Taking out the trash

Port Picton residents left to manage their own garbage

Roughly twenty-four homeowners in the Port Picton subdivision had their hopes dashed at last Thursday’s Committee of the Whole meeting, after Council decided it won’t take on their garbage pickup.

In July, a motion by Councillor Kate MacNaughton was passed, instructing staff to determine if the municipality was obligated to provide garbage pick-up service for the residents. Staff reviewed the subdivision agreement, and determined there is no municipal responsibility to provide service in the Port Picton subdivision.

Greg Locke represents the Common Element Condominium Corporation in Port Picton. He told Council that currently, the homeowners aren’t receiving good service, and have put in notice to terminate the contract.

“We were under the understanding as owners, of course, we would be paying for that privately. We found that we were put under a very difficult contract with a private waste services company. We are paying about $3,000 monthly for only about 25 homes,” he said.

He also felt there was confusion regarding building types, as he told Council he does not own a condo.

“We need to have the service, and we see no reason why we can’t have it. It’s a mistake to call us a condominium. It was stated in the report you will not provide service to condominiums. The fact of the matter is we are not condominiums. We are about two dozen individual freehold homeowners,” he said.

He also felt providing service would not set precedent for other developments.

“We are not wanting to make a precedent, and I suggest that you don’t need to make it a precedent. If you do have a contractual obligation, do it for us, but then moving forward, make sure these subdivision agreements are clearer.”

According to the staff report, the roads within the development are designed to a standard typical of a private condominium, which is a lesser standard than that for municipally assumed roads. It was never intended that the municipality assume the roads within the development, and their configuration would present challenges for the County’s current waste contractor to safely and consistently navigate the development.

According to Planning Coordinator Matt Coffey, the County isn’t obligated to provide service.

“While it may be nice to provide waste pickup within Port Picton, it’s not something we are required to do, and there are some technical difficulties in actually doing that,” said Coffey.

He told Council that the developer’s lawyer and the County solicitor worked together on the subdivision agreements.

“It’s a complex agreement and a complex development. There was a condominium plan registered on top of the subdivision agreement that superseded the subdivision itself. All of the clauses are standard for what a subdivision agreement normally contains.”

Coffey also noted that issues such as this one would normally get dealt with in either a condo declaration or a site plan agreement, but the County didn’t require site plan approval for the condos or freehold lots.

“And we don’t get involved with condo declarations, because that is up to the developer to create and pass on to a condo corporation,” he added.

Councillor Phil St-Jean worried about other common element corporations coming forward with the same asks.

“It worries me that we are going to set a very bad precedent. I can see in the future something coming from Wellington on the Lake saying ‘hey what about us?’ We have to think about every other one,” he said.

A motion was then put forward by Councillor St-Jean which, if approved, would add a common collection pickup point within Port Picton at the owner’s expense.

Councillor Brad Nieman asked about the feasibility of such a motion.

“I’m guessing we have to go to the developer because they don’t have a designated spot. Now they have to reconfigure everything,” he said.

Albert Paschkowiak, Supervisor of Environmental Services and Sustainability, told Council his department would have to look for a suitable location and determine if there is one.

Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer felt the municipality shouldn’t be involved.

I think I heard the deputant say that the vertical condo already has a common collection bin on site. For me, I think it would make more sense for the homeowners to go and figure something out with them and then we are not involved at all.”

The motion failed. A motion did pass directing staff to explore the establishment of an internal process to facilitate a charge-back for services provided to any future developments prior to municipal assumption of infrastructure and bring forward as part of a subsequent update to the Fees and Charges By-Law.