Richard Froese
South Peace News
Rural addressing in Big Lakes County will soon be improved after council took steps to update an aging bylaw to direct the program.
At its regular meeting Jan. 10, council gave second reading to a proposed updated municipal addressing bylaw.
Developers will be responsible to put up the standard address signs, the bylaw states.
Council debated the issue of whether the County be responsible to place the signs or the developer before council members agreed to leave it up to the developer as stated in the proposed bylaw.
North Gilwood – Triangle Councillor Jim Zabolotniuk argued the developer should be responsible as debate began.
“To me, it should be the responsibility of the County and we should include the cost in the fees,” Zabolotniuk said.
Grouard Councillor Jeff Chalifoux and Reeve Tyler Airth also agreed.
Faust Councillor Robert Nygaard replied developers are currently responsible to erect the signs and it should remain that way.
“Let the developers put up signs. Developers did it before and they complied.”
Administration reviewed bylaw 04-2006 to ensure it accurately reflects the procedures that have been in place in the years after the initial bylaw was adopted in 2006, Pat Olansky, director of community services and planning, told council.
At the regular meeting Nov. 22, council directed administration to review the bylaw.
Council also directed administration to prepare a cost estimate to purchase and install municipal address signs for areas missing rural addressing signage in the county for the 2024 budget.
During discussion at that meeting, many council members stated they want to ensure addresses are accurate to aid emergency services and utility companies.
After the Village of Kinuso dissolved in 2009, addressing was inconsistent with the rest of the hamlets in the county and the provincially-endorsed municipal address system, Olansky wrote in her report at the Nov. 22 meeting.
“Administration began to re-address Kinuso in the years since dissolution; however, this project remains substantially incomplete,” Olansky wrote.
During budget deliberations, she recommended council allocate funds in the operating budget to purchase signs for signs missing and for a contractor to install the new signs.
Olansky updated council at the December meeting.
In 2008, the council of the day planned to revise the bylaw with intentions to remove a schedule of penalties for failing to post an address sign, obstruction of an address sign and defacing or removing an address sign, she stated.
“The amended bylaw was not returned to council to receive first, second and third readings,” Olansky reported.
“Therefore, the original bylaw 04-3006 remains in effect with no amendments.”
Bylaw 18-2023 is a revised version of bylaw 04-2006 that has been updated.
Kinuso has been added and legislation updated.
A clause has been added to state that the County is responsible to pay the cost to provide and install address signs, which has been a practice for many years, Olansky said.
Developers will be responsible to supply and install address signs in new subdivisions.
The proposed bylaw also adds a regulation that when an address sign is requested for a location where it is not required or stated in the bylaw, the owner is responsible for the costs of the sign.
Signs would be installed by the County as time allows.
Signs that need to be replaced through no fault of the landowner will be the responsibility of the Country to purchase and install.