►
Description
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
B
A
A
Item
number
1
amendment
to
the
engineer
report
for
the
van
Gogh
municipal
drain,
and
we
have
speakers
on
this
item.
So
we'll
hold
item
number.
One
item
number
two:
amendment
to
the
engineer's
report:
o'keefe
municipal
drain
Block
C
station
0,
0
2,
0,
+,
2,
3
4.
We
have
no
speaker
for
O'keeffe
municipal
day
on
the
item.
Okay,
thank
you
item
number.
3
is
planning
infrastructure
and
Economic
Development
Department
2019
work
plan
and
we
have
presentation
from
our
staff.
Is
that
correct?
So
we'll
hold
item?
C
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
so
the
purpose
of
this
meeting
is
say:
yeah,
it's
an
official
meeting
under
the
drainage
Act.
It's
the
meeting
to
consider
the
engineer's
report
for
the
van
gaal
municipal
drain,
the
van
gaal
municipal
drain.
Is
it's
a
it's
a
section
78.
So
it's
an
improvement
to
an
existing
drainage
works
under
the
drainage
act
and
the
engineer
of
record
is
mr.
Andy
Robinson
who's
here
with
us
today.
A
D
Good
morning,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
members
of
council,
my
name
is
Daniel
loach
and
I
live
with
I
own,
along
with
my
parents,
the
property
located
at
six-30
5
/
Street
in
Richmond,
Ontario
I'm
here
today,
to
make
it
perfectly
clear
that
the
land
developers
alleged
assertion
to
the
city
that
all
agreements
are
in
place
is
totally
false.
My
lawyer,
Joshua
moon,
has
provided
committee
members
with
a
letter
confirming
my
opposition
to
the
current
plan.
A
similar
letter
was
delivered
to
the
city's
engineering
firm
last
week.
D
Several
years
ago,
the
land
developers
stated
he
was
going
to
dig
the
drain
deeper
and
take
the
property
out
of
floodplain,
based
on
the
current
plans.
That
was
a
complete
fairy
tale.
The
current
plan
proposes
to
take
all
of
my
property
on
the
east
side
of
the
vanghoul
municipal
drain,
plus
a
large
swath
of
land
from
the
west
side
of
my
property,
and
according
to
the
engineer
that
I
spoke
to
it's,
to
build
a
stormwater
retention
pond
on
my
land.
D
Now
you're
gonna
ask
yourself:
if
a
land
developer
wants
to
build
houses,
why
doesn't
his
plan?
Consider
a
storage
plan
on
the
land
to
be
developed.
The
answer
is
quite
simple:
well,
let's
get
the
city
to
take
the
land
from
someone
else
and
leave
more
land
to
build
houses.
There's
28
acres,
it's
all
open
farm
field,
it's
a
blank
slate
I'm,
not
just
the
unlucky
one
that
has
the
drain
running
through
my
property.
D
Current
proposal
will
leave
at
least
a
12
foot,
deep
pool
of
water,
approximately
2.5
meters
from
my
barn
and
possibly
eliminate
or
compromise
my
freshwater.
Well,
at
the
front
section
of
my
property,
the
impact
of
this
loss
of
land
on
the
market,
value
of
my
residence
will
be
significant
and
will
undoubtedly
have
a
negative
effect
on
mortgage
renewal
requirements
and
homeowners
liability
insurance.
I
also
have
concerned
about
concerns
about
safety
issues
from
children.
On
my
property.
I
don't
want
to
be
liable
in
case
a
kid
falls
in
it.
D
This
is
the
information
I've
been
told
that
it's
going
to
be
a
stormwater
retention
pond
okay,
five
minutes
ago,
the
developer
mentioned
to
me
that
my
information
I'd
received
is
completely
false.
I,
don't
know
who
else
to
turn
to
I
will
be
losing
approximately
fourteen
mature
trees.
Some
of
these
trees
are
40
and
50
feet
tall.
This
is
unfair
and
part
of
my
reasons
for
opposition.
D
None
of
you
guys
on
committee
and
ladies,
would
want
the
city
to
come
on
to
their
land
without
compensation
and
cut
down
14
mature
trees
that
provide
a
lovely
buffer
between
the
street
and
my
land
all
to
assist
the
developer.
To
add
insult
to
injury,
the
city
is
also
recommending
a
special
assessment
for
property
owners
along
the
drain,
because
it
is
supposedly
an
improvement
and
I
don't
see
how
this
is
an
improvement.
It's
not
not
an
improvement,
in
my
case
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
the
drains
worked
well
for
over
35
years.
D
D
In
the
past,
the
Rideau
Valley
Conservation
Authority
is
indicated
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
that,
as
a
homeowner
I
am
not
allowed
in
any
way
to
modify
this
vanghoul
drain.
That
runs
through
my
property
in
any
way
a
bank
height
width
and
depth.
They
further
indicated
there's
a
fish
environment
in
the
drain
and
when
I
phoned
the
RVCA
after
I
received
the
envelope
in
the
mail.
With
that
little
thumb
drive
from
Robinson
consultants.
That
explained
that
this
meeting
was
going
on.
D
D
D
Any
stormwater
retention
pond
should
be
moved
to
the
north.
It
should
be
located
on
the
land
to
be
developed,
not
mine.
We
I
did
not
consent
to
the
proposed
works.
The
proposed
work
is
neither
a
maintenance
nor
a
repair
to
the
existing
drain.
It's
the
creation
of
a
stormwater
retention
pond
on
our
property.
This
is
the
information
that
I've
been
given.
This
is
how
the
documents
read
if
any
works
are
approved.
I
should
be
fairly
compensated
for
any
of
my
land
that
may
be
required
for
this
project.
D
I'm,
currently
going
to
receive
absolutely
nothing
and
I'm
going
to
lose
my
trees.
Partial
potential
recovery,
if
any
under
the
Drina
act,
is
totally
inadequate.
We're
dealing
with
a
prime
residential
property
with
a
two-car
driveway
access
to
the
main
street
in
Richmond
Ontario
compensation
should
not
be
based
on
farmland
prices.
B
E
Have
concerns
about
I,
have
concerns
about
having
the
drain
turned
into
a
stormwater
management
design
because
I
don't
know
how
that's
going
to
affect
the
drain
or
what
I
can
do
with
my
land
down
the
road
and
the
floodplain
that
could
possibly
be
on
it
from
this,
and
I
also
have
concerns
about
keeping
the
public
off
my
lands.
If
they're
gonna
have
this
wide
drain
going
through
there,
it's
gonna
be
people
are
gonna,
be
using
that
for
paws
walking
dogs
and
their
bikes
and
four-wheelers
and
snowmobiles.
F
E
B
F
B
G
Good
morning,
everybody
I
just
want
to
go
on
record,
say
that
I
do
oppose
this
I'm
gonna,
wonder
about
18
or
share
that,
and
I
just
want
to
go
on
record
saying
that
I
pose
the
future
costs
that
I
would
have
to
pay
as
a
owner
for
this
drain
number
one
number
two
I
disagree
with
the
boundaries
for
the
drainage.
I
met
with
Lorne
and
we've
walked
my
property
he's.
You
know,
explain
things
to
the
lidar,
but
I
still
I
still
disagree
with
the
drawings
on
this,
and
so
for
the
record.
A
G
H
I
H
I
H
I
I
H
Well,
the
information
that
you
received
there
is
contact
information
for
the
engineer.
I
encourage
you
to
reach
out
to
them
to
discuss
the
drain
as
it
exists
on
your
property
because
it
has,
since
before
you
bought
it
and
also
the
impacts
of
the
future
works
on
your
property.
It
I'd
be
surprised
if
you
saw
any
difference
on
your
property.
B
I
H
I
H
B
B
H
Negatively
it
should
be,
you
should
see
the
exact
same
impact
on
your
lands
at
that
point
of
the
drain
on
the
map
that's
shown
here,
whatever
impact
the
drain
provides
today,
it
should
be
pretty
similar
in
the
future,
because
the
point
is
to
take
the
new
water
on
the
south
end
of
the
drain.
Just
like
was
done
with
the
drain
to
the
south
of
Perth
Street,
which
is
the
Arbuckle
music
for
drain.
That
was
done
a
few
years
ago,
improved
to
take
on
more
water
because
of
the
changes
in
the
area.
H
B
B
J
J
My
question
is:
if
I
bought
that
property
personally
would
City
of
Ottawa
be
asking
my
neighbors
to
help
pay
to
drain
it
I,
don't
understand
why,
as
my
other
neighbors
have
pointed
out,
they've
purchased
a
large
chunk
of
known,
wet
property,
but
they're
expecting
us
to
pay
for
part
of
it
and
potentially
put
other
people's
properties
at
risk
to
hold
stormwater.
So
that
would
be
my
question.
A
H
Because
this
will
drain
so
under
the
drainage
act,
any
property
that
receives
that
the
it's
in
the
watershed
of
that
municipal
drain.
They
have
to
contribute
to
that
via
some
drain.
So
you
see
in
this
map
here,
there's
four
different
drains
on
this
map.
Actually,
there's
one
on
this
four.
So
as
our
buckminster
draining
the
van
gaal,
the
hobbs
missable
drain
and
the
flowing
creepiest
will
drain
so
any
property
in
the
watersheds
of
those
drains
and
this
watershed
for
our
bucket
or
van
gaal
is
mapped
out
in
the
red
line.
H
Anyone
that's
water
flows
into
that
municipal
drain
is
assessed
to
charge
and
that's
because
miscible
drains
are
created
under
the
drainage
act
by
private
property
owners
who
then
apply
by
petition
to
get
a
drain
created.
In
many
cases
these
are
created
eighty
nine
hundred
years
ago
for
the
purpose
of
agricultural
uses,
but
they
still
exist
and
we
had
we
get
a
lot
of
these.
H
The
O'keefe
drain
was
one
that
was
approved
earlier
today,
where
it's
in
the
urban
area
now,
but
it
still
has
to
go
through
that
process
because
it's
it
has
a
status
under
the
drainage
act.
So
you
get
those
situations,
so
it
wouldn't
have
mattered,
who
applied
if
mr.
Featherston
wanted
to
get
an
improvement
to
the
immiscible
drain
to
benefit
his
firm,
the
landowners
neighboring
would
pay.
It's
not
necessarily
just
a
developer
issue
its
whoever
owns
land
on
the
drain.
H
B
J
J
C
K
K
Briefly
put
I
asked
what
is
before
the
committee:
it's
an
application
under
Section
78
at
a
drainage
act
to
improve
a
municipal
drain
perfectly
normal
course
of
business.
Ottawa's
the
applicant
Ottawa's,
the
approval
Authority
in
a
way
we
go,
but
it's
also
part
of
a
much
larger
planning
process
and
that
had
to
do
with
the
creation
of
an
urban
type
village
in
the
village
of
Richmond,
and
it
went
through
a
community
design
plan,
a
secondary
official
plan.
The
boundaries
of
Richmond
were
expanded.
K
This
property
was
designated
for
residential
development
and
one
of
the
impediments
to
it
is
that
it
lies
within
the
one
and
a
hundred
year,
flood
plain
established
by
the
conservation
authority.
So
the
primary
object
of
fixing
the
van
gaal
dream
is
to
implement
the
desire
of
the
city
to
see
residential
development
at
this
location.
If
you
would
look
at
tab
three
in
the
book.
K
Mr.
FET
Easton's
property
is
shown
to
the
to
the
north
again,
no
change
for
the
existing
course
of
the
drain.
Just
changes
to
the
drain
itself.
So
what
we're
about
here
and
that's?
Why
I
ask
what
is
proposed
and
is
it
in
the
public
interest?
The
implementation
of
the
planning
regime
is
very
much
in
the
public
interest.
The
delays
have
been
inexcusable.
This
is
12
years
and
counting,
and
if
you
look
at
the
second
bullet
under
what's
before
the
committee
development
was
initiated
as
early
as
2008.
K
Everything
was
approved
at
the
OMB
in
2014
there's,
a
memorandum
of
understanding
which
I've
said
is
2015,
but
it's
in
fact,
2014
and
I'll.
Take
you
to
that
in
due
course,
and
that's
where
everyone
agreed
that
this
drain
implement
US
drain
improvement
should
be
undertaken.
The
city
agreed
that
it
would
be
done
in
2015,
so
four
years
and
counting
I
woke
up
this
morning
to
CFRA
once
again
announcing
that
a
flood
plain
warning
had
been
issued
for
Richmond
village.
Let's
get
at
it,
you
know
if
you're
concerned
about
safety
issues.
K
Let's
get
this
drain
relocated
and
the
most
important
thing
about
that.
The
reason
for
doing
the
reach
analyzation
is
that
the
flood
plain
will
be
shrunk
where
it
now
covers,
essentially
all
of
the
development
lands.
The
flood
plain
will
be
realigned
with
the
channel
of
the
drain,
so
the
development
lands
can
all
be
developed
and,
in
addition,
with
respect
to
mr.
leeches
property,
mrs.
loach,
I'm,
sorry
Thank
You.
Mr.
chairman,
his
property
is
now
in
the
floodplain
in
part.
The
burn
which
he'll
talk
about
and
the
well
are
located
in
the
floodplain.
K
One
of
the
results
of
this
drain
will
be
again
to
shrink
the
floodplain
so
that
his
land
comes
out
of
it.
Amazingly
part
of
his
house
is
actually
in
the
the
restrictive
area.
The
floodplain
plus
15
meters.
I,
don't
know
what
that
means,
but
you
would
certainly
need
permission
from
the
RVCA
to
even
fix
this.
How
that'll
all
be
solved?
Might
us
reach
analyzation,
it's
good
for
environmental.
It
comes.
The
new
channel
has
been
designed,
it's
something
like
a
meandering
stream.
There
are
heavy
tree
plantings
proposed
which
are
set
out
in
the
engineer's
report.
K
There
is
a
loss
of
some
tree
cover,
admittedly,
but
there
are
invasive
species
in
there
and
the
consultants
tell
me
that
this
will
be
a
major
improvement.
What
you
will
now
see
is
something
that
very
much
looks
like
a
meandering
creeks,
properly,
landscaped
and
taken
care
of,
and
it
will
be
a
huge
improvement
and
it
will
match
people's
visions
for
a
village,
not
the
usual
trapezoidal.
Ditch
you
know
running
across
farmland.
A
K
The
drainage
authorities
attempted
to
impose
a
requirement
for
encroachment
agreements,
formal
legal
agreements,
the
city
legal
department
turned
that
down
it
continued
in
her
ownership
until
2016.
If
the
target
date
of
2015
had
been
met,
this
said
Oh
Danny
MOU.
It
wouldn't
be
a
problem
at
all
and
it's
still
not
a
problem.
Mr.
A
K
It's
a
drainage
application.
It
does
not
require
legal
encroachment
agreements.
That
was
the
opinion
of
mr.
mark
and
that's
the
basis
on
which
this
has
gone
forward.
I
want
to
go
and
deal
then,
specifically
with
the
objections
that
have
been
raised,
particularly
by
mr.
loach.
This
well
is
an
alleged
well
in.
There
seems
to
be
identified.
K
B
H
I
don't
have
questions.
I
saw
two
Corrections
one.
The
village
boundary
has
not
been
expanded,
probably
in
over
150
years
for
the
village
Richmond
I
just
want
to
clarify,
just
because
I
think
that
misconception
gets
out
there,
that
the
city
expands
boundaries
just
to
grow.
The
village
Richmond
has
not
expanded.
Actually,
if
you
look
at
the
1876
corporation
limits
to
the
village
Richmond,
they
aren't
that
far
off
from
what
they
are
today,
except
for
the
Cardell
lands
to
the
east,
but
the.
H
Have
been
a
development
lands
have
always
been
development
lands.
The
lands
in
question
have
been
slated
for
development
as
far
back
as
the
eighteen
hundreds
as
they
were
always
within
the
corporation
limits
of
the
village
of
Richmond.
Thank
you.
The
second
part,
the
floodplain
warnings,
the
flood
warnings
for
Richmond.
H
This
doesn't
change
that
unless
you're
dredging
the
jock
and
making
the
Rideau
drain
faster
into
the
auto
River
this
outlets
into
the
jaw,
the
jock
is
what's
causing
the
flood
warnings
for
Richmond,
so
I,
don't
want
you
I,
don't
want
any
misbelief
to
be
out
there
that
all
of
a
sudden,
this
drainage
work
is
gonna,
make
Richmond
flood
proof
because
it
won't
half
of
Richmond's
in
the
floodplain
and
that
won't
change.
So
just
I
just
want
it's
great
that
you
come
here
and
you
presents
on
behalf
of
your
applicant
I.
K
H
K
K
H
You
just
touch
on
there's
a
couple
points
for
the
committee.
Just
speaks
again
to
that
I
know.
You
mentioned
it
briefly:
the
assessments,
how
the
assessment
schedule
works
for
this
and
then
how
it
will
work
on
going
and
how
that
is
in
this
report
impacts
the
ongoing
assessment
schedule
compared
to
let's
say:
if
no
work
was
done
at
all.
L
Thank
you,
the
as
David
indicated,
the
full
cost
of
the
works
at
this
time
will
be
a
cost
associated
and
paid
for
by
the
developer,
so
there'll
be
no
cost
associated
with
the
other
property
owners,
but,
as
indicated
I
think
councillor
Moffat
has
explained.
Well
is
it
today
if
work
was
done
on
the
existing
drain,
everybody
within
the
watershed
would
be
assessed
a
portion
of
the
cost.
That's
the
standard
missile
drainage
act
requirement.
L
I
don't
have
the
exact
amount,
but
it's
likely
it
would
be
down
to
maybe
20%
of
what
it
would
have
been
otherwise,
but
there's
no
cost
at
this
time
to
any
of
the
other
property
owners,
and
you
know
in
answer
to
some
of
the
questions
about
the
property
upstream,
Lots
17,
18,
19,
that
water
all
ultimately
drains
to
this
I
know.
There's
an
argument,
but
at
least
a
couple
of
property
owners:
they
don't
think
the
water
gets
there,
but
under
higher
flow
conditions,
even
through
the
hydro
corridor.
There
are
low
areas.
L
H
Alright,
can
you
speak
to
the
process
of
landowners
notification
and
over
the
lost,
because
I
mean
there
was
a
comment
me
that
this
work
was
anticipated
to
be
done
in
2015?
Well,
you
know
if
you
only
start
the
drainage
process
in
2015,
there's
no
way.
You're
gonna
get
work
done
not
in
this
day
and
age.
It
these
things
take
three
or
four
years
just
to
get
through
the
application
process.
You
just
go
through
that
process
about
what's
the
milestone
steps
and
how
notifications
that
worked?
Yes,.
L
The
well
again,
we
were
appointed
under
Section
70,
a
to
the
drainage
act,
which
is
initiation
by
counsel
and
it.
The
main
reason
I'll
just
take
a
little
bit
of
time,
because
I
appreciate
there's
a
couple
of
new
people
on
the
on
the
Iraq
committee.
But
there's
section
four
of
the
drainage
act
is
what's
called
a
petition,
which
you
might
say
is
the
more
normal
approach
and
is
the
approach
that
must
be
used
for
a
brand
new
drain.
L
However,
for
an
existing
drain,
if
the
improvements
are
required,
there's
a
section
78,
which
is
initiated
by
counsel
generally
at
the
request
by
property
owners
and
that's
how
this
was
initiated.
So
the
the
there
is
a
requirement
under
section
78
and
section
4
to
have
what's
called
an
on-site
meeting.
So
all
of
the
property
owners
and
in
the
watershed
are
notified
and
there's
a
meeting
either
on-site
or
if
it's
the
wintertime.
Sometimes
it's
in
a
warmer
place.
L
Where
and
at
that
point
the
ideas
for
the
engineer
to
basically
get
information
on
existing
issues
and
there
may
be,
there
may
be
items
that
we
would
not
otherwise
be
aware
of.
But
basically
it's
it's
an
information
meeting.
The
only
other
meeting
requirement
officially
is
the
one
we're
at
today,
in
other
words
with
the
meeting
to
consider
now
in
this
case,
because
it's
it's
driven
by
development
of
the
lands,
the
the
engineering
on
the
project
has
been
done.
L
On
behalf
of
the
landowners,
the
developer,
it's
obviously
been
reviewed
from
a
stormwater
management
point
of
view
by
the
Rideau
Valley
Conservation
Authority
and
the
city's
development
approvals
and
the
mo
e.
So
all
of
these
approvals
are
left
in
the
hands
of
the
developer,
to
make
sure
they're
in
place,
of
course,
because
ultimately
we're
responsible
for
what
we
do.
We
review
the
the
background
information
and
the
hydraulics
and
colleagues
to
make
sure
we're
comfortable
within
which
we
have
done.
The
plans
have
been
done.
Our
are
from
a
detail.
L
Point
of
view
are
very
good
and
we've
worked
a
lot
over
a
period
of
time
to
get
a
drain
that
satisfies
the
environmental
concerns
about
having
more
trees
and
more
meanders
and
other
fish
related
issues
and
making
sure
that
it's
something
that
can
be
maintained
at
a
reasonable
cost
in
the
future.
So
that's
took
some
time
the
one
area
that
has
come
up
and
I
don't
know
how
to
say
this
other
than
to
say
it.
L
We've
been
assured
several
times
over
the
course
of
this
that
all
of
the
affected
landowners
had
been
contacted
and
there
had
been
agreements
in
place
so
that
I
guess
we
what
we
really
did
is
we
took
the
work
that
had
been
done
by
others
and
incorporated
under
the
requirements
that
drainage
act,
because
that
the
existing
drain
was
being
changed
so
that
I
guess
on.
In
some
other
instances
we
would
be
a
little
more
involved
with
some
of
those
specific
property
owners
so
that.
L
H
L
H
F
Is
there
any?
Is
there
any
way?
I
have
not
looked
at
the
site,
but
is
there
any
way
that
the
work
in
in
making
this
constructing
this
retention
or
their
storm
brain
can
can
mitigate
the
damage
or
the
the
amount
of
work
that
will
effect
mr.
loaches
property
like
to
do
they
need
to
do
you
need
to
take
down
14
trees?
Do
you
need
to
take
up
that
amount
of
that
they
work?
Does
it
have
to
take
up
as
much
as
as
mr.
Welch
is
saying,
I'm.
L
L
noches
property
and
leave
it
well
relative
sense
it
may
it
may
it
may
be
some
modifications,
but
not
to
the
same
extent,
which
would
mean
that
perhaps
the
volume
of
storage
which
has
been
accommodated
there
would
have
to
be
accommodated
elsewhere.
But
we
haven't
looked
at
that
because
we
were
kind
of
reacting
to
the
plans
and
details
that
were
provided
to
us
is.
F
F
A
M
L
M
Requirement
so
so
my
so,
my
second
question
will
be
so
the
improvement.
That's
going
to
happen
to
that
municipal
drain.
That's
gonna,
be
it's
gonna,
be
basically
better
for
the
future.
So
if
we
do
that,
if
we
do
that
work
right
now,
it's
actually
saving
in
the
next,
whatever
five
six
years.
If
there
is
another
issue
somewhere
else
on
that
drainage
network,
that
it's
gonna
actually
improve,
and
it's
gonna
be
and
to
my
knowledge
that
no
one
will
be
assessed
into
into
this
round
other
than
developer
themself.
L
Just
the
last
the
last
question,
the
answer
would
be:
that's
correct.
Is
it
the
all?
The
costs
are
that
it
will
be
the
cents
to
the
developer,
to
the
land
owned
by
the
developer,
and
that,
in
fact,
because
the
improvements
are
being
made
there
that
yeah
the
time
until
assessments
or
a
maintenance
has
to
be
done.
M
M
That's
basically
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
clarify,
but
my
question
my
second.
My
question
will
be
to
add
a
to
mr.
Ryan
Dave.
When
you
do
development
into
any
before
you
basically
approve
development
and
before
you
do
anything
because
I'm
facing
this
right
now,
we
need
multiple
different
area
in
our
not
only
in
councillor.
Moffitt
is
world
in
my
world
also
and
I'm
learning
lots
about
municipal
drain,
because
there
is
a
lots
of
misconception
between
stormwater
Road
ditches
and
wrote
culvert
and
municipal
thing
so
as
in
it.
This
is
the
proper
way.
M
If
we,
when
we
do
development
to
do,
have
an
engineer
report
before
we
move
forward,
it's
actually
will
minimize
the
impact
in
the
future
in
whole
surrounding
community,
and
that's
what
basically
to
why
I
am
asking
that
so
that
well,
that's
the
proper
course.
That's
right
now
we're
faced
in
the
cassidy
drain
and
metcalfe
and
that's
what's
impacting
right.
Now
we
didn't
let
the
developer
pay
for
the
engine
report.
Now
all
the
community
are
paying
for
the
engineer,
report
and
outcome
of
the
engineer
report.
M
C
I
can
clarify
that
counselor
you're
correct
so
in
an
existing
drainage
works
which
has
status
on
the
provincial
legislation.
If
there's
a
development
or
a
major
land
use
change
within
that
watershed,
it
triggers
an
update
to
the
engineer's
report
for
just
that
reason
to
ensure
that
that
that
land
pays
its
fair
share
of
the
drain
of
the
improvements
required
to
the
drain
and.