the provincial government. They contribute $19,000 – an amount that has not changed in 20 years. Council agreed to the change.
Council received re­ports from the Neepawa and Carberry/NCL Fire departments. Neepawa reported the slowest summer in years. In July they handled four calls and in August 10 – only one of these was to the Langford area.
In Carberry, there have been 47 calls since January, including some grassfires in the municipality.
Notice of the increase of 9-1-1 service fees for 2017. They will raise to $4.01 per capita.
Council approved the purchase of wreaths for November 11 services at Neepawa and Carberry.
A request for $100 towards the Halloween Dance was given app­roval.
The Baron water re­tention project (through the Whitemud Water­shed Conservation Dis­trict) has received funding. There has been 9,100 cu yards of gravel to build up the road, North Cypress-Lang­ford has contributed about 50 hours of equipment time to the cost.
Manitoba Highways has made a request to reduce compensation for roads that the municipality maintains for the province, to a little more than one-half. (Two of these roads are 464 and 465W.) At those rates, it is the opinion of council and the public works foreman, that the province can do it themselves. There is a 72 hour window for cleaning roads, and council will emphasize that will not be acceptable for school bus routes. The municipality will do maintenance when requested by Highways.

The Netset notification package, which was sent out previously has been approved. Council added that any structures erected by Netset must be removed when they become redundant.
A complaint was received by a ratepayer that disagreed with paying for shingles to be removed to the dump, especially when it is a ratepayer doing their own shingles. Presently, when shingles are re­moved, there is a charge of $3.00 per bundle (counting the number to replace them – so if your roof took 30 a bundle, then the cost is $90.) A copy of the policy will be sent to the ratepayer.
Councillor Jackson advised that there are to be NO HOLES in the dumpsters – that rainwater in the dumpsters is to be transported to Evergreen and treated as leachate.
The Municipal Grant, final installment for 2016 has been received: $24,024.63.
The municipality has also received approval from the Municipal Road and Bridge Prog­ram, or the amount of $100,000 (to which the municipality contributes another $100,000).  The work must be completed by 2018.

Around the table
H. Tolton made Council aware of the Service for Seniors raffle for a five cubic foot freezer full of beef, pork and poultry.
R. Drayson noted that a dumpster at Neepawa is full of pallets. They will use their camera to figure out who is doing it.
S. Jones noted that council will stay and look at the applicants for operator position of the bulldozer. 
Reeve Adriaansen noted that Recreation Director, A. Smith will attend district recreation meetings to offer his services. 
Council passed a resolution accepting the quote of A. Kuyp Ser­vice to remove the spruce trees (to include removing, hauling away and backfilling) at the Brookdale rink, at a cost of $3800 plus GST.
Next meeting will be November 14, at Brook­dale Drop In, MB  at 9:00 a.m. After the meeting, council will be available for questions and answers regarding budget. 
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m., but council members stayed, dealing with personnel changes.

by Gloria Mott