26-09 is a land use bylaw, that may not have been drafted to reflect the best interests of Springfield.

Here is a short summary of recent updates:

Mayor Therrien, on short notice, requested council hold a special meeting on 26-09 which took place Monday July 27th.

Therrien’s intention was to pass second reading of bylaw 26-09, a very confrontational Land Use Bylaw.

Why is Therrien in a rush to pass second reading to 26-09?

During the busiest vacation week of the summer?

Does he really want the public’s participation?

Is he running out of time? The Municipal election is October 28th 2026

Therrien’s loyalty has consistently leaned towards Developers and Builders, not Springfield Residents.

Councillors Melinda Warren and Glen Fuhl will need to stand up to Therrien, part ways, and join Councillors Miller and Kuczynski to defeat this poorly crafted proposed bylaw.

Residents successfully managed to hold up 2nd reading, however the hearing remains open to a continuance. A future date in late August or early September will be chosen.

Stay Tuned.

I am including a post, with permission, from Jill Overall ( Candidate Ward 1 ) who was one of the organizers attempting to have the 26-09 land use bylaw suspended until after the October 28th election.

The intention would be to have meaningful public hearings and workshops to redraft the bylaw in favour of more rights for residents imbedded into the legal document .

Thank You

Allan Akins

Hello Springfield residents,

Here in Springfield, it has been difficult for the average citizen to receive

information about some really important events which will have a lasting effect on our lives in Springfield. The recent Public Hearing, held at the Municipal Office on July 27, is a prime example of this lack of communication. Zoning Bylaw 26-09 is difficult to understand because it is lengthy(90 + pages), it’s hard to find on the website, and it has had very little news coverage in our local paper. So, I’d like to let you know what occurred at the Public hearing.

People were turned away…Over 120 people came out to the Municipal offices to attend the meeting, but Mayor Therrien quickly enforced the new 50 person limit in the Chambers. After the 50 chairs were full, he directed the rest of the concerned citizens to go listen out in the hall and watch on a small TV out there. It’s not often that Springfield has this many citizens show up to Council to voice their concerns, but they were sent out of Chambers. Councilors Kuczynski and Miller asked the Mayor to reconvene the meeting to a larger meeting place, but Mayor Therrien, along with Councilors Fuhl and Warren, voted to stay in the undersized Chambers, and leave more than half the residents out in the hall.

Why did it take 2 Years to discuss?...This Public Hearing was 2 years overdue, as the Municipal Board had directed our Council to hold a Public Hearing two years ago, and they even told Council TWICE to ask the people for input! But again, our Council voted 3-2 against following the Province’s directions. Perhaps the 3 were hoping that Springfield would get annexed into Winnipeg Metro (WMR) and they could skip this directive. Springfielders do NOT wish to be part of WMR and have already made that overwhelmingly clear!

The people were able to speak out….Once the Public Hearing started, concerned residents were finally able to explain to our Council where, in the Zoning Bylaw, we have seen areas that could be improved. Some examples of resident input…

• A local resident, who works in the animal industry, stepped forward toexplain concerns she had with the section of the Bylaw referring to theproposed livestock policy changes in the Navin area.
• 2 young men from Vivian, came forward to explain their concerns with the possibility of Silica sand mining in their community, and the need for more protection for their community’s water quality and their quality of living.
• Another resident suggested adding 5 more points to the CommercialComposting section, based on the experience of families living next to such a facility.

As more residents followed with their own suggestions, it became apparent that there were significant errors and omissions in this rushed bylaw. With their professional experience or their lived experience, we heard more and more Springfielders add suggestions that could help form the new Zoning Bylaw to better fit Springfield’s needs, and to better protect our land use. There were 14 more presentations to be heard, but the Hearing ran out of time and will be reconvened later this fall. The date will be announced by the RM once a larger venue is found.

Did our Council actually review the entire Bylaw? It was becoming more and more evident that this was exactly why the Province’s Municipal Board has repeatedly directed our Council to go to the people, and ask the people if they see any needed changes. I think Council’s eyes were opened on July 27! They learned that a 5 member Council, and a handful of employees, should not be the only authors of such an important land use Bylaw. No one could expect only those 5 people, who hold the only 5 votes, to have expertise in so many areas of land use. The consulting group (WSP) which normally works on our Municipal Bylaws was not involved with Bylaw 26-09.

Councillors were not able to review the entire Bylaw together! Council were then asked by a Springfield resident if they had been given the opportunity to go line by line through this new version of the Zoning Bylaw and…… surprisingly they had not! It was incredible that the Mayor and CAO expected our Councilors to vote to pass this controversial Bylaw ….without having gone through the whole document together!

Aggregate section has been left out of the Bylaw! A member of the advocacy group called Our Line In The Sand pointed out that a section on aggregates (that’s sand/gravel), previously developed by a Task Force appointed by the RM, has not been added to the Bylaw. More research into the implications this omission will have on Silica mining and Springfield water quality, must be discussed by Council. Why wouldn’t Council include restrictions related to sand, when we have such an ominous threat looming with a silica sand mining company knocking at our doors?

The power of signing a petition…A Bylaw can be temporarily halted from being passed via petition to the Province of Manitoba’s Municipal Affairs department. A minimum of 300 signatures are required to register a petition against any bylaw. In the 3 weeks since Springfield Council decided to move ahead with Zoning Bylaw 26-09, Georgina Mustard (Ward 4 candidate), Margaret Marion Akins (Mayoral candidate), myself (Jill Overall) and many other volunteers, canvassed as much of our wards as possible. On the day of the hearing, Monday July 27th, we had submitted 931 signatures against Bylaw 26-09, forcing a Public Hearing and Municipal Board support. Once we appeared at people’s doors, we had overwhelming support from residents who are concerned about the implications this bylaw will have, not only on land use, but on the level of tax increases we will see if this Land Use Bylaw gets approved as is.

This Bylaw will greatly affect our TAXES…….The changes to Bylaw 26-09 and it’s Land Use changes, hold implications for high density/small lot development and the implementation of the DOWS (Dugald Oakbank Water System) project that is set to put our Municipality well over $80 million in debt, …….while we currently are only $7 million in debt! The petition has given residents the opportunity to now have a voice in their local government.

Thankyou … to all of the residents who welcomed us into their homes and joined our request to have the Provincial Municipal Board weigh in on this important Bylaw.

Jill Overall, Ward 1 candidate