Manitoba Committee Hansard — Management Commission Committee, Sitting 1 (31st Legislature, 2nd Session)

31-2-ma1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS Chairman Mr. Arnold Brown Constituency of Rhineland Tuesday, June 20, 1978 10:00 a.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie - Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

Hearing Of The Standing Committee On Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 Time: 10:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnold Brown (Rhineland). Nomination and Election of Mr. Brown as Chairman. (Agreed). MR. CHAIRMAN: The first order of busi ness is going to be an adoption of a quorum, and 1 would suggest that there should be a member ship of six. Is thi s agreed. (Agreed) We have a quorum. We are meeting today to discuss Bill No. 8,

An Act to Amend the Portage la Prairie Charter; Bill No. 12,

An Act respect ing the City of Brandon and Bill No. 18,

An Act to amend the Brandon Charter. We have some presentat ions over here that would like to speak: there's a Mrs. MacDougall from the R.M. of Cornwallis, I presume that would be on Bill No. 18 ; we have Phil Hall from Brandon. Are there any other presentat ions to be made? MR. MacDONALD: Mr. Chairman, my name is Elliott MacDonald, and I would like to speak with respect to the bill annexing land to the City of Brandon. MR. CHAIAN: Thank you. Are there any further presentat ions? MR. G.D. BOX: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Gil Box, I am the Mayor of Brandon and I wish to make a presentation in support of the bill. MR. F. WEISGERBER: I am Felix Weisgerber, Reeve of Cornwallis. I would like to speak to Bill 18 . MR. WES SMITH: My name is Wes Smith. I am a spokesman for Larkhill Trailer Court, which is going to be closed down shortly, concern ing Bill 18. MR. ROLAND ELLIOTT: My name is Roland Elliott, of Brandon Mobile Home Owners Association, in suppor t of Bill No. 18. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further presentat ions? Then we should start with the first one on the list, and that is Mrs. MacDougall from the R.M. of Cornwalli .

Is Mrs. MacDougall here? MRS. MacDOUGALL: Mrs. MacDougall from the R.M. of Cornwallis. I decline to speak. Mr. Weisgerber will handle it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Number two is Mr. Phil Hall of Brandon. Is Mr. Hall present? MR. PHIL HALL: Mr. Chairman, I have copies of my brief. Would that be all right? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. MR. PHIL HALL: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: My name is Phil Hall, owner-operator of Brentwood Village Mobile Home Park in the City of andon.

Brentwood Village is one of the older Mobile Home Parks in the City; it has been there for approximately years, much longer than the boundary that goes down the i wediate est edge of the property. Brentwood 1

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 was originally called the Cornwallis Trailer Park. lt was granted one expansion by Co nwallis Council. At present we have over 40 families on our waiting list that would like to rent spaces in the new dev elopment. Our existing park is full to capacity and has been for the past two years. Why do we have these 40 when there are apparently 70 lots available in the nrth end of Brandon and why has Brentwood not had a vacant lot in these two years? The following, I feel, are some of the reasons: 1.

Location - close to Brandon Shopp ers Mall which has 20 plus stores as well as Woolco Safewa� and Canadian Tire outlets. ' 2. Brentwood is the only Mobile Home Park in the City with all 200 amp. underground electrical services and fully paved streets. 3. Brentwood is probably the only Mobile Home Park in Brandon where the tenant can sell their home without management 's prior approval. 4. Brentwood does not have rules and regulations that place an oppressive atmosphere over thE tenants. 5. Brentw ?od's tenants have access to prepared garden areas at no charge. 6.

Black d1rt and gravel have been stock piled for landscaping purposes and are del ivered to the tenants sites at no charge. . 7. Brentwood's management is full-time, and looks after all Park maintenance, that is, sewer and wate1 lines, as well as sno w-clear ing. There may be some concern amongst the Committee about setting a precedent that would see many boundary dis putes come before the Hous e. I think that you will find this case to be unique and I don't think there are similar circumstances elsewhere in Manitoba. No. 1. A busine ss on the border of two local governments wishing to expand its facilities.

No. 2, the obvious need in an area of housing that has to be looked at immed iately. No government can go against the wishes of the people forever. If I were planning on using this land for a housing dev elopment we would not be here today. The City of Brandon is on record saying they do not need land for this purpose. If I were starting a new mobile home park I would expect a difficult time in convincing people of this location, but for a busi nessman to go through the agony of the past three years in order to expand his business is unbelievable in a free enterprise society.

People who are calling me for rental spaces are not concerned about invisible boundary lines; they are see ing a Mobile Home Park with no vacancies and an empty field beside it, and a developer anxious to proceed with plans for a Park to suit their needs. A large number of my inquiries are from young married or to-be-married couples see king to have their own place. Are they to be denied this privilege for the sake of "setting precedents" or because of a dis agreement between municipal and city governments? Does this seem fair?

I do not bel ieve there is a problem in allowing this annexation for fear others will follow with further land requests. As mentioned earlier, the City of Brandon only needs this area for mobile home accommodation. This decision should be made on the basis of need and need alone. This need has been acknowledged by the City of Brandon, the R.M. of Cornwallis, the Municipal Board, and by many many mobile home owners, who want a choice of location on which to place their mobile homes.

This is the irony; ever yone agrees that there is a problem, there is a need, and here 1 am, the owner- operator of a Mobile Home Park, with land available adjacent to the existing Park for expansion, and the only thing holding this expansion is an invisible line, on one side the City of Brandon, on the other the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis. I don't think I would have had as much difficu lty if Brentwood was on the Canadian-American border.

Trying to be as objective as possible from my position on the fence, and that's literally, I su ppose the City of Brandon has to shoulder some of the blame for the present situation. However, they have tried on three different occasions to esta blish mobile home parks within their present boundaries. The locations met with stiff objections from area residents.

In the past ten years developers have not been breaking down the doors of City Hall with requests to develop mobile home parks within the city; the reason - simple - the return of the developer's investment is not as large or as quick as in a housing development. For this reason it would seem more sensible to expand exis ting parks than to create new ones. There have been many petitions, delegations, and letters in support of the Brentwood expansion. The only objection 1 have heard was from Cornwallis Council. Their objections cannot be for from loss of tax revenue.

Three years ago I offered to pay 10 years advance taxes which they refused, saying money was not the issue. At - that time the figures was around $1 ,700 for these ten years for the whole 83-112 acres. In the past years, I have spent $5,000 in legal fees alone. The yearly loss of reve nue by Cornwallis would be about $89.00 per year on the 37 acres in question. In a conversation with Reeve Weisgerber about my situation, he made two proposals for me to consider. Number one, I could buy out or become a partner in a mobile home park which Cornwallis have been desperately trying to establish for the last five years.

Cornwallis has as much trole as the City of Brandon in finding a developer. Number two, that I purchase land from Cornwallis that 2

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 they presently own in the City of Brandon, move my existing park there, sell my frontage and make a bundle. Now getting to the Cornwallis resolution and their five conditions for the annexation of 37 acres. Number one, the total areas, old and proposed to be used for the mobile home park are to be rezoned "Mobile Home Park ". The existing park is already zoned "Mobile Home ark", and the city will not let the 37 acres be zoned for anything else. This area is for mobile homes and nothing else.

Number two, the total area thus rezoned will be retained as an area zoned "Mobile Home Park" for a period of at least 10 years. Now if they're ref erring to the 37 acres only, this is acceptable as it has been designed for and only for mobile homes. If they are including the exis ting Brentwood Village, then I feel Cornwallis is being unrea sonable as this land is not in their jurisdiction. If the City of Brandon requir es some assurance or guarantee that this land will remain a Mobile Home Park for a reasonable time, I will only be too willin g to oblige.

I have no plans to close Brentwo od, but everyone knows the area, even Reeve Weisgerber is aware that some day it will become commercial property. The exis ting lot sizes average 37 feet by 73 feet and considering the average mobile home is pres ently 14 feet by 72 feet with 78 footers now on the market, these lots are obsolete right now. When better parks become available in Brandon, the old parks will naturally phase out. This course of events is natural and already is happening within the city.

What is not happening, is the replacement of these parks with new and better facilities in sufficient numbers to fill the needs. Nuer three, all lots in the Mobile Home Park will be offered on an individual rental basis and will not be sold as a mobile home sub8division with individual owner ship, nor will they be assigned in block packages to mobile home dealers. This clause provides no problem as I do not bel ieve in block packages and have never intended doing bus iness in this manner. Number four, the parcel proposed for anne xation for Mobile Home Park pur mus t be developed this year.

I have talked with this Mr. Weisgerber on this and he is aware there is a swamp area and a septic field on the 37 acres. I have planned for at least 100 sites to be on stream this year, 50 of which will be available immedia tely.

Num ber five, should rezon ing for additional mobile home parks elsewhere in the city not be successful as proposed by the City of Brandon Dev elopment Plan and following immedia tely after adoption of that plan, the City of Brandon will guarantee to take steps to establish as a municipal venture a mobile home park of sufficient size to provide for the estima ted needs of the city for a 10 year period.

I think the city has already taken steps in this direction and while 1 do not like my tax money being used to start up competition against me, I am also aware that developers have not been forthcoming and the need is so great some thing has to be done. On this basis, I would not object. Let's look at what a negative decision would mean. The 37 acres will remain out of production as it has been for over three years, of no benefit to the community at large. The immed iate sh ortage of mobile home sites will not be rectified nor will there be any immed iate choice of location for mobile home dwellers.

With rent controls in effect and the existing rents being the lowest in town at $60.00 per month, an economic sque eze has been placed on the existing facilities. Sin ce the spring of 1974 when the rent was $50.00 per month, property taxes have more than dou bled, $2,850 in 1974 to $7,375 in 1977, city water is up 45 percent and hydro increases are right up there as well. A pos itive decision will mean over 100 sites being placed on the market at a time when they are so urgently needed. The expansion will soften the economic problems that the exis ting Brentwood now faces.

At a conservative estima te of $3,000 per site for services between $30 and $400,000 will be spent within the next year again at a time when unemp loyment is high. No government assistance of any kind has or is being requested in the form of grants or subsidies. I have exhaus ted all avenues available to me and this committee represents the highest court in this manner. I have no recou rse from your decision. I would appeal to you to view this situation from the people's point of view , the need to do some thing positive now in a situation that has been festering in Brandon for the past three years.

Thank you, gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hall. There'll be some questions asked of you, I supp ose. So if you would remain at the mike, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has indicated that he would like to ask some questions of you. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Hall, do you own all of the land that is the su bject of the annexation bill? MR. HALL: No, I don't, I have, however, an option agreement dated the 30th day of April, 1975 3

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 and Clause 5 in that option says, "The vendor hereby covenants and agrees that as and from the 1s t day of May, 19 75 until the date of exer cising the option herein there described, the purchaser shall have the absolute right to the use and enjoyment of all or any part of the option property, more particularly described in

Schedule A attached hereto. (a), the vendor further agrees that the purchaser shall have the right to develop all or any part of the option property etc., and that the purchasers shall have the sole and absolute right to the use and enjoyment of those improvements made by the pu rchasers to the above described property until the date of either the expiry of the option period as herein set forth, or the date of exercise of the option whic hever comes first." 1 can pick up that option this afternoon, there's no limit. lt would run for another two years if it is allowed to go the full term of the option period. MR.

MERCIER: You're advising the committee then that you have an enforceable option to purchase all of the property which is the subject of the bill? MR. HALL: Yes, Sir. MR. MERCIER: Have you checked the legal description in the bill? MR. HALL: I have. Apparently there was an error made in the orginal bill and I believe that there has been an amendment, at least that's my unde rstanding. MR. MERCIER: I just want to confirm what you said. The zoning of your trailer park within the boundaries of the City of Brandon is zoned "Mobile Home Park"? MR. HALL: Yes, it is.

I checked yesterday at City Hall just for verifica tion and this is what the Real Estate Department says it is. MR. MERCIER: So all of that property cannot be used for any other purpose without a change in zoning? MR. HALL: That's correct. MR. MERCIER: Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? The Member for St. James. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Hall, you have stated in your presentation under Item 3, all lots in the mobile home park will be offered on an individual rental basis.

What would be the length of the lease, or what is the standard length of a lease when this property is rented? MR. HALL: In Brentwood Village there are no leases as such. We have a 30-day mutual agreement. A tenant will give me 30 days if he wishes to move or be transferred, whatever - in the case of a problem, I would have 30 days for an evic tion, as well. MR. MINAKER: So under Item 3 then, the individual rental basis is on a 30-day notice on all MR. HALL: That's correct, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: Mr.

Hall, on Page 3, Item No. 2, you refer to - and it's in quotation marks so I assume that's one of the conditions, or part of the resolution passed by Cornwallis? MR. HALL: Yes, it is. MR. MILLER: lt says, "The total area thus rezoned will be rented as an area zoned Mobile Home Park for a period of at least ten years ." lt will be retained as an area for at least ten years, and you are objecting to that, I gather? MR. HALL: Well, if the City of Brand on request that particular item "for ten years ", then I would certainly have to go along with it.

They have the jurisdiction, I'm just not convinced that Cornwallis should make this request of me, because the land is already in the City, it is zoned - as I previously 4

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 mentioned - for Mobile Home Park. I would have an awful time, especially with the conditions that are in Brandon right now, if I decided to sell that property tomorrow, which I guess 1 could legally do. The rez oning problems that I would have would be unbelievable. MR.

MILLER: Well, that may be but the idea that an annexation of 37 acres tied in to your existi ng opera tion, making for a larger mobile home park, would you have any particular objection if, indeed, Brandon went along with the Cornwallis suggestion and the entire area was zoned for mobile home park purposes for a ten year period, if that was a condition imposed by Brandon? You say it's their jurisdiction and not Cornwallis'. MR. HALL: If Brandon made that request, I would have to go along with it. MR. MILLER: I see. So you, personally, would have no objection. MR.

HALL: Not if Brandon made the request. 1 think that ten years is an excessive period of time and you would have to look at the existing mobile home park, the size of hhe lots, the facilities as far as sewer and water, I'm mainly concerned about. We are the only park, as I mentioned, with paved streets - we're a super-modern park, with obsolete lot sizes. That's the problem. MR. MILLER: All right, thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minis ter of Co-operative Affairs. MR. McGILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr.

Hall a few questions just along the line that was being pursued by the Mem ber for Seven Oaks. The area really in question, Mr. Hall, is the frontage area along that service road that you have described as becoming somewhat obsolete, and you were prepared, I think, to agree that this land would not be sold for other purposes for a reasonable length of time? MR. HALL: That's correct .. MR. McGILL: Which you consider to be how many years? MR. HALL: I originally wrote a letter to the City of Brandon, at their request, saying that this . would I agree to a five year freeze on the property? This I, in fact, did.

In further negotiations, Cornwallis came back and asked for a ten year, then it seemed like a trade-off, and I sa id, "Well, if they want a ten year, I'll go down to a two ye ar," but I would still go witt my original five year which I think is a reasonable period of time in this matter. lt would buy the City of Brandon enough time to establish more facilities within the boundaries. MR. McGILL: I gather then, Mr.

Hall, that you feel that c if the ity is successful in dev eloping new mobile home sites, perhaps more remote from busy traffic arteries like No. 10, that they would be perhaps more desirable than frontage lots on a highway for mobile home sites, and that conceivably the market for sites for mobile homes immed iately adjacent to busy highways would fall off, and people would move to quie ter areas of new developments. Is that correct? MR. HALL: I think if there was better mobile home sites within the city, yes, I would lose some tenants off of my frontage property. MR.

McGILL: So that the area which you would like to acquire now, being more remote from the highway, would be more desirable siting for mobile homes? MR. HALL: For residential area, by far, it would be. MR. McGILL: Is your reason for objecting to ten years, that in ten years perhaps people might not want to live in mobile homes on that present frontage site? MR.

HALL: I think the natural course of events with the ... every year we are coming out with larger mobile homes - right now in the U.S. they are producing a 16 x90 footer - right now at 72 feet we are wall to wall mobile homes on our existing sites. 1:m. in a way, ashamed to rent the facilities but there is no alternative. People will take this basically because of its location at the present time in proportion to the area shopping centres, as I mentioned in my brief. I think if there were larger lots back of the frontage, then I think the location would be retained , but the unde sirable 5

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 aspects would be removed, insofar as traffic and so forth. MR. McGILL: Mr. Hall, the Attorney-General asked you certain questions relating to the ownership of the land in question, and the option which you would have on that land. You are satisfied that the option enables you to pursue this matter and to favour the annexation of the property which is owned by another person into the City of Brandon; does the present owner agree with the proposal and is he prepared to support a decision which might change the status of his property? MR.

HALL: He has never said any thing against it being brought into the city. I think that - at least my legal couns el tells me that the option agreement is a valid document - I have spent $20,000 in local improvements on the land in the past three years, as well as I have situated my mobile home - a double wide on this particular piece of property. So my intention is certai nly of picking up this particular option.

If it had to be done, if the Committee sugge sted that it had to be done immedia tely, so be it; in the option I have the right to do it, like I say, this afternoon or whatever, but I understand that the agreement is valid and proper and I am just going with what my attorney tells me on that. MR. McGILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Hall. MR. HALL: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacDonald. MR. MacDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, and members of the Board, my appearance this morning is of very short notice, my ins tructions being within the last hour, and secon dly, my representation this morning is very limited. I am appearing on behalf of Mr. Anderson of Vancouver who, I believe, is the registered owner of a portion of the lands or the lands that Mr. Hall was ref erring to, and the lands that maybe the Attorney-General was inquiring about the enforce ability of the option agreement. I understand from Mr. Anderson that on the first read ing of the bill the Committee asked that his consent be given and Mr.

Anderson wants to record that he is not prepared at this time to consent. He raises the point that in that option agreement there is some question rega rding its enforceability. Now, if I understand the situation correctly, Mr. Hall has an option to purchase all or any portion of certain described lands; the option has to be exercised at some future date and I don't think that date has yet been reached. The point is, however, that the option also provides that in exe rcising it, he must exercise it with respect to either one parcel, parcel one or parcel two.

One of those parcels must be included in the land to be optioned - or to be exercised - and I understand that in the option agreement, parcel one and parcel two are not described. In other words, there is great vagueness about the land that the optionee has the right over and the land that he has the right to purchase, and Mr. Anderson questions, and he raises that question to put before this Committee, the enforcea bility of that option. He asks that my representation this morning duly record that his consent is not at the present time going to be given to the annexa tion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

Just a moment, there are some questions that will be asked of you. The Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr. MacDonald, would Mr. Anderson not acknowledge that if the bill were to be passed that the value of the property would probably be increased substantially? Well, I sho uldn't say su bstantially, but be increased. MR. MacDONALD: Well, Mr. Minister, as I said my instructions were very limited and on very short notice this morning and I don't know what his position would be in that regard. MR. MERCIER: Would his position be related to increased taxation if the land were an nexed and Mr.

Hall and he were not able to come to an agreement unde r the option to purchase? MR. MacDONALD: I don't know what to say in that regard, Mr. Minister, because my knowledge of the background of the situation is quite limited. Mr. Anderson's only instructions were with respect to his consent which apparently had been requested on the initial read ing of the bill and he was not, under the circumstances b% and he raises the point about the agreement - prepared to give 6

that consent. Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. MERCIER: Is your position then that the bill not be passed without the consent of the registered owner, Mr. Anderson? MR. MacDONALD: I don't know the basis of the request for the consent; the consent apparently was asked for on the initial read ing, on the introduction of the bill. That is my knowledge. And as I say, I'm standing here with very limited background and very limited knowledge of it. MR. MERCIER : I appreciate that, Mr. MacDonald, but is your position then that the bill should not be passed? MR.

MacDONALD: I would think the bill should not be passed if he doesn 't give his consent. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? The Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if Mr. MacDonald could - maybe I didn't hear the rea soning because there was some other conversation going on - but could Mr. MacDonald indicate why Mr. Ande rson at this point does not wish to give his consent? I might add for the record that the Committee itself, the Legislature itself, did not request a letter indicating Mr.

Anderson's position and that although I must say that I indicated to colleagues in the Legislature that my understa nding was that Mr. Ande rson was in dis cussion and conversation and in negotiations with Mr. Hall and was agreeable to giving a consent letter and that the consent essentially being that he had no objections to this property being transferred from the jurisdiction of the Ru ral Municipality of Cornwalli to the jurisdic tion of the City of Brandon. lt comes as something of a surprise if not a shock to some of us regarding Mr. Anderson's presumed change of position. I wonder ther efore if Mr.

MacDonald could indicate what is the rea soning for Mr. Ande rson not wishing to give his, what you referred to as his consent, at this time. MR. MacDONALD: Mr. Evans, I'm em barrassed appearing here, not being able to give you the details behind that, and I regret that. I am embarr assed again just by repeating my simple instructions but I understand Mr. Anderson does not want to give his consent to the bill. I repeat again, he questions the enforcea bility of the option agreement, and that I bel ieve is some of the reason behind his failure to give his consent. I regret that that is not an adequate answer, Mr.

Evans. MR. EVANS: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I am sure Mr. MacDonald realizes the question of consent being given by a person such as Mr. Anderson is - it's useful and interesting and important information - but nevertheless it doe sn't have any legal bearing on what the Legislature of Manitoba does. MR. MacDONALD: I can appreciate that. Was his consent not requested though, Mr. Evans? MR. EVANS: Not by the Committee, nor by myself as one of the MLAs for the area. lt was thought useful for the Committee to have some indication that the present owner, namely Mr.

Anderson, was agreeable to se eing that parcel of land that he now owns but optioned to Mr. Hall being transferred from one municipal jurisdiction to another. As a lawyer, I belie ve you are, as a legal ... MR. MacDONALD: I am, sir. MR. EVANS: ... counsel, would you say there is some vagueness in regard to the option in terms of the actual boundaries, the actual land description, but is it your opinion - and maybe this is not a fair question, Mr. Chairman, but I am interested - is it your opinion that this is a legally binding option agreement? Is this a fair, legal option agreement? MR.

MacDONALD: I would have to preface any remarks I say, Mr. Evans, by the fact that I've never seen the option agreement, to be very frank. But I say this in general, that an option agreement, like any agreement, where the description of the land is so vague it cannot be understood or maybe enforced, may have doubts as to its enforce ability. I take it Mr. Anderson is sayi ng the land that is optioned, that the rights were given over, had to include if I understand him correctly, certain parcels, parcel one or parcel two, but then the la nd, the option agreement did not describe parcel one or parcel two.

The option was to take an option of all or any portion of certain described lands but it had to include parcel one or parcel two . ... And that is a very vague answer, I am 7

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, Jun e 20, 19 78 MR. EVANS: Yes, okay. Mr. Chairman, then to Mr. MacDonald, it could happen then , given the uncertainty of the exact boundary description, that - let us say hypothetically - Mr. Hall exercises his option on parcel one and for some reason or other, if this particular bill is passed with the specific boundary descriptions included in it, there is a possi bility that Mr. Hall may end up - and this is strictly hypothetical - having to purchase let's say parcel one, part of which may be in Cornwallis and part of which may be in the City of Brandon.

But does it nullity or negate in any way his legal right to exercise the option? lt may be contusing, but he would be purchasing land from Mr. Anderson, part of which may be in one jurisdiction, part of which may be in another, but it's still a legally binding - as I would understand it - it's still a legal document, and if Mr. Hall chooses to exercise his option he may do so - if he himself is not concerned about this - without being overly upset whether part of it is in in one jurisdic tion and part of it isanother. Is it not the case, Mr.

MacDonald, that in some ins tances people buy property, part of which may be in one municipality and part of which may be in another? MR. MacDONALD: Yes, I think the invisible line that Mr. Hall talked about, an invisible fence, doesn't have any bearing upon the option agreement. I think the point is that when he goes to exercise that option agreement, and that's some time in the future because it has not been exercised yet, he has to exercise it with respect to parcel one or parcel two, and then parcel one and parcel two are not described, so how does he exercise that option? That may raise a real point.

Now, it begs the question, and maybe he's going to exercise it to all of it, I don't know ... MR. EVANS: Yes. Well, okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, then I would ask Mr. MacDonald, would you describe that as a problem for this Legislative Committee on Municipal Affairs or is that a problem really for Mr. Hall and Mr. Anderson? MR. MacDONALD: I think it's a problem tor Mr. Hall and Mr. Anderson, yes. lt's a problem of whether he has the right to exercise the option; whether he has an option at all that may be the point.

I don't know how that affects this committee; I would likely agree with you that it may not affect this committee. MR. EVANS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? The Member tor Swan River. MR. DOUG GOURLAY: Mr. MacDonald, did I hear you correctly in saying that parcel one and parcel two make up the 37 acres? MR. MacDONALD: No, I think there is 86 acres, all told, is there?

Now again, I am emba rrassed by appearing and not having those details, but I think parcel one and parcel two are part of the land being optioned and he can option it all or any part of it, but some part of it has to include parcel one or parcel two. There likely is more land than parcel one and parcel two in the total lands being optioned; I would think so. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Thank you, Mr. MacDonald. ayor Box of Brandon. MR. BOX: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Gil Box and I am the Mayor of Brandon. I wish to speak or present a brief in support of Bill No. 18 ,

An Act to Amend The City of Brandon Charter. I belie ve all committee members have a copy of this brief. The land that is being asked to be anne xed is 38.1 acres, being a portion of the southeast corner,

Section 1010 19 . The recommendation contained in the report of the Municipal Board to the Minis ter of Municipal Affairs dated October 19 77, which was last October, was brought about by what appears to us to be an erroneous conclusion of the Board that the city had not done its level best to provide appropriately zoned land within the city's limits to meet the need which exists. The need referred to by the Board is the area required tor mobile home living. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I reiterate that the city has attempted to provide lands zoned for mobile home parks.

However, in view of the opposition from adjacent property owners we have been unable to r·ezone land and the city has been taken to task in the past by the Municipal Board for not paying attention to objectors. The Municipal Board, in this report and recommendation to the Minister, suggests that if there is any justification for the proposed annexation it must arise out of need. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is exactly what Bill 18 is all about, 8

Municipal Affairs fL<fHfil/ , lliH 2•J, 1978 ---------------------------------------------------------- the immedia te need for additional mob1le home park araas in the city. When we say imme diate need, we mean exac tly that, right now. If we don't have them we have many people who will not have a place to go. When the city appeared before the Municipal Board in September of last year it was not aware of the fact that the mobile home park known as Lark hill, which provides 24 lots, and is located at the corner of 34th Street and Victoria Avenue, would soon be phased out and a commer cial estab lishment provided.

In addition, the city is now aware, quite recently, that Trailer Lodge, located at 18 th Stre et immedia tely across from the Keystone Centre, will likely be phased out by July 19 79 resu lting in the loss of a further 28 lots. This intensifies the necessity to provide additional trailer lots now. The city has made a number of attempts to rezone land for trailer parks and has been uns uccess ful, the latest of these being in 19 73, City of Brandon By-law No. 4446 under Planning Scheme, 19 73-G.

The by-law was given second re ading after Council heard objections, and following a Municipal Board hearing, the Board by Order No. T-5/73, di rected that the objections be allowed and the Planning Scheme not approved. lt is to be noted that the Board was not persuaded that a need for new mobile home accommodation beyond available sites in the city had been established. The property is cit y-owned and located at 26th Street and Maryland Avenue.

City Council, in a mee ting dated Jun e 12, 19 78, quite recently passed a unanimous motion which was presented by the Mayor app roving in principle the development of this vacant property as a properly designed mobile home park. Now, I want to just elabo rate for a second on the properly designed mobile home park, and it's not in the brief. We have a number of plans submi tted which would compare favourably with a well laid out residential area.

We are presently studying this very fine document from the Ontario Housing Authority, and we have other documents, some from Manitoba; it will be a well81aid out mobile home park. We feel that by the time we prepare the proper design and get approval of the necessary Provincial Government departments, it will take about 12 months; in fact we will do well to do it in 12 months. lt is anticipated that within the next few weeks a by-law will be given first read ing and advert ising will be commenced, with the expectat ion that if objections are received a sympathetic hearing will be accorded by the Municipal Board.

This will indicate to the Municipality of Cornwallis in a very real way the expansion of the boundaries to take in the full one-quar ter

section that has been dis cussed here recently this morning - to take in the full one-quarter sect ion is not being considered by the city. Mr. Chairman, repea ting, a real need exists for an immed iate expansion of facilities for mobile home parks within the City of Brandon. The iedia te concern of the trailer owners in the city and those planning to move into the city - we are losing people who own a mobile home and would like to move to Brandon and do not come because there's no place - can be overcome with the limited expansion of the city's boundaries to take in the 38. 15 acres.

We are not interested, in general, in expan ding our boundaries as such. Our concern, at this moment, is for our people . lt is a human need to relocate their homes. My remarks, Mr. Chairman, are though, necessarily very general, and I am prepared to answer any questions that either yourself or the committee members may have. I also express appreciation to your committee, Sir , for the opportunity of appearing before you in support of passage of Bill No. 18 , and this brief is respectively submitted, G.D . Box, Mayor.

Before I clos e, I would like to point out that I have a letter - and it is properly attached to your brief - from our City Engi neer, advising that it will present no difficulty to provide services to this 38. 15 acres that is under discus sion. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to answer questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mayor Box. The Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Mayor, I wonder if you have any comments to make about the previous rep res entations we've heard on behalf of the registered owner of the property, that he is apparently not prepared to consent or agree to the bill being proceeded without his consent. MR. BOX: Mr. Minis ter, I could hardly belie ve my ears that a witness would appear with such poor backup as the last witness. He had nothing to back up what he sa id,

whereas the pre vious witness states definitely, and quoted the sections under which he holds an option. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Mayor, he did indicate that he was acting on behalf of the registered owner, and while he cert ainly admitted that he had a problem because he had just received his instructions from his client, it appeared that his client's instructions were pretty clear. 9

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. BOX: But, Mr. Minister, do you not think that if his client - a Mr. Andersson, is that the right name? - was this serious, he wouldn't have been taking legal steps long before this morning? lt just doesn't make sense to me, Sir. MR. MERCIER: I can't answer that question. I think only Mr. Ande rsson could answer that question, but I just wanted to elicit your opinion of the previous representation we heard. MR. BOX: I thought it was a very weak representa tion. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for Selkirk. MR.

HOWARD PAWLEY: Mayor Box, do you recall back in 19 71, when the City of Brandon obtained through this Legislature a bill which anne xed a large portion of the Municipality of Cornwallis? MR. BOX: I wasn't on the Council at the time, but I am reasonably well acquainted with the situation. MR. PAWLEY: You recall the purpose of the annexation at that time was to avoid having to return to the Legislature for piecemeal type of annexation. MR. BOX: Yes, that is correct. MR.

PAWLEY: Well, we have a situation now where it appears that the city is not able to work within the bound aries of that area which was annexed back in 19 71. Surely, within that very large area, it would have been possible for the city to have zoned a portion for trailer park dev elopment, would it not ? MR. BOX: Yes, I agree with you. We made three attempts to zone, and each time were frust rated by the Municipal Board. MR. PAWLEY: Did the Municipal Board actually turn down the application for rez oning? MR. BOX: That's my understa nding, although my brief only lists one order.

But it is my unde rstanding that we were not able to get it either through the Municipal Board - because we had so many objections from other residents - the Municipal Board said to us, "Take note of these objectors and don't come to us unless you have a clear slate." We had hoped to have proper mobile parks, maybe more than one, but we have been frust rated at every turn, until we come today with people who are going to be out on the street. We really don't want another 38 acres from Cornwallis - it's going to cost us mone y - but we don't see any alternative tor these people. We are talking about human beings.

MR. PAWLEY: These three applications to the Municipal Board, have they taken place within the past two or three years? MR. BOX: Yes, they've taken place sinc e we expanded the boundaries, and we have more property. MR. PAWLEY: And you say, to the best of your knowledge that they were, in one form or another, rejected by the Municipal Board, prev enting you from proceed ing with development within your own boundaries? MR.

BOX: Well, at least one was rejected by the Municipal Board and possibly the other two - we just had too many local objections within our own city, that we felt we weren't strong enough to come before the board - I'm just not sure of those because I was not in office at that time, Sir. MR. PAWLEY: I'm a little concerned about that, because if the board, in two ins tances, did not reject but may have approved, despite the fact there were some objections.

Are you satisfied that every effort, then, was made to proceed within your own boundaries, in a legal way, rather than request the Legislatur e to add to the boundaries of the City of Brandon by an annexation from Cornwall is? You see, Sir, if I can just mention this, this is probably the final step to unde rtake, and I would like you to further elaborate on the information you gave us; that in two ins tances the city may have 10

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 simply withdr awn because there were some objections. I'm wondering the nature of those objections, whether it was reasonable for you to have withd rawn short of an actual decision by the Municipal Board, in view of the fact that you have chosen the second route here which is the pretty extreme route, to come to the Legislature even after the Municipal Board, in its wisdom or lack of wisdom, felt that the city was not entitled to the property in question that you're requesting this morning. MR.

BOX: May I confer with my Executive Secretary? it's my Executive Secretar y's opinion that there were Board Orders in all three cases. We don't have them with us; we feel we can supply the numbers. MR. PAWLEY: We ll, thank you, because that certainly helps to clarify if you are now indicating to us that you have been frustr ated legally by the Municipal Board in that they have, in fact, rejected your applications.

Then that certainly does place adifferent focus on it, but I would request, Your Worship, if you wo uld, I think for the benefit of the committee, be able to definiti vely assure us that that has been the case - that they were not simply withd rawals because there was some objection raised by ratepayers within your own boundaries - you would be able to provide us with very distinct assurance, prior to our voting on this matter. MR. BOX: Yes, quickly. MR.

PAWLEY: Now, I would like also to ask you, in view of the previous subm ission that the committee has received if you could detail for us what steps - in view of the fact that it is the City of Brandon that is undertaking this initiative in presenting this bill to the Legislature - what steps, if any, did the City of Brandon undertake to attempt to - I'm sorry if I am duplicating somebody else's question, Mr. Chairman - to obtain the consent of Mr. Andersson? I arrived late, so if somebody has asked that question, then I would withd raw it. MR. BOX: Sir, to my knowledge the City have had no dealings with Mr.

Anderson; we have dealt with Mr. Hall, who intends to operate the trailer court. Up to the time Mr. Anders on's name was mentioned this morning I didn't even know who owned the property. But there would be no object to the City dealing with Mr. Anderson. MR. PAWLEY: But is he not the registered owner in the Land Titles Office? MR. BOX: Well, the previous witness said so. MR.

PAWLEY: Now, 1 have to say to you, Your Worship, would it not have been rea sonably expectant upon the City of Brandon, in view of the fact it has undertaken this initiative, this very final step of appearing before the Legislature, to have ascert ained the registered owners of the property in order to obtain their advice as to their position in regard to this annexation which affects their prope rty, probably the value of their property? Would it not have been rea sonable, Your Worship? MR. BOX: Well, the way you put it, it seems that way all right, but we had the assurance of Mr.

Hall that he had his options and they were in good order. We had many dis cussions with the municipality of Cornwallis and we don't see eye to eye on this, but they never raised this question. MR. PAWLEV: So based upon the information that the City had received up to that point you felt that there was no objection from the registered owner? Then may I ask you, Your Worship, in view of the information which the Committee members have received this morning, that in fact Mr.

Ande rson is less than enthus iastic about the petition, do you feel that there is any responsi bility now on the part of the City to further pursue this with the registered owner? MR. BOX: I might as well be honest, as I was with Mr. Mercier, and say if I was sitting in your place I wouldn't accept that testimony. MR. PAWLEV: I see. But then , it is testimony from the lawyer repres enting Mr. Anderson, is it not? MR. BOX: it's not documented. 11

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. PAWLEY: Do you then feel that in view of your thoughts that the testimony is less than what we should accept? Do you feel then that there is any respon sibility on the part of the City to attempt to asce rtain, prior to members' voting on this in third read ing, because a number of us I belie ve are at a point of - truly unde cided at this point - to ascertain the view of Mr. Anderson? MR. BOX: No, I don't think it's up to the City to see Mr. Anderson; I think we deal with Mr.

Hall and we deal with the Municipality of Cornwallis and we deal with this Board, and I think if Mr. Anderson wanted to get into the picture he should have been in the picture long ago through his attorney and he should have produced the option agreement and pointed out where it was in error, and this has not been done. MR. PAWLEY: You see, Your Worship, what I'm concerned about, you have indicated that you feel that the previous testimony is less than what we should accept as Committee members. Lead ing from that then, I am concerned as to where that leads us.

Do we dismiss the previous tes timony or ought we not to be concerned about the position of th registered owner? MR. BOX: Would it be presumptuous on my part to suggest that you dis cuss this further with Mr. Hall who is the optionee? MR. PAWLEY: As to the position of the registered owner, you mean? MR. BOX: Yes, sir. MR. PAWLEY: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Your Worship, I wanted to ask several questions with respect to the dev elopment plan that the City of Brandon had with respect to rez oning changes and properties that they had contemp lated using, utilizing for mobile home park . In that dev elopment plan that the City had, how many acres of land were there that were vacant in terms of either being for residential housing or mobile home parks? MR. BOX: I can't answer the exact number of acres. There were fairly sizable and suitable, in my mind, areas for mobile home parks including the one that we are pushing immediately. MR. URUSKI: All right.

Were there more than one site in that dev elopment plan of the City of Brandon? Was there more than one site? MR. BOX: This Council we have now is almost entirely new from the last one and we are taking a much different approach than the previous Council, an we are actively going after mobile home parks; we may go after a second one. MR. URUSKI: In your brief you indicated that it would take the City of Brandon approximately 12 months to have, if they were to proceed now, with the land that they've got, it would take you about 12 months before you would receive approval to go ahead with your mobile home park.

How long will it take, in normal procedure, the applicants, if this transfer of land, this boundary change, takes place, how long will it take those applicants to get approval? Will they not have to go through the same process as the City would tave to go? MR. BOX: No. I think that Mr. Hall answered that question prior to you arriving. MR. URUSKI: I was at another Committee; I'm sorry. MR. BOX: Would you like to have that answer again, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: No, that's fine. If it's been answered, that's fine. MR. URUSKI: How many lots would be provided by this expansion, are you aware? MR.

BOX: Our expansion or Mr. Hall's expansion? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Hall's expansion. 12

MR. BOX: 13 7. Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. URUSKI: In the properties that the City has, the one that you're proceed ing with now, or in the process of proceed ing, how many lots would that provide? MR. BOX: We're looking at 15 0; it was 17 0-some odd originally but as trailers are getting bigger we were going to provide larger lots. MR. URUSKI: So you would have the possibility of providing 150 lots when this is developed? MR. BOX: This is our target. MR. URUSKI: Do you have other sites within your dev elopment plan that are available as well for mobile home parks? MR.

BOX: Yes, I think we have, but I think on this particular site it has quite a few advantages over the other sites. One is that there could not be nearly as much opposition from surrounding areas. There are some apartment blocks not too far away, but far enoug h; there is a park right beside it with a playground on it.

To the east there is a cemetery; to the south there is agricultural land with one farm, and to the west there is no housing, so we feel we have an area that can be serviced easily, the water and the sewer go down there. it's close to shopping and we do not foresee a lot of local opposition; we foresee some but not a lot, and this is why we chose this one initially. MR. URUSKI: And because of the need you feel that you will go on one front now and try and proceed with others in time? MR. BOX: Well, we 'll want to try and watch the development of Mr. Hall's lots and there's another one in the north end of town.

We will want to watch the devel opment there as well as our own. And incide ntally, the City does not want to be in the private enterprise business; as soon as we can get a buyer or get this thing organized, if we can get a buyer, we'll sell it, either partly developed or fully dev eloped, as long as they will undertake to maintain and operate it as a mobile home. MR. URUS KI: Yes, that's a question I would have had .

How would you then guarantee that what is happening now within the City of Brandon by the closing down, or the possible closing down of the additional two remaining mobile home parks, if you transfer the land over to private hands, the city-owned land to private hands, how will you guarantee that what is now happening in the City of Brandon will not then occur and we may be in future years back in the same position that we are here today, where there are two devel opments and the likelihood of two additional mobile home parks being closed up? MR. BOX: I think there would be two ways of handling it.

One is through our new Town Planning and Dev elopment Act, in which it would be designa ted mobile home park. The other would be if we sol d, to have that as a condition of sale. Twenty-five years seems rea sonable. MR. URUS KI: Would you consider an agreement that the land would revert back to the city, should there be an attempt to rezone the site that may be turned over to private hands? Would you consider that kind of an agreement? MR. BOX: Well, I would think there would be some type of thing in that.

I don't pretend to be a lawyer and I'm not really that conversant with law but certainly I know that agreements can be made that will stand up. MR. URUS KI: In your opinion, as the new Mayor of Brandon, do you feel that all available avenues had been taken by Council previously to attempt to establish more lots, in light of the dev elopment plan that they had within the City of Brandon? MR. BOX: We ll, I think they have done a rea sonably good job and they have been quite frustrated in the reaction they got in the opposition.

I don't think that they will be as aggressive as our new Council will be in providing mobile home lots, because we can see the need and we can see this type of housing, that many people want this kind of housi ng. I don't, but there are lots of people 13

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 do, and that we are having more and more pressure put on the city to have this type of site available. MR. URUSKI: There is no dou bt that there is a great need and great demand for lots, and 1 fail to see some of the opposition that there should be. That's why I asked you the question because if I recall there were some 50 acres, or in that vicinity, available for mobile home sites in your dev elopment plan.

And I wondered - and you have ans wered part of it - why the previous Council did not go through and establish several sites for mobile home parks, prior to this time? MR. BOX: I can't answer for them; I'm sorry. MR. URUSKI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Co-operative Affairs. MR. McGILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mayor Box, I just wanted to pursue the area that Mr. Pawley was questioning you on in respect to the option to purchase that Mr. Hall has. Did the City of Brandon, when it undertook to support this bill, do some investigation with respect to the option to purchase which Mr. Hall now has?

And was there any exam ination by your legal counsel of the terms of this option to purchase? MR. BOX: No, we took Mr. Hall's word for it, that he had the option, and we are also talking to Cornwallis at the same time and they at no time indicated that the option wasn't in good sta nding. We really didn't have any reason to pursue that avenue. MR. McGILL: I'm asking this, Mr. Chairman, because it may very well be that the question will come down to a matter of whether or not the option to purchase gives Mr. Hall the authority to proceed with this annexation of the proper ty, and that it may very well be that Mr.

Ande rsso n's personal feel ings on the matter may not be the determ ining factor, that it may be a question of law and the option to purchase. So my question really was: Has the city's legal counsel examined this and had an opportunity to determ ine, as far as they are concerned, that the option to purchase does enable Mr. Hall and the city to pursue and support this bill. MR. BOX: Not to my knowledge. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. MORRIS McGREGOR: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mayor Box, Mr.

Hall had questioned earlier regarding - I think he said he preferred two or five years but if the city requested ten years that he would indeed agree. Now, where does the city stand? Would they prefer to have the trailer park zoned trailer park for ten or more years? Personally, if I was putting a trailer on there, I think I would be inclined to, you know, want a little longer or the same situation we're in now where you use 5 years down the trail. Now, where is the city's thinking . . . ? MR. BOX: Sir, 1 think it may be perfectly clear but some of the test imony is a little conflicting. You see Mr.

Hall now owns a strip of property on the highway, on No. 10 Hi ghway, which is a trailer court and what he is asking to annex is another piece of property. Now, I don't think there is any question that if the annexation is granted and he builds a trailer court on there that that particular

section of land will be a long-term trailer court - whatever maybe you people feel is right. The thing that's in question is how long should he be re quired to hold this present strip, which is really highway commercial. If it was being zoned today and there was nothing on it, it would be zoned highway commercial and obviously it is going to increase in value. How long is it fair that you ask this man to hold this property? Cornwallis says ten years. I ink that's a little unreasonable.

I think five years would be fair for that particular piece which is commercial property and we are not talking about the land that is being proposed for annexation at this time. Does that answer your ques tion? MR. McGREGOR: Yes, I think so, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, my questions have been answered. Oh, yes, I have one more. Your Worsh ip, you mentioned in your brief there that the city has made attempts to provide 14

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 land zoned for mobile home parks and you have been able to rezone it and the Municipal Board have taken you to task, or tbe city to task, for not paying attention to the objectors. What type of objections are you rece iving from the adjacent property owners or have you . . . ? MR. BOX: Well, Sir, I wasn't in office at those particular dates but 1 understand that householders, for some reason or other, homeowners, do not like to see mobile parks built up in their areas. And I can't tell you why but I understand this is the situation. MR.

McKENZIE: That was what the Municipal Board was hinting at and more or less criticized the city for not paying attention to these adjacent property owners who were objecting to a trailer park coming into . . . MR. BOX: That's right, and they were not only talking about mobile home parks; there were other things we came to the Municipal Board for and there were objections and we were turned down. I just forget the det ail, but they just felt the city was coming too often without really having its house in order.3$ MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Seven Oaks. MR.

MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman , through you to Mayor Box, I am trying to get clarification. You indicated in your brief that of two existing mobile home parks, one was iscontinued and the other is about to be discontinued. Does the zoning of mobile home parks include or permit commercial de vel opment, or is it two different kinds of zoning? MR. BOX: Well, apparently in our previous plan, the one that is referred to as Larkhill - and you will be hearing from these folks later - was actually built on C3, commer cial 3. Apparently C3 does allow the building of the mobile home parks.

I understand the same holds true for the trailer lodge which we spoke of. We now have an indication that he will be closing some time within the next 12 months. MR. MILLER: I see. So it isn't that the Brandon City Council rezoned the land to permit it but rather the zoning was such that it permitted commercial any time the individual wanted it. MR. BOX: No, Mr. Miller, the zoning was in order. MR. MILLER: The zoning was in order. MR. BOX: Yes. MR. MILLER: So the city itself had no control on that score. All right, that limits that. You indicate need.

On the other hand, the Municipal Board indicated that need was all important. At the same time, you indicate the problems that you have encou ntered at the Municipal Board. If the Board is arguing that need is the sine qua non of a dev elopment of this kind, if need is all that important and would be recognized by the Municipal Board, in the light of what has occurred do you feel that the City Council is somewhat timid in going before the Municipal Board and insisting on rezoning within Brandon to meet a need which they thems elves indicate is the requirement or is the benchmark by which it has to be judged? MR.

BOX: I just didn't hear you as well as I might have, but I belie ve you asked me if I felt that the City Council had been somewhat timid in their presentat ions. Is that what you asked me? MR. MILLER: Yes. Timid in their approach. You know, it's all right to take people's views into account but if a need exists which is greater than the immedia te neighbourhood's . . . MR. BOX: Well, had I been the Mayor for the last ten years, I think I could have answered you, Sir, but I have only been the Mayor for six months and I can only tell you what my own approach is.

I have six new members in Council and they are very aggressive people and I think that this present Mayor and this present Council will not be timid in thE;!ir approach to anybody. MR. MILLER: Okay, thank you. In that last question - or I think it was the last - you mentioned a highway strip. Is that part of the existing mobile park? 15

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. BOX: Oh yes, this is quite a long piece of property. MR. MILLER: Now, is that zoned commercial or is that zoned mobile home park? MR. BOX: lt is zoned mobile home park. MR. MILLER: If it is zoned mobile home park, then the City of Brandon has the control on whether or not it will go commercial. MR. BOX: Yes. MR. MILLER: And then I have to ask you, a minute ago you indicated ttat in your opinion ten years would be too long to withhold it from the commercial market.

If the need is there and if you are desirous of annexing land in Cornwallis for mobile home parks, why would you even consider the commercial devel opment of that strip? MR. BOX: We ll, I think I have a good answer for you. I hope that by the time ten years are passed that we will not only get this one we are asking for now, this new one - not the annexation but the new one - and probably have one or two more that we will be able to take care of this, because this particular strip of land, I think, is pretty valuable for mobile homes.

And not only that, I don't think it's a good place for mobile homes on a busy highway. MR. MILLER: Mayor Box, if the land is not a good place for mobile homes, it's adjacent to and contiguous to a mobile home park - the strip itself you are talking about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I hear you saying is that in your opinion that strip, which is now a mobile home park or part of a mobile home park, should be commercial, that you feel it is very valuable land and should go commercial and yet you are requesting that additional land be annexed from Cornwallis for the development of a mobile home park so that exis ting strip of land can go commercial five years hence. MR. BOX: Yes, five years hence. Not immed iately; not imme diately. MR. MILLER: Well, in five years hence.

In other words, you are asking for annexa tion, knowing in your own mind that maybe five years from now the applicant will have acquired an extra 37-% acres, will be able to expand the mobile home park, and then take a part of the entire area out of it and develop it commercial as a straight speculative project. MR. BOX: Well, I would think that the 30 acres that the applicant is talking about five years from now, or at least ten years from now, would be a very small part of the total acreage devoted to mobile homes in our area. MR.

MILLER: All right then , what you are sayi ng, if I unde rstand you correctly, is that you are looking for a very short-term solution to a problem and Council - I assume you are reflect ing Council's view - would concur that this anne xation to take place to meet an immed iate need but that five years from now you would - you, if you are still on Council - would agree to rez oning part of that area, which is being used for mobile home park, would be agreeable to rez oning it commercial and deleting the part of the park from mobile home use. Am I correct in that as sumption ? MR. BOX: I didn' t really say that.

You asked me for my opinion and I well may not be the Mayor five years from now. MR. MILLER: I agree, you may not be. MR. BOX: And the property in question is zoned for mobile home parks at the moment, my secretary tells me. lt could well be that the Council we have five years from now or ten years from now, won't agree to the change. MR.

MILLER: We ll, of course you can't speak for what some future Council might do .. ut if Cornwallis is request ing that the combined areas be maintaine d as a mobile home park for a minimum of ten years, if your Council could somehow legally assure that that would be the case, would you have any objections? Would you have any objections to retaining the entire area for mobile home 16

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 park purposes for a ten -year period? l-0 1 MR. BOX: The entire area? MR. MILLER: The entire, the exis ting and the additional 38 acres. MR. BOX: Well I certainly would, I wouldn't want to have to go through all this dis cussion for the sake of only 38 acres that in 10 years from now would be used for some thing else. I understand this applic ation is for a long period of time. MR. MILLER: Mayor Box, I'm talking about the st rip, the strip that you ... MR. BOX: No, you told me the over all, you said overal l. MR.

MILLER: Yes but the strip, I assume, is part of the over all. MR. BOX: Well, it's part of it, it's not the over all. MR. MILLER: Okay, it's part of the overall and I'm asking you whether in your opinion the request by Cornwallis that the entire area be maintained as a mobile home park for a 10 -year period, would you agree to that condition? MR. BOX: Well I wouldn't agree with the strip that is presently in use. The part that's to be annexed, I cert ainly agree that that should be in perpetuity if you say, or for a long period of time. Are you acquainted with what we're talking about, the site, by chance? MR.

MILLER: No, Mayor Box, I don't have knowledge of the details but I do know what we're talking about, as I understand it, is that there is a mobile home park which now exists and along which there's a strip which you feel will be valuable commercial property. -02 MR. BOX: That's right, it's valuable today. MR. MILLER: Okay, all right.

Now, but Cornwallis is asking that if the annexation goes through one of the conditions the y're request ing is that if there's a need for a mobile home park and if they're being asked to give up 38 acres, that the entire acreage, the 38 plus whatever the acreage of the existing mobile home park, all of that be maintained as a mobile home park for a minimum of 10 years.

I understand that's Cornwallis's request according to the information we have and I'm asking you whether Brandon Council would object to mee ting that Cornwallis request, that there be no rezon ing in th ree years, five years, or eight years but in fact, that irrespectiv e of the commercial value or the commercial potential of the strip, that if we're talking about the need of a mobile home park and Cornwallis giving up 38 acres, that it be maintained as a mobile home park and no rez oning be entertained or a condition imposed that no rez oning would be applied for for any part of that new total acreage? MR.

BOX: Well a Mayor can only guess, or estimate or get the feel ing of what a Council will do. Up to this point you've been asking me what I thought, now you're asking me about what the Council might do. would think that our present Council would favour the 10 years. MR. MILLER: What about yourself, Mr. Mayor? MR. BOX: I think it's unfair. MR. MILLER: You feel it's unfair. MR. BOX: As a busi nessman and one person who has dealt in property and been in busine ss for I many years I think it's unfair to take a strip of land like this and say you've got to keep it for 10 years as a mobile home.

I think 5 years is reaso nable. J3 MR. MILLER: But you have no objection to asking Cornwallis to give up 38 acres in perpetuity for a mobile home park and allowing a strip of land on the Brandon side to go commercial perhaps five years from now? MR. BOX: No, I don't feel bad about that. I think that it's a very small piece of land and I'm not 17

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 interested in expa nding the boundaries, we've got lots of land in Brandon. But 1 am interested in these people who you'll be hearing from shortly who do not have a place to go within two weeks from now. MR. MILLER: Thank you Mr. Mayor, I think you've answered my que stions. MR. CHAPh MAN: The Mem ber for Selkirk. MR. PAWLEY: I just wanted to ask Your Worship what is the present status ins ofar as dis trict plen ning board? Has there been a district planning board estab lished? MR.

BOX: Not a dis trict planning board, we have our own town landing scheme and it's now under review and we will have a first read ing very soon on a new planning board scheme and we are talking with the people from the Province of Manitoba, the planners, on our new scheme. Had I anticipated these questions I would have brought all kind s of maps and colour photographs and everyt hing. MR. PAWLEY: Have there been discussions involving the City of Brandon and the RMs of Elton, Cornwallis and Oakwood, I belie ve it is, Glenwood ... MR. BOX: Yes. MR. PAWLEY: ... involving a dis trict planning board yet? MR.

BOX: Yes, I hope you will ask Reeve Weisgerber the same que stion when he appears. I think there have been dis cussions, but I don't think they've been very serious dis cussions. MR. PAWLEY: You mean there has been a lack of harmony? MR. BOX: No, no. MR. PAWLEY: What do you mean by less than serious dis cussions then ? MR. BOX: Well, we haven 't got down to detail where the City of Brandon scheme is fairly well advanced. MR. PAWLEY: Have any of the municipalities indicated by way of resol ution, approval in principle to the formation of the concept of a distric t planning board? MR.

BOX: Not to my knowledge, but you'll be able to ask the Reeves those questions they'll MR. PAWLEY: Speaking for Brandon, I'll speak to the Reeve when he arrives, but Brandon has not passed a resolution endorsing the concept of a district planning board? MR. BOX: My secretary says, yes, a number of months ago. MR. PAWLEY: Oh, thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask His Worship a number of questions for clarification. I gather from your earlier remarks Mr. Mayor, that it's your opinion that this question of whether Mr.

Anderson is or is not consenting to this particular matter that we have before us, is really a matter of a legal dispute between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hall. That is the question of the option and the deg ree to which it properly identifies and describes the legal description of the various parcels of land that are in question, that it is not a matter for concern specifically to the City of Brandon as such, or indeed even to the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis, that this is really a matter, Mr. Anderson's position at this time, is really a matter of a question of a legal dis cussion and agreement between Mr.

Hall and Mr. Anderson inasmuch as Anderson had previously signed an option to Mr. Hall. MR. BOX: Well, Mr. Evans that's my unde rstanding and I didn't even know the man's name up until this morning. 18

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. EVANS: Well I don't knoz the gentleman either, but this is the person in question. I can apprecia te the frustration experienced by the City of Brandon having been turned down by the Municipal Board· in previous attempts to obtain land zoned for mobile home park purposes. I want to make sure that the record is clear.

Did I hear you say that because of objections by mem bers of the community, people in the various districts of the city that may have been affected by a possible mobile home park, and when the matter did go to the Municipal Board, that the Municipal Board on three occass ions turned the request down, and this was a board order in effect, three times the board legally in effect, or adminis tratively refused the granting of the location of these new mobile home sites? MR. BOX: Yes, that's very nearly what I sai d.

The one time as quoted in the brie f and my secretary said that there were two other times and that he can supply this in writing, and this gentleman here I belie ve comes from Se lkirk, he asked about this and we said we'd supply it in wr iting. MR. EVANS: Yes' in other words what you would supply in writing is the actual board order, the Municipal Board Order . MR. BOX: Yes, he rec alls we have them and we' ll supply them in writing. MR. EVANS: Well that's fine, I just wanted to make it clear that it was a board order that we're talking about.

The other question I have is with regard to the proposal to develop a mobile home park at the corner of Maryland and 26th and you did describe the locale and the nature of housing that does or does not exist in the area, but are you really confident that there will not be serious objections to that location and that you may not have a repeat situation with the Municipal Board again saying no to the City of Brandon in locating in this particular location?

I belie ve you did describe that it was somewhat agricultural on one side, apartments on another' it wasn 't too built up so maybe there would n't be too much objection but there would be some. But are you really confident that people will not object to the point that the Municipal Board will once again be very sensitive and say no to the City of Brandon. MR. BOX: No, I'm not confident at all. I know that there's going to be some objec tions and I don't know what the Municipal Board will say to them.

Once I thought we'd won a case in front of the Municipal Board and we lost it, and the other time I was sur e we'd lost it and we won, so I'm not too sure. MR. EVANS: Well another question, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this year the City of Brandon and the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis did discuss this matter at some length and there were certain negotiations I believe. As we've been told the R.M. of Cornwallis did stipu late five conditions that they would impose and th erefore upon Brandon acknowl edging and agreeing to these conditions, that they would not object to this particular ... MR.

BOX: There's five conditions and I think one of them applies to the city and that is that the city would conscientiously unde rtake to develop a mobile home park. Now I don't have those five conditions in front of me, do you have them Mr. Evans? MR. EVANS: Yes, I have. MR. BOX: That's one of the conditions isn't it? MR. EVANS: Yes . MR. BOX: And I think the other four were to do with Mr. Hall and the municipality. MR. EVANS: Yes, number five I guess it is, "Should rezo ning for additional mobile home parks elsewhere in the City not be successful as proposed in the City of Brandon Devel opment Plan.

Following immed iately after adoption of that plan the City of Brandon will guarantee to take steps to es tablish, as a municipal venture, a mobile home park of sufficient size to provide for the estima ted needs of the city for a 10 -year period ." So that is condition number five. So you're agreeable to that condition? MR. BOX: We've discussed this ... 19

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. EVANS: Yes. MR. BOX: . . . very thoroughly and we're sa ying we have passed a unanimous motion and the by-law is ready for first read ing. MR. EVANS: Well really my question was why the municipality and the city couldn't come to the agreement on the other four conditions and I guess you're suggesting that perhaps the other conditions don't relate to the city but relate to Mr. Hall as such. I jus t might go over them. Number one, the total areas, old and propos ed, to be used for the mobile home park are to be rezoned Mobile Home Park. MR. BOX: No problem there. MR.

EVANS: There's no problem there. Number two, the total area thus rezoned will be retained as an area zoned Mobile Home Park for a period of at least 10 years. MR. BOX: Yes, well that's where we were in disagreement that the new area - we don't care if it's more than 10 years - but, the old area, the strip area ... And I sho uldn't say the Council, they may vote me down. lt's jus t my opinion as a businessman that that's an unfair condition. MR. EVANS: Okay, I'd like to come back to that one in a minute. Jus t to go on to the other conditions.

Number three, all lots in the mobile home park will be offered on an individual rental basis and will not be sold as a mobile home sub-division with individual owner ship, nor will they be assigned in block packages to mobile home dealers. I don't know whether you have any comment on that. MR. BOX: That's up to the operator. MR. EVANS: I don't know whether that's a problem or not. MR. BOX: Maybe you 'd like to recall him? MR. EV ANS: 61 beg your pardon. MR. BOX: Maybe he should be recal led. MR.

EVANS: Well, I don't know whether the Chairman would agree or not but there may be something in writing here whether that was a problem or not, or perhaps when Cornwallis comes up they might indicate ... MR. BOX: Maybe I could ask him . In other words Mr. Hall is willing to sell these lots to individual people. For those that are not acquainted with how lots are handled , mobile home lots are handled, sometimes a whole block of maybe 25 are sold t a dealer who sells mobile homes, and they're tied up so that individuals can't get at them . MR. EVANS: Right. MR. BOX: Mr.

Hall's saying that he' ll sell them to individuals. MR. EVANS: So number three condition is not problem and then I go to the last one, number four, it's not the last one, but the last one I'm dis cussing because we talked about number five at the beginning. So number four condition, the parcel proposed for annexation for mobile home park purposes must be developed this year, and I'm sure that is not a problem. That is the objective I belie ve of Mr. Hall and the city ... MR. BOX: Well, if it's not going to be developed this year the city's not interested. MR.

EVANS: That's right, so really the n, of the five conditions established by Cornwallis for some agreement to take place without dispute, there's really one and that is number two that seems to be of some question. That is that it be retained for a period of at least 10 years zoned as a mobile home park. MR. BOX: That's right. and it's only partially, it's only partially. 20

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. EVANS: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I heard His Worship indicate his view, personal view, that five years was a more rea sonable time. I'd like to ask him, however, this question. Would the City of Brandon object if there was some condition imposed, either in the bill - that may not be preferable - or somehow a legal undertaking by the city that this property must be zoned as a mobile home park for at least a 10 -year period; a condition that's established and binding somehow legally? MR. BOX: I understand your question. The answer is no, we won't object. If Mr.

Hall doesn't object, we're not going to object. MR. EVANS: You would not object then? Yes. Well, then, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the five conditions for agreement between them in two municipalities could be resolved, and amicably I would hope. I shouldn't really say anything further because I know the R.M. of Cornwallis, the Reeve will be prese nting his position to us. But it seems to me that if that is the basis of disagreement it's almost to the point where there isn't really any problem for disagreement or any problem for not, you know, co-operating in this particular venture. MR.

BOX: Well, I never felt we were very far apart in rea ching an agreement, but we didn't get it. MR. EVANS: Thank you very much. MR. BOX: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman, of clarification. As I understand it the property now that this mobile home park is on is zoned for mobile home parks. MR. BOX: Well, no it isn't because the park ... They're asking to annex the extra 38-point-some acres as agriculture. MR. URUSKI: No. But the site that is now a mobile home park. MR. BOX: That's in use. MR. URUSKI: That's in use. MR. BOX: Yes, sir.

MR.URUSKI: All right. How many mobile home park lots would disappear should this land be rezoned commercial? MR. BOX: 79 lots. MR. URUSKI: 79 lots. What type of commercial ventures would you, Mr. Mayor, envisage would go in should this be rezoned as you had suggested, within five years? MR. BOX: Well, I can only give you a general answer, and you're as well acquainted with the strip dev elopment as I am and you know the type of things that would like to get near a highway: implement dealers, builde rs, car dealersh ips, truck dealerships, the typical thing.

We get ice cream sometimes, but I don't lik e that very well, it's pretty messy. MR. URUS KI: Well, that's my very point. If, in fact, we rezone the land to what you are talking about to further commercial dev elopments, what impact wi ll it have on the new park that is going to be there and what kind of permanency are you going to give the residents that are there now, the 79 lots that are there now? You know, I put this question to you: How would you like to buy a home, or set up a home, and knowing today that in five years time you're going to have to pick up that home and move it?

What kind of permanency do you give these people by really indicating that you only favour a five-year life limitation on the present lots? MR. BOX: I really can't answer you. You know, it's kind of a speech, that question. I think that 21

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 the people that go on the new property have indefinite rights to the . You're asking about the people who have to move off the strip area, and I can't answer for them. MR. URUSKI: lt's zoned mobile home park today. MR. BOX: Well, maybe it will never get changed. MR. URUSKI: Would you, as being an agressive Mayor and you having an aggressive council as you have indicated , be prepared to indicate that the zoning will remain as a mobile home park? MR. BOX: No, I think that's immaterial because neither myself nor that council could be there in five years. MR.

URUSKI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. McGREGOR: Mr. Chairman, the Mayor made an earlier statement of sympathy for the people. I'm sure we all feel very sympathetic to those who are moved out, but I suppor t the Honourable Member for St. George in his approach. But at the same time, are there not vacant lots in the North Hill, the Highland Park, some 50 or 75 vacant lots - probably Mr. Hall's is a more popular one - but we're wanting to annex Cornwallis land; and then up on the North Hill we have unlimited lots - not unlimited - 50 or 75 serviced , ready to go. So I don't really sup port, Mr.

Chairman , the real sympathy on this when there are. I would like to go somewhere; and maybe I can't go ther e but I have an alternative. So I think the committee should know there are lots within the now boundaries of the City of Brandon. MR. BOX: Within the year there will be no lots again. MR. McGREGOR: But you have the land. MR. BOX: There's two delegat ions to follow me and they will be deal ing with this subject. MR. McGREGOR: Because I jus t want it on record that there are vacant lots there. MR. BOX: Yes. Well, whatever I say would be duplicated, Mr. McGregor.

So I'd just as soon let the people that own homes answer that particular aspect of it. MR. McGREGOR: But we would like to know both sides of the question as we go along also, Mr. Chairman. How many lots are there then at this - say naming only one, the Highland Park on the North Hill - are there 50 to 75 vacant lots there, servic ed? MR. BOX: I unde rstand so. Yes. MR. McGREGOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. BOX: I understand that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? The Member for Swan River. MR. GOURLA V: Mayor Box, about the proposed mobile home park on ... as a mobile home subdivisi on? MR.

BOX: Yes. MR. GOURLA V: Pardon? MR. BOX: Yes. lt will be laid out very simil ar to a subdivision for private homes, paved and so on. MR. GOURLA V: What type of lots would they be? 22

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. BOX: I don't know. We had a plan when we came before. lt sho wed 17 0-some-odd lots and the narrowest ones were 40-foot and there were different sizes, a variety of sizes and shapes. The new plan will be less lots because trailers are bigger and the lots in turn will be larger. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Matthews. MR. DOMINO: ... too much time.

But I'm just curious about this dev elopment within the city itself, within the old boundaries of the city, because it seems that this problem is caused by the fact that the City of Brandon has not been forward enough looking, and that you haven't thought ahead to solve your problems in this matter. MR. BOX: I completely disagree, Mr. Chairman, that's a most nnfair statement after the evidence we've presented. MR. DOMINO: Well, I haven't been here for all the evidence. But from what I've heard, that's my opinion at least at this point. You say you're going to attempt to provide 17 0 lots in this new ... MR.

BOX: 15 0. MR. DOMINO: 15 0 lots now? At the present rate of expansion of mobile homes, would you think this would be, what?- one, two, three years of supply? MR. BOX: About three years. MR. DOMINO: Do you have further plans in the works? MR. BOX: We hope so. We have two other areas and we hope that we can get the Municipal Board to agree. MR. DOMINO: Do you think the council or the people of Brandon have changed their attitude at all towards planning for mobile homes because of this crisis? I know that's an opinion. MR.

BOX: I think that a person who owns a home that's close to where a mobile trailer park or a mobile park is going to be established would probably oppose it. MR. DOMINO: Yes, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any firther questions? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. BOX: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Reeve Weisgerber. MR. FELIX WEISGERBER: Mr. Chairman, Honourable Minister, members of the Committee. We're in a rather peculiar situation today, Mr. Chairman, and those of you who had me appear before, back in Bill 10 7, will know that I can get very long-winded.

But however, today I'm not going to be long-winded because we are in a situation where our former Reeve, who had 29 years service to the municipal cause, is today being honoured in Reston, some long dis tance from here, and the Honourable Minister is sup posed to be there and of course we have to be there. How would the new Reeve look not appearing honouring his former Reeve?

So, therefore, I shall with your indulgenceS hurry along a bit and not read the appendic es and so on, and leave them with you to consider at another time, hopefully to have them considered.$ However, I would like to read the brief - and by this time I trust it is being distributed. Mr. Chairman: The Council of the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis would like to thank you and the members of this Coittee for this opportunity to speak to you in regard to Bill No. 18, which proposes to annex a portion of the R.M. of Cornwallis to the City of Brandon.

The position of the Council members is that they oppose the passage of this bill. The matter of the land in question is one which has been discus sed since shortly after the passage of Bill 10 7,

an Act respect ing the City of Brandon and certain neighbouring municipalities, which was passed in 19 71. (And although I am the newly elected Reeve, Mr. Chairman, I was here to add ress a number of the dear gentlemen at that time and we were quite adamant about our stand.) The previous owner 23

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 of the property did on several occasions request that he be allowed to expand his mobile home park into the rural municipality. This request was denied in each case as cited in the reply sent to him and attached hereto as Appendix "A". The present owner also made simila r requests on several occasions, each of which was refused. In March of 19 77 at the request of the owners involved, Mr. Uruski, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, was asked to amend the Cornwallis Planning Scheme to provide for zoning to permit expansion of the mobile home park.

A copy of the report of the Commission of Enquir y is enclosed as Appendix "B" and concludes: "1. On a physical examination of the property in question, it would appear logical for an expansion to the present mobile home park. However, it appears foolish to state this obvious fact, a city's boundary has to be somewhere and in this case it runs right behind the presently installed mobile homes in Brentwood Village and along an unde veloped public lane.

Because of the 1971 Brandon expansion there are, consequently, two municipal jurisdictions involved in the property either owned or under option agreement by the applicant. "2. Since this inquiry was established under the provisions of

Section 33(1) of The Planning Act, 19 64, any matters concern ing legal procedures respect ing the case in point did not come within its jurisdiction. More precisely, this inquiry had neither the purpose nor the competence to judge on legal matters relating to alleged irregularities of procedures. "3. The fact that considerable money has been expended on the su bject property by the applicant should not influence the decision on the zoning.

If this were so, it would simply abrogate council's jurisd iction over planning matters as anyone could then come to a council after the fact to request and demand a planning change. "4 . There would appear to be a distinct shortage of mobile home lots available in the Brandon area, but surely this is a respon sibili ty of the City of Brandon and not the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis which wishes to remain rural in nature.

Although, as previously mentioned, the city did not make representation to the inquiry, it would appear that there would be adequa te land available within the present boundaries of Brandon to meet the mobile home needs. lt would be a matter for the city council to recognize this in the preparation of its dev elopment plan. "5.

Sin ce both councils were represented on a liaison committee estab lished to discuss mutual municipal problems and issues and since this committee has expressed the following view in respect to this mobile home devel opment as shown in the committee's minutes of Jun e 11 , 19 75, it would be unwise to disturb this policy. The quote is, 'Some discussion took place on boundary extension aspects of the Brentwood request and it was mutually agreed by those present that nothing was to be gained by small piecemeal annexations such as was being proposed by Mr. Hall.8 "6.

The Rural Municipality of Cornwallis has adopted a planning scheme and had zoned the area in question as agricultural in accordance with this scheme. The Council of the municipality had, in its letter to the applicant of Janua ry 7, 19 76, made known its decision that it was not prepared to act on the appellants' application to amend the planning scheme by rezon ing this property. Since planning matters come clearly within the jurisdiction of the local council, any decision to disturb this jurisdiction cannot be taken lightly." Rec ommendation.

"lt is respec tfully recommended that the Minister not order the local authority to adopt the scheme proposed by the owners of the lands affec ted ." On July 19 , 19 77, the City of Brandon requested an extension of the boundaries of the city by annexation of part of the southeast quarter of

Section 10, Township 10, Range 19, Appendix "C", attached hereto is a copy of the Municipal Board report and the recommendations which reads as follows: "The Board is considering the evidence adduced and submissions made is of the opinion that from a strictly planning point of view the proposed annexation should not be approved and so reco of ends. lt is the view that the case of Cornwallis is well founded. Furthermore, the Board cannot help but conclude that Brandon has not done its level best to provide land, appropriately zoned, within the city limits to meet the very real need which exists.

"If there be any jurisdiction at all for the proposed annexation, it must arise out of need and not a need alone by reason of there being no appropriately zoned land at the present time within the confines of the City of Brandon which would offer a greater choice of accommodation for mobile home owners. To allow the proposed annexation, in the Board's view, would give rise to a similar chain of events which occurred and prompted the 1971 legisla tion." In Dec ember, 19 77, the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis made a subm ission to the Honourable J.

Mercier, Minister of Municipal Affairs, which is attached hereto as Appendix D and which suphor ted the rec ommendations of the Municipal Board. On February 2nd, the Honourable Minister advised Cornwallis of the decision of Cabinet not to alter the boundaries of the City of Brandon, Appendix E, and cited the Board recom mendation as one of the reasons for the decision stating: the Board was of the opinion that it was within the capability of the City of Brandon to provide such accommodation if deemed necessar y." 24

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 On March 17 th, the Honourable Minis ter then wrote to Reeve Weisgerber suggesting that perhaps the two Councils should dis cuss and resolve the need for mobile home accommodation for the Brandon area residents, which is Appendix F. Several mee tings were held during which much dis cussion as to the problem of rez oning, the need of mobile home owners, the city requiring time to prepare and by the City representativ es own suggestion, the pos sibili ty of the City es tablishing as a municipal venture a mobile home park within the present city boundaries.

Following these mee tings, the rural Council on a split vote passed the res olution as quoted in Exhibit G. The resolution was drafted bearing in mind the professed need of sites for mobile homes, some assurance of a ten-year guarantee that these sites would still all be available, and concern that the City take positive action to assure future provisions of sites. The Council of the City of Brandon replied to the resolution on April 11 th, Appendix H, requesting that the assurances provided for in the res olution be removed.

The Council of the Municipality of Cornwallis had a mee ting on April 13 th, unanimously rejected such a request, as expressed in the following letter of April 14 th, add ressed to Alderman F. Anderson, Chairman of the City of Brandon Liaison Committee. Mr. Chairman, I'd jus t like to go back to what I read that the original resolution with conditions was by a split vote, most difficult for a Reeve. However, on reviewing the City's stand, unanimously the City Council rejected their request.

And here is our reply: "Your letter of April 11 th requesting the Municipality of Cornwallis remove conditions 1 and 5 and modify condition 2 from a period of ten years to two years was considered by Council on April 13 th." Mr. Chairman, I would just like to stop here and point out that the five years, we have a copy of that letter. That letter to the City indicated to my Council when they considered the original reso lution that Mr. Hall had some sinc erity and was really concerned to a degree with the mobile home dweller. And that prompted the decision, to that point.

Had that not been available, the decision would not have been a split vote. lt would have been against almost unanimous. However, we had that letter. Now it comes back and states two years, because said Mr. Hall felt he had the bird in hand and why go for the five years, the two years is much better. "By unanimous agreement, the position of Council is that all five conditions must stand. The position of Council was, and is, that to elimina te or modify condition 1 or 2 would in the near future, two years, have provided for a reloca tion of a mobile home court, not an expansion.

If, in fact, the major concern in this issue is for the mobile home dweller, as indicated in this Council, then the longer period is mandatory. "Clause 5 must also remain in that, in discussion with yourself and Mayor Box at one of our Council mee tings it was sug gested by you gentlemen that if the municipality would but agree to buy the city one year and wished to do planning to provide alternate sites, it would be of great benefit.

"lt was further suggested by you and the Mayor that if rezon ing of sites failed and private citizens failed to develo� mobile home courts, then the City would have to undertake to develop one as a municipal enterprise. In this regard, the ten years is in keeping with the time period of condition two and, with the sug gested phase of the City of Brandon Dev elopment Plan." A copy of the letter is filed as Exh ibit I and copies were sent April 14 th to representatives of the Brandon Mobile Homeowners Assoc iation. A reply wasrreceived , as Appendix J, from Mr. C.

Duncan, President of that associa tion, in which he says: "Dear Sir: We acknowledge rece ipt of your letter and enclosures of April 14 th, 19 78. We feel that the conditions outlined in your resolution of March 20th, 19 78, have the interests of mobile homeowners in mind. We are aware of the differences between yourselves and Mr. Phil Hall, together with the City of Brandon.

We are st ill hopeful that the situation can be resolved to everyo ne's satis faction.'' lt is worthy of noting that he acknowledges that the conditions set forth by the Cornwallis Council and rejected by the City Council did in fact have the int erests of mobile homeowners in mind. Mr. Chairman, the Council of the Municipality of Cornwallis opposed this bill and the annexation it proposes.

The Council was prepared to agree on a split vote that annexation by negotiation and agreement so long as it provided a guarantee of provision of all of the sites for a ten-year period and for a guarantee that the City of Brandon would in fact ensure that an adequate number of sites be provided elsewhere in the cities, either by private or public dev elopment. The City refused and instead has requested this Private Mem bers' Bill be presented and that this government take the re sponsibility for prov iding mobile home sites with no long-term or future strings attached.

We contend that the resp onsibi lity lie s with the Council of the City of Brandon, not with this gover nment, and cert ainly not with the R.M. of Cornwallis. We respect fully request that this bill be defeated and the Council of the City of Brandon and its planners be directed to ensure that an adequate number of over 16,8 00 additional residential 25

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 units proposed in the city dev elopment plan be slated for mobile home sites. Unle ss this is done, the door would always be open for further requests to solve the problems created by future shortages of such sites, should the popularity of this type of housing continue to increase. Respect fully submitted, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. I have some other statements I wish to make in that regard, in answers to and in clarification to some other statements and information that was given to this committee by previous speakers. Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Hall expounded on the nice garden spaces that he has, and so on. Where will these garden plots go when the expansion takes place? I suggest they will disappear because the rroperty that is beyond the boundaries is being farmed by a lessee of the registered owner. If Mr. Hall is genui nely inter ested in the welfare of the mobile home dweller . . . And I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, thatCornwallis is; this has cost us a lot of money and throughout it we have maintained that the mobile home dweller is the only considera tion. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't have bothered going to the trouble.

We would have opposed it totally and stood there, and that's all, because annexation is a distasteful situation. Bill 107 is still hurting and I su ppose, to a certain extent, that's how I became Reeve, because that hurt is very deep and with skin such as I have it doesn't dig me too deep and I fight a little harder. Now, taxes are not an issue. What are we talking about? $235.00. Let's not talk about the taxes. If old parks are bec oming obsolete, Mr.

Chairman, why does Hall not accept the offer to start a new one, which is an offer we did make, as he stated, property within the City of Brandon, where a new type of park could be esta blished. The $5,000 he spent to this date in fighting this, to obtain it, could have been better spent. We also in proposing this to the City were told that the engi neering aspect, the cost of services to that area, would be prohibitive. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, what's going to be cheaper tomorrow? And that land lie s there; we own some of it. That's very nice.

We don't own all of it, and we think it's suitable and there is very little objection to a mobile home park in that area. But they are going to have to develop that land some day or they are just going to let it lie and come to the R.M. of Cornwallis and look for more land, and say, "That's too costly to dev elo p." I su bmit that it's cheaper to develop today than it is going to be next year or five years down the road. The statement was made that we were offered ten years taxes in advance. We have no such record on file in our municipality. I will pursue that further on retu rning.

We understand that the option expires in five years from 1 May, 19 75. I have more to say on that, with regard to a Mr. Ron Andersson, as I get down the line. We have rumours - and they are only rumours, I submit - that there is already a buyer and maybe even an option already on that highway frontage that is presently occupied by mobile homes. We are getting phone calls in this respect. So are aldermen and the City Solicitor. We submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is probably a fact, unable to be proven at this point. Ten years, Mr.

Chairman, is not an excessive period of time to say that they must take action and really do some thing when you study past history of the City of Brandon. However, I will submit the present mayor and the present Council, although we have not met with them all, but we are mee ting constantly or regularly I should say with the Liaison Committee from that city and surrounding municipalities. I must say there is a new attitude and that Liaison Committee has had meaningful dis cussion with us. And I look forward to some great changes. However, that doesn't solve the situation now.

We hear that mobile homes are bec oming longer and wider, and so on, and I belie ve this. I am directly as a private busi nessman concerned with mobile homes. I do quite a lot of work with them and they are getting larger and longer. And we are going to have to have larger lots. I think this has to be planned for now. If we are going to just take this 37 acres and rush into it for the sake of just getting it, I think we are going to make a mistake. The mobile home dweller is going to be penalized in the end. He is going to end up sitting on small lots an�· A thing that comes to light here, Mr. Chairman, is ...

And I wish I had the document but there are Ministers - one of your good members is not present just now but I hear that he has been in dis cussion on this matter. In fact, the remark was attributed to him and it is this: The City of Brandon to this date is utilizing 15 0 acres per 1, 000 population - gobbling up 15 0 acres per 1, 000 population. Toronto, in turn, uses 10 acres per 1, 000. Well, we won't be long down the road and we will be here before you trying to fight annexation as we did in 19 71. As I said before, that's still a hurt.

I think the City is going to have to be encou raged and if government has to do it then maybe that's where it should come from because not only the mayor and the aldermen can be faulted for this. The citizenry, for some reason or other and in some cases justified, they are deathly opposed 26

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 to mobile home dwellers. You mention a mobile home dweller or a mobile home to the average citizen and they just rise up to here. I disagree with that. They are human the same as everyone else and I do think, Mr. Chairman, that it is the up and coming way, or probably has been for some time, for a young couple to get into a home, to get into a dwel ling at a much less cost than what the se ponderosas are cos ting and they haven't got that big a mortgage hanging over their head, and they'll never live through it, their children wo n't pay for it.

And I think this is a way that they can get into a home. So, we sup port it, we support the mobile home dweller because it's a way of life now, and that's what has guided us in passing that res olution. Now, the Larkhill residents, and I would assume that there are a number of them here, have our sympathy, but, however, this is a way of life isn't it? You just get settled somewhere and somebody cracks the whip and you're gone. However, of the 22 I bel ieve, mobile home dwellers, 7, Mr. Chairman, have signed leases with Highland Park or White Swan.

I was offered copies of those leases to bring with me, however, I didn't think that we should go to that extent, that the word of the owner could be accepted, but he offered copies of those leases. The point is made that the Larkhill dwellers don't want to go to the north hill. Two reasons, the main being that it's taking them out of an area that they are used to living in, and they're socially attached to it, their work is in that area generally. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are hardships in life somewhere along the line, I'm sure we've all experienced them.

I suggest why not move into Highland Park, a little farther to work, maybe a slight disruption in school and as the park develops in the south and His Worship has informed you that they propose to do this, and we look forward to that, and we commend them for that action, which has taken place sinc e the negotiations originally per taining to the res olution, and they can move, it's not that difficult to move a mobile home, we do it all the time. However, it will be some dis ruption. But, Mr.

Chairman, they'll only be disru pted again if they establish in this proposed extended park, there's going to be some movement again very shortly, I can assure you. Mr. Chairman, the passage of this bill, won't solve it, it won't zone it, it still has to be re zoned. lt's agricultural now. That area will have to be rezoned for mobile home parks. What about the opposition there? And we are informed that ther e could be opposition, in fact, we have one opposition on record now that you heard some discussion on. I have further information to upda te that objection.

I fe el, and this has come to light since we arrived here, Mr. Chairman, the councillors who are present with me here feel that if the city, in fact, goes ahead with what they're doing now, in planning a mobile home park, knowing the mechanics of it and the ramifications of rezo ning and so on, I think tha t that court could be on line before the proposed court of Mr. Phil Hall, extension with Mr. Phil Hall, because we foresee legal problems in the land transation.

His Worship, the Mayor, also went on record as saying that he didn't feel that the Brentwood area was really a good area to have mobile home parks, and we agree. We are wondering why the city seems to always want to relegate these people to the fringes, to the outer edge. We dis agree with that. If that's to be done the R.M. will do that, and we have a park in a state of dev elopment agreement now, and we have assurance that that park will be on line the first of October with 50 lots.

If it's going to be dev eloped, the mobile home park developed, away from the city, or out on the fringes, let the R.M. do it, and go quite a dis tance from the city, otherwise, integrate them into the city. They are just as decent a citizen as anyone else. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal with Mr. Phil Hall, and some of the statements that this gentleman has made. He has been a considerable thorn in the side of the R.M. for some time, and we did have some difficulty with the former owner of that portion who is now st ill the registered owner of the parcel in question. However, Mr. Hall, has far outdone him.

Insofar as we are concerned, Mr. Hall has led the city up a garden path. I think they almost realize that now; in fact, some aldermen do. I'm sorry to have to say this, but he is not completely sinc ere in his facts at times, and he's a digger, he's a speculator, and he's a digger. Mr. Chairman, he'll go to great lengths. I respect him for that part. He's a real goer, but it leaves a bad situation, and at this point it has left the city and the R.M. of Cornwallls in a stage that is distaste ful.

Originally he suggests, in fact, he says in wr iting, five years, he would hold that frontage for five years, and all negotiations were done on that basis. However, once the resolution is in the hand of the city, Mr. Hall says, "I got the bird in hand, now let's downgrade that to two years ." In fact, I think I know why he has to downgrade it to two years. Funds. Nobody is going to give him that kind of money if he has to hold that frontage. Surely he had some studies done on the financial aspect of this in the first place. If he didn't, how foolhardy.

Then why lead the city and the R.M. of Cornwallis, and now this gove rnment, around this procedure when, in fact, he didn't do his homework himself in the first place. The ten-year clause, Mr. Chairman, we see nothing wrong with it. We have, in our posses sion , a development plan designed by the City of Brandon and its illus trious planners, and it's still to be finally approved, but it says, it's a ten-year development plan. What's the matter with this bec oming 27

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 part of it? What's ten years nowadays. it's not long. Now, the situation of Mr. Hall and his tactics leave a lot to be desired. This dear gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, tool< it upon himself to move four mobile homes onto the property in question, without authority, and hook them up, service them, and the municipality was forced to take court action, and that is still outstanding, Mr. Chairman. We are awaiting the outcome of this bill. I think that was very presumptuous on his part.

He just didn't ask permission, he didn't wait for any authority, he moved them on and conne cted them . I don't think that was very good and then for him to come to us afterwards and say, "I want to have the city annex it." I think another thing that is coming through here, Mr. Chairman, is that we have the city saying that this is a problem of Cornwallis and Mr. Phi! Hall. We have no dealings with Mr. Phil Hall. The annexation is by the city. The city wants jurisd iction over that land, and from then on they deal with Phi! Hall. Once the land is zoned, it is in their jurisdiction. What hold would we have on Mr.

Phi! Hall in any sense? None. it's totally the city's respon sibility after that point, and they must deal with Mr. Phil Hall. So, we don't agree with this - well, this clause is between the municipality and Mr. Hall and so on, and these conditions are presented to the city.

And if they can't comply with them - we would even have encouraged or sat down to some more discussion, but their letter to us, just said, "strike this, strike that, and amend that one" - not, could we come down and talk to you, and maybe come to a better agreement. lt was also stated to us that the word "guarantee" in the one condition, the solicitor said no city government can go along with guaranteeing some thing. They are not going to be here X number of years. Well, maybe a softer word ing would have been there.

We wanted some assurance, we wanted some concrete evidence that this city is genuinely interested in the mobile home dweller, and not Mr. Phi! Hall. Now, Mr. Chairman, getting to Mr. Andersson, and you had represe ntation here today, and I have more to add to that.o$ Mr. Ron Andersson and myself spoke yesterday morning at 8:00 o'clock Brandon time, which was 7:00 o'clock in Burnaby, B.C. The gentlemen was very disturbed, and although I did not get all the questions answered that I asked him, I did get the distinct unde rs tanding that he was very displeased with what was going on.

He sa id, "Why didn't the municipality or the city ask me." He sa id, "I asked you to have that zoned at one time, for a mobile home park, and you turned me down. If you are going to make it into a mobile home park, what's the matter with me having it? Why can't I develop it? I'd come back at a jump." I informed him that we were told that he had issued an option. He said, "Tbat's a very loose document, and if you get a lawyer to read it, you'd probably find out that it's not what it is said to be." I think that is coming to light here too in that the parcels are not defined.

There is no legal description of the parcels. I do not however, have a document in hand that I can say that that is fact, but that seems to come out. In speaking to our Council solicitor, he also made mention that there is somet hing just not right about this situation and it would certainly throw a new light on it, if it were to be revealed. Mr. Andersson then, also, at an earlier date, made an appearance in our municipal office. I was not present. He spoke to our staff, and he expressed the same thoughts. He wondered what was going on here, why wasn't he informed.

In fact, he was in town hoping to appear before a rumoured committee hearing of this legislature, however, it did not materialize, and he went back to his home in B.C., some of them were illegal. Mr. Chairman, that's our presentat ion. Our council and myself thank you very much for hearing us out. As 1 said it's unfortunate that we have to be on our way to Rest on. There is one other thing I would like to mention. Before you is a photostatic copy of a

article that appe ared in The Brandon Sun, Jun e 17 th by Sun correspondent one Garth Stouffer. I think he sums the situation up wonderfully. I submi t to you that we do oppose this bill and I respectfu lly request that you not pass it. I do also say, I think there is meaningful discussion with the City of Brandon now. We've had some very nice discussions lately, in fact a very important agreement was reached at a liaison mee ting only just rec ently.

I'm not at liberty to make all the fact known, however, I think it's a milestone and our Honourable Minis ter will be informed when it's consi dered appropriate and I think it's the direction we should go. However, we don't think the mobile home dweller is being served as is stated here. We think that this is a speculator that is hurrying into somet hing and not really genui nely concerned about the mobile home dweller, nor is the mobile home dweller going to be served by this. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Reeve Weisgerber.

We are getting close to the closing hour of 12 :30 p.m. and 1 would like to seek the advice of the committee on how we're going to proceed. We recogn ize that we have delegations here from the City of Brandon who have come in a great distance to appear before us today, so the Chair is going to abide by the decision of this committee. The 28

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest, in view of the fact that the delegations here have come a long way and at some expense and of course of their time on this very important matter, that we continue to sit until we hear all the rep res entation. I don't know how long they will be, hopefully they won't be too long, but I would like to move or recom mend that we continue to sit until we hear all repres entations today. Just two more I unde rstand. MR. CHAIRMAN: it has been suggested that we sit until all the presentations have been heard.

Is this in agreement with the board? (Agreed .) We will then continue with questions, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Your Worship, I'm advised that while we've heard this morning that the existing mobile home park within the City of Brandon is zoned for mobile home park purposes, that the City of Brandon has approved a dev elopment plan which, when approved by the Provincial Land Use Committee of the provincial gove rnment, will amend the zoning to make it highway-commercial and that is now before the Inter-Departmental Planning Board.

If the Provincial Land Use Committee were to order a change in the development plan which would change retain it as mobile home park, would that sati sfy the condition that your council has suggested in its resolution about a guarantee of zoning for mobile home park purposes? MR. BOX: Yes, Sir, that would solve that and in fact that's not the city's zoning, they inherited that zoning when they took it over in annexat ion. That's Cornwallis and with them it's only policy that it's mobile home park now anyway. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. James. MR.

MINAKER: Reeve Weisgerber, I wonder on the land in question that's before us at the present time, who provides the police and fire protection for that area, is it the Municipality of Cornwall is? MR. WEISGERBER: Yes Sir. MR. MINAKER: And is the school division boundary cote rminous with the boundary of Brandon as well? MR. WEISGERBER: No, no the school division has other boundaries. MR. MINAKER: So that that

section of land presently is under a school division that includes the Municipality of Gornwal lis, but not the City of Brandon. MR. WEISGERBER: That portion, yes, belongs to the same school division as the portions of Brandon. I do believe, Sir, it's division 40. MR. MINAKER: The other question with regard to the trailer park that the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis is presently involved in, that area as well police and fire protection comes from the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis? MR. WEISGERBER: Yes, Sir. MR. MINAKER: And the schooling division falls within that boundary? MR. WEISGERBER: That's right, sir.

MR. MINAKER: And I'm not familiar with the area, is the water suppl ied from a well source or a river or ... ? MR. WEISGERBER: In the park that is being developed within the R.M? it's ground water and the engi neering studies have ensu red adequate supply and that portion has been app roved by the environmental people. MR. MINAKER: I see, thank you very much. 29 •

Municipal Affairs Tuesday, June 20, 1978 MR. CHAIAN: The Mem ber for Sel kirk. MR. PAWLEY: Reeve Weisgerber, I wanted to ask you the same questions I pursued with His Worship, the Mayor of Brandon and that is in connection with the Rural Municipality of Cornwallis and its attitude towards district planning. Has the Council endor sed the concept of a dis trict planning board? MR. WEISGERBER: The Council as such has not, however, in dis cussions I would say that a large number of the present Council would vote in favour if the thing was put to them in that sense. MR.

PAWLEY: You would concur then that many of the se problems would be resolved if there was a suitable dis trict planning board with a conceptual plan rela ting to land use involving Cornwallis, Elton, Glenwood, Oakwood and the city.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-2-ma1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 2nd hansardpdf ma1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d179185bfd1759f068156fa49022b390737ea2f6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).