Steinbach City Council · Jan 2022 – Sept 2026 · Topic: Public notice & participation
Public notice and having a say: do residents' objections count?
When a rezoning, variance, conditional use or plan change is proposed near their homes, how does the City of Steinbach tell residents, and how much time and information do they get? What chances do they have to respond before council decides? How often do their objections change the outcome? And how does this compare with what other Manitoba and Canadian councils do?
Bottom line
- Notice meets the provincial minimum, and no more. Owners within 100 metres get a letter at least 14 days before a hearing, and zoning changes are also advertised in the paper. Mail counts as received four days after it is sent, so neighbours can have about 10 days. The letters have become clearer since late 2024, and notices are now online with an email subscription and an online feedback form. We found no sign posted on the property and no early letter when an application is filed. The letter goes to owners, not tenants, and supporting documents are at City Hall during office hours.
- Everyone who comes to a hearing is heard, and letters count up to the end of it. Outside hearings, residents must book a delegation. The “question period” is used only by council, although the city's 2006 procedure by-law calls it an open session and lets the public ask for time.
- Large opposition sometimes wins; small opposition never has. Of 8 applications with strong neighbourhood opposition, 3 were denied and 2 more were changed. None of 17 applications with one to five objecting households was denied. The mayor says a hearing is not a vote: a majority against “doesn't mean we won't vote for it.”
- Residents' tools outside the hearing room have narrowed. A request to postpone a hearing so neighbours could prepare (2022) was not acted on, and the city's notice says petitions “will not be considered a formal objection.” The province, not council, made formal objections harder: 300 eligible persons are now needed instead of 25 (June 2025), and since June 2026 the Municipal Board only reviews the file and advises council.
- The 2023–2026 plan and zoning rewrite had a workshop, two surveys, an open house and hearings, but turnout and results were never reported back. The mayor allowed that “we could try and do a better job of communicating it.” Selkirk, by comparison, published its attendance (265), its survey responses (278) and how the feedback was used.
Part 1 · The council record
How residents find out
For a rezoning, variance or conditional use, the city mails a notice to owners of property within 100 metres of the site at least 14 days before the hearing. Zoning by-laws are also advertised in the newspaper, and notices now appear on the city's website. The mail and newspaper steps are the minimums in Manitoba's Planning Act (details in Part 2). In the minutes, the City Manager opens almost every hearing by reporting that “notices pursuant to The Planning Act had been completed.” Council sees this notice as what makes the process fair:
“Part of the rule of law process is that there is an opportunity for anyone who wants to make an application for a variance to be able to appear before council in a public hearing. That public hearing must be properly advertised. Any owners in the nearby vicinity get proper notification.”
Councillor Michael Zwaagstra · Oct 18, 2022 · 0:36:54
Residents who spoke at hearings described a tight window, and neighbours outside the mailing area finding out second-hand:
“We only really had 9 days to put this together.”
C.K., resident speaking for 22 objecting households, on a fourplex at 205 McKenzie Ave · Nov 1, 2022 · 1:03:45
“…I had to sign for my notification. But most houses, and there was 3 families going door to door over the last 3 or 4 days, they check their mailboxes like once a month because they have all their mail and their hydro bills and their charge cards all delivered by email.”
C.K. · Nov 1, 2022 · 1:03:45
“Some just left for their snowbird vacations in Arizona. Others have gone to Vegas that would have been here, but planes were already booked, you know, well in advance of 10 days ago when the mailings came out…”
C.K. · Nov 1, 2022 · 1:11:44
“…I'm not that well prepared for this meeting. I was only made aware of it by an email earlier today.”
D.M., resident, objecting to a truck yard at 45 Tower Ave · Jan 16, 2024 · 1:05:20
Twice in the record, staff caught an error in the city's own notice and started over, which is to their credit:
“…unfortunately there was an error discovered in the public notice, which was only discovered after the public hearing and meeting was completed.”
Troy Warkentin, City Manager, on By-law 2213 (Old Tom Road / Loewen Blvd); council rescinded second reading and a new hearing was held Nov 1, 2022 · Sept 20, 2022 · 0:33:34
“…the components and the public notice required for that required variance application were omitted from the original advertising.”
Troy Warkentin, City Manager; the decision waited for a second hearing on Sept 2, 2025 · Aug 5, 2025 · 0:07:33
From late 2024 the mailed notice includes a plain-language Q&A. It explains what happens at a hearing, says written comments count if you can't attend, and says the notice was sent “because your property is within 100 meters of the proposed development site, as per the Provincial Planning Act.” The November 2024 version accepted letters or email. By January 2025 it added submissions “through the city's website, or by accessing the QR code provided in the notice” (council packages, Nov 19, 2024 and Jan 21, 2025). The city's new website lists current notices on a public notices page, which residents can follow by email subscription. The October 2026 notices went up 13 days before their hearings. Supporting documents are available only “between the hours of 9:00 am and 4:00 pm, Monday to Friday, at Steinbach City Hall.” Tenants receive nothing unless the owner passes the notice on, because the notice goes to owners. Any further outreach depends on the developer. One builder left pamphlets for 14–15 nearby homes before the 2024 Home Street hearing. An adjacent neighbour, E.D., told council she “never received Any communication whatsoever from the developer” (Mar 19, 2024).
Getting a say
Every public hearing follows the same script: staff introduce the file, the applicant presents, and the mayor asks more than once whether anyone has “comments, questions, or objections.” Anyone may speak, and written letters and emails received by the end of the hearing are counted. The mayor explains the hearing as the place where neighbours are heard:
“We basically vote on it by a case-by-case basis, and that's why we have the public hearing so that we can hear from the public and we can hear from you, the community and the neighborhood. And if there's objection, this is the time to talk about it. So this is where your voice matters, and that's why we're having this.”
Mayor Earl Funk, at the hearing on a sixplex at 189 Hanover St · Mar 18, 2025 · 0:23:23
When the applicant for 360–368 Third Street withdrew mid-hearing in 2023, a resident asked to finish, and the mayor agreed:
“This has been expressed to us that we have the right to come before you guys as a council to express our concerns.”
T.B., resident · Aug 1, 2023 · 1:00:09
“Even though the project's been pulled, I respect what you're saying and I will let everyone be heard.”
Mayor Earl Funk · Aug 1, 2023 · 1:01:15
Outside public hearings, residents speak to council as a delegation, booked ahead and scheduled for 7:45 p.m. On paper the rules are more open. Procedure By-law 1809 (2006) says that under “Delegations,” “Any member of the public may request time to address the Council” on subjects not on the agenda, “generally 5 minutes,” at the chair's discretion. It describes the “Council member question period” as “Intended to be an open session, allowing questions to the Mayor or any member of Council” (By-law 1809). In the recordings, though, only council members use the question period, and residents who arrive unannounced are not heard. When residents flooded in September 2025 came to a meeting hoping to speak, they were told to book a delegation:
“I'm very sorry for the short notice tonight. We can't have you speak, but it's great you're here to hear the, the flood… And we do welcome you to set a date and come as delegation.”
Mayor Earl Funk · Sept 16, 2025 · 0:38:25
They did: two residents presented as delegations five weeks later, on Oct 21, 2025 (minutes). The other formal route is an objection under the Planning Act. Until June 2025, 25 objections to a zoning by-law sent it to the Manitoba Municipal Board for its own hearing, as the city's consultant explained at the April 2025 plan hearing (Apr 1, 2025). Four Steinbach by-laws went to the Board this way: rezonings 2179 (2022), 2217 (2023) and 2241 (2024), and the new Zoning By-law 2245 (2025). Each went ahead afterwards. Third reading of 2241 is not among the meetings searched, but the project returned for a height variance in 2025. The province has since raised the bar twice. A June 3, 2025 amendment requires objections from “at least 300 eligible persons” in a municipality of Steinbach's size (S.M. 2025, c. 3). Since June 1, 2026 the Board “must not hold a hearing or receive new evidence or representations.” It reviews the record and sends council recommendations that are not binding (provincial bulletin 2026-17; Planning Act s. 77.2). Council's decisions on variances and conditional uses are “final and not subject to appeal” (ss. 100 and 109).
Petitions and requests to postpone
Neighbours often organize: a 22-letter campaign on McKenzie Avenue (2022), a 40-plus-name petition on Third Street (2023), a 43-name petition on Home Street (2024), and a “quite lengthy petition” on McKenzie Avenue (H.K., Apr 7, 2026). The city's notice says petitions “are accepted but will not be considered a formal objection.” Council members do acknowledge them:
“…I would like to thank the people that came here and voiced their opinions on this or their thoughts on this, and even the ones that didn't, that signed the petitions but weren't able to attend here.”
Councillor Jake Hiebert, voting for the McKenzie fourplex · Nov 1, 2022 · 1:23:44
“…ultimately the decision is yours. And I'd just humbly like to ask, how much opposition does it take to be heard on this matter?”
E.W., resident, on the 32-unit Home Street rezoning · Mar 19, 2024 · 1:22:39
Residents have asked for more time before council decides. Those requests have not been granted:
“…we're asking that the next public hearing to be postponed 60 to 90 days in order to acquire, confirm, and review new or additional information…”
C.K., who also asked for a city traffic impact study · Nov 1, 2022 · 1:09:49
Council did not discuss the request. It voted the same night and gave second reading 5–2 (Siemens and Funk against). Adjournments in the record came at the request of staff or applicants. In 2023 council refused a developer's request to adjourn and rework the Third Street plan (see reason 3). In 2026 it adjourned the 185 Friesen Avenue seniors' hearing twice: first on staff's advice about parking, then at the applicant's request.
Does it change the outcome?
We read the minutes of every public hearing on a planning application from January 2022 to September 2026, more than 100 in all, and counted the objecting households, businesses and groups (letters and speakers). Eight applications drew strong opposition, from about six or more objecting households:
| Application | Opposition on record | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 205 McKenzie Ave fourplex, By-law 2217 (Nov 2022) | 22 letters of objection; 2 speakers | Approved 5–2; Municipal Board hearing Apr 2023; third reading Jun 2024 (6–1) |
| 360–368 Third St, 32 units, By-law 2231 (Aug 2023) | 4 letters, 13 speakers, 40-plus-name petition | Denied, unanimous |
| 45 Tower Ave truck yard, CU-2023-02 (Jan 2024) | About 17 letters; 8 speakers | Denied, unanimous (and its fence variance) |
| 268/274 Home St, 32 units, By-law 2241 (Mar 2024) | 43-name petition and letters; 12 speakers against, 4 for | Approved 4–3; Municipal Board hearing Aug 2024 |
| 189 Hanover St sixplex, By-law 2261 (Mar 2025) | 8 letters of objection; 4 speakers against, 2 for | Denied, unanimous |
| 492–506 McKenzie Ave, 48 units, By-law 2273 (Apr 2026) | Petition; 7 objecting households; some neighbours' letters in support | Approved, unanimous |
| 185 Friesen Ave, 7-storey seniors' building (Mar–Jun 2026) | 3 letters; a speaker for six households | Adjourned twice; approved with parking raised from 10 stalls to 1 per unit (5–2) |
| 290 Stone Bridge Crossing, 6-storey seniors' building, V-2026-14 (Jul 2026) | 9 speakers from 7 households | Approved 6–1 at 1.25 stalls per unit instead of the 1 requested |
So objections matter when they are numerous, especially against apartments in the middle of single-family blocks or a truck yard beside homes. A handful of objectors has not stopped anything in this period. Council also denies applications that nobody objected to, on its own judgment, such as retail uses in the industrial park. Residents notice the pattern:
“And I know it's, it's already been approved. Probably nothing that we're going to say here will sway that, but we just want to make sure that our voices are being heard…”
D.K., resident, on the Home Street height variance (approved 3–2) · Mar 4, 2025 · 1:06:28
Council members who vote with objectors say so in those terms:
“…it does not fit the overall character of the neighbourhood. And I, I think that we do need to listen to neighbours, and this is why we have public hearings.”
Councillor Michael Zwaagstra, seconding the denial at 189 Hanover St · Mar 18, 2025 · 0:39:11
“So I appreciate every person that came here today and gave their story. And what's important, what are their values? And I've heard you loud and clear.”
Councillor Jake Hiebert, voting against the Home Street rezoning, which passed 4–3 · Mar 19, 2024 · 1:40:54
Studies and reports residents ask for
Objectors often ask whether traffic, drainage or sewer studies were done, and whether they can see them.
“…she asked, how were the proposed changes determined, and may we receive a copy of the results of any studies done to determine changes?… Once again, I am asking for a third-party study for our sewer systems. for Lift Station 1.”
M.R., resident, reading an email exchange with city staff · Jul 21, 2026 · 0:05:38
“…there was no traffic impact study required for this application, nor is there generally for applications of this type in other areas of the city.”
Troy Warkentin, City Manager, answering a neighbour at the 190–206 First St hearing · Dec 16, 2025 · 0:34:07
“…the city regularly conducts a traffic impact impact study or traffic count, typically those reports are made available to the public, and I would expect the climate risk assessment study would also become available publicly.”
Troy Warkentin, City Manager · Mar 17, 2026 · 0:34:25
“…under contract with the developer or landowner.”
Troy Warkentin, City Manager, when asked whether the engineers who review a development's drainage are independent · Jul 21, 2026 · 0:47:12
The city publishes its annual traffic count report, its Community Safety and Well-Being plan and the draft plan documents. It posts council packages online, and meetings are livestreamed and archived on YouTube, which is how this report could be written. For a specific application, staff reports in the package summarize the engineering review. The mailed notice, though, sends residents to City Hall during office hours to see the file, and we found no sign that the drainage and servicing studies prepared for developers are posted. Sewer and flooding questions dominate recent hearings; see Sewer backups. For traffic, see Traffic in Steinbach.
The 2025 Official Community Plan and zoning review
The city's long-term plan and its zoning rules were rewritten from 2023 to 2026. The consultant described the engagement at the April 1, 2025 hearing:
“So as required under the Planning Act, when a municipality undertakes a comprehensive review of their official community plan, um, you must engage with the public. So as I already mentioned, we conducted a community visioning workshop, um, and this was also supplemented by conducting key stakeholder interviews…”
Kari Schulz, WSP (city's planning consultant) · Apr 1, 2025 · 0:10:54
A resident asked whether ordinary people knew the plan existed:
“And generally speaking, how many people do you think in Steinbach actually even know about it?”
A.A., resident · Apr 1, 2025 · 0:30:12
“…it's in our meetings, it's discussed and there's stories done on it. But if that's not well known, I guess we could try and do a better job of communicating it.”
Mayor Earl Funk · Apr 1, 2025 · 0:30:19
“No, I don't think we have any survey or any questionnaire if the people know about a community plan.”
Mayor Earl Funk · Apr 1, 2025 · 0:31:21
The steps were a visioning workshop on Sept 27, 2023, with an online survey open to Oct 11 (SteinbachOnline); a draft in March 2024; council review on Dec 3, 2024; a drop-in open house at City Hall in January 2025 with a second survey; and the hearing on April 1, 2025. Turnout and survey results were not reported to council in the meetings searched, and no “what we heard” summary was found. The zoning by-law drew the most response, mostly over making emergency shelters a conditional use (see Homelessness). Enough objections were filed to send it to the Municipal Board in October 2025, and it passed third reading on Jan 20, 2026. The plan itself passed third reading on Sept 16, 2025.
Follow-through: dated actions
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| Sept 20, 2022 | Staff report an error in the By-law 2213 notice. Council rescinds second reading and re-advertises; new hearing Nov 1. |
| Nov 1, 2022 | 205 McKenzie fourplex: 22 letters and a request to postpone 60–90 days. Approved 5–2 the same night. Municipal Board hearing April 2023; third reading June 18, 2024. |
| Aug 1, 2023 | Third Street: council refuses the developer's request to adjourn and lets all residents speak. Denied unanimously; the mayor keeps the petition on file. |
| Sept 27, 2023 | Plan review visioning workshop and online survey. |
| Jan 16, 2024 | Truck yard next to homes and a school path denied after about 17 letters and 8 speakers. |
| Mar 19, 2024 | Home Street rezoning approved 4–3 over a 43-name petition. Referred to the Municipal Board (hearing August 2024). |
| Nov 2024 – Jan 2025 | New notice format with a plain-language Q&A; online and QR-code submissions added. |
| Jan 2025 | Open house on the draft plan and zoning by-law. |
| Apr 1, 2025 | Plan and zoning by-law hearings. The mayor: “we could try and do a better job of communicating it.” |
| Aug 5, 2025 | Missing item in a variance notice found; decision held for a second hearing on Sept 2. |
| Sept–Oct 2025 | Flooded residents turned away from speaking on Sept 16; they present as delegations Oct 21. |
| Mar 17, 2026 | 185 Friesen hearing adjourned on staff advice. City Manager says the climate risk study should be made public. |
| Jun 2, 2026 | 185 Friesen approved with parking at one stall per unit instead of 10 stalls in total. |
| Jul 21, 2026 | Stone Bridge Crossing 6-storey variance approved 6–1, parking raised to 1.25 per unit. A resident's repeated request for a third-party sewer study is not acted on. |
Their reasons for not doing more
1The legal requirements are met
“However, the Planning Act clearly outlines what the requirements are for advertising… and so I know that the city administration adhered to all legislative legislative requirements. And then again, also, as was mentioned, all the documents are available online.”
Kari Schulz, WSP, answering A.A. · Apr 1, 2025 · 0:31:37
The Planning Act sets a floor, not a ceiling. Mail is “deemed to be received by the person on the fourth day after it is mailed” (s. 163(2)), so a letter mailed 14 days ahead can leave about 10 days, which is what C.K. described. For site-specific changes the Act asks for mailed notice or a sign on the property (ss. 168(4), 169(3)). Brandon, under the same Act, does both and more (see Part 2). The Act also allows notices by email to anyone who agrees to it in writing (s. 163(1)(c)). The documents A.A. asked about were online, but the mailed notice for each application still points residents to City Hall.
2A public hearing is not a vote
“And there's lots of times we have a public hearing And there's, you know, even reasonable objections, and we still, we vote in favor of it. It's not that just because everyone comes out against it or there's a majority against it doesn't mean we won't vote for it. It's just we vote it and we look at it on the basis of the project and what it does and what it will bring to the community.”
Mayor Earl Funk · Apr 1, 2025 · 1:39:51
“It's a balancing act that we have on council. And it's a balancing act that we should always have on council of the concerns of the citizens and the benefit of the city. With this, I feel like the benefit to the city always is large.”
Councillor Damian Penner, moving to approve 48 units on McKenzie Ave · Apr 7, 2026 · 1:18:37
This is how planning law is meant to work. Council must weigh planning reasons, not count heads, and a decision made only because of the number of objectors can be overturned. The trade-off is that residents rarely hear in advance what council will weigh. Steinbach has an infill policy and a “transitional” area in its plan, but no map showing where apartments are expected. That is why, as D.K. put it, people come wondering whether anything they say will sway the vote.
3Decide on the night, not later
“I think that the idea here of a public hearing is that we get the public's input. We get the information and then we make a decision.”
Councillor Michael Zwaagstra, against adjourning the Third Street hearing · Aug 1, 2023 · 0:55:42
“The due diligence needs to be done before the public hearing, and I also feel it's unfair to the residents to have something like this suspended over 2 months.”
Councillor Damian Penner · Aug 1, 2023 · 0:56:19
Deciding promptly spares residents a second trip, and in the Third Street case it ended in the denial residents wanted. But due diligence before the hearing also applies to neighbours, who had about two weeks' notice. When council does adjourn, as it did for 185 Friesen in 2026, it is for missing applicant information, not for residents to prepare. Councillor Zwaagstra noted then that “Normally staff don't recommend adjourning” (Mar 17, 2026).
4The hearing is about the application, and engineering is staff's job
“I don't want to minimize that in any way. But I do want to focus on the purpose of the meeting, and that is the variance of the height and the variance of the parking.”
Mayor Earl Funk, to residents raising sewer backups · Jul 21, 2026 · 0:29:45
The minutes record the mayor's view that water and sewer concerns “would be addressed with city engineers and outlined in a development agreement.” The City Manager explained that capacity is checked with “approved models” and standard engineering assumptions, and that the drainage studies are done by consultants the developer hires. Residents who have flooded repeatedly asked to see that analysis, or for an independent review. Neither was offered at the hearing.
Part 2 · How Steinbach compares
Scorecard
How Steinbach's notice and participation practices compare with the Planning Act minimums and with what other councils do.
Strong ahead of or matching good practice On par typical practice Partial started, with gaps Gap common elsewhere, not done here
| Measure | Steinbach | What others do | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mailed notice to neighbours | Owners within 100 m, at least 14 days before the hearing: the Planning Act minimum. | Brandon: 100 m. Red Deer: 100 m. Lethbridge: 60 m, but twice. Ontario: 120 m. | On par |
| Sign on the property | None mentioned in notices or meetings. | Brandon posts a sign on the property as well as mailing. Ontario requires a sign with the mail-out option. | Gap |
| Early notice, when an application is filed | None found; the first letter is the hearing notice. | Lethbridge mails neighbours when an application is received, and again before the hearing, and advises applicants in existing neighbourhoods to hold an open house. | Gap |
| Online notice and alerts | Notices page, email subscription for “Public Notices, Hearings & Engagement,” online feedback form and QR code. Plain-language Q&A in every notice. | Brandon: notice on its website plus an application page. Winkler and Selkirk post hearing notices online. | Strong |
| Access to application documents | At City Hall, 9–4 weekdays; staff reports appear in council packages. Developer studies are not posted. | Brandon's notice links (and QR-codes) an online page with the application details. | Partial |
| Being heard at hearings | Everyone may speak; the five-minute limit is rarely applied; letters accepted up to the end of the hearing; reasons debated in public with recorded votes. | Brandon wants written comments a week before the hearing. Winkler limits speakers to 10 minutes. | Strong |
| Speaking outside hearings | Pre-booked delegations; recommended registration 120 hours ahead. The by-law's open comment and question options aren't used in practice. | Brandon (3 working days), Portage la Prairie and Winkler (the week before) also rely on booked delegations; no public question period found. | On par |
| Reporting back on plan engagement | Workshop, two surveys and an open house for the plan and zoning rewrite; no turnout, survey results or “what we heard” report found. | Selkirk published attendance (265), survey responses (278) and how feedback was used. | Partial |
| Engagement policy and tools | No public participation policy or engagement platform found. | Red Deer's policy requires IAP2 standards and trained staff. Winnipeg runs Engage Winnipeg. Selkirk runs CitizenVoice and short “Pulse” surveys sent to every home. | Gap |
Key findings
1Steinbach meets the minimum, and the minimum is thin
Every hearing in the record was noticed as the Act requires, and staff restarted the process twice when they found their own errors. But the Act's floor is owners only, inside 100 metres, by mail, about 10 days before the hearing in practice. Several residents quoted here learned of a hearing, or rallied neighbours, through word of mouth: an email that day, door-knocking, petitions. The city's own improvements show what is possible: a clearer letter, a notices page, an email subscription and an online form. The next steps are cheap and allowed by the Act: a sign on the property, an earlier letter, opt-in email by address, and the application file online. This answers reason 1: meeting the law has not been the same as reaching the neighbourhood.
2Objections change outcomes in numbers, and the criteria aren't written down
Three of the eight most-opposed applications were denied, and two of the five approvals were changed. Small groups of objectors have not changed a result. Council's decisive reasons are consistent: whether a project fits “the overall character of the neighbourhood” and whether it sits on a busy street or near an intersection. But they are applied case by case (reason 2). A map of where apartments are expected would tell residents and builders in advance what council will weigh, and spare neighbours a fight they can't win or a builder an application council won't approve. See Housing and development.
3The hearing night is now residents' main chance
Council's view is that due diligence belongs before the hearing and the decision on the night (reason 3). At the same time, the province has made the formal objection route much harder: 300 eligible objectors instead of 25, and a Municipal Board review on paper instead of a hearing. Petitions are not formal objections, and variances and conditional uses can't be appealed. So the local hearing, and the time residents have to prepare for it, matters more than before. The city's notice does say petitions are not formal objections, but it doesn't explain the threshold or the limits on appeals.
4Engagement on the big plan happened but wasn't closed off
The plan and zoning rewrite had the steps the Planning Act expects, and the hearings were well attended. But residents were never told how many took part or what changed because of them. At the hearing a resident asked whether ordinary people even knew about the plan, and the mayor answered that there was no survey of that. Selkirk, a smaller city doing the same exercise in 2024, published its numbers and a summary of how feedback was used.
Peer practices
| Municipality | Hearing notice | Speaking to council and engagement |
|---|---|---|
| Brandon, MB | Mail to owners within 100 m (328 ft), a notice posted on the property and at two civic buildings, the city website, and two Brandon Sun ads; QR link to an application page | Delegation requests by noon three working days ahead; up to 10 minutes |
| Winkler, MB | Hearing notices posted online (“Local Notices”); mailing radius not stated | Delegation requests by noon the Thursday before; hearing speakers up to 10 minutes; Connect Winkler alerts by text, phone or email |
| Portage la Prairie, MB | Not confirmed | Delegation requests by the Wednesday before the meeting |
| Selkirk, MB | Hearing notices posted online with a deadline for written statements | 2024 Development Plan update: two open houses (265 attendees), a survey (278 responses) and a published account of how input was used; CitizenVoice panel and “Pulse” surveys |
| Lethbridge, AB | Mail within 60 m when an application is received and again before the hearing; Herald ads for two weeks; applicant open house advised in existing neighbourhoods | Website notices; signage listed as an optional extra in its notice by-law |
| Red Deer, AB | Mail within 100 m (news report) | Public participation policy 5104-CA: IAP2 core values; leads need IAP2 Level 2 training |
| Ontario (provincial rule) | Mail within 120 m and a sign on the property, or newspaper or website alternatives | — |
| Winnipeg, MB | Charter: two newspaper notices or 14 days on a newspaper website; mailing radius not confirmed | Engage Winnipeg online platform |
| Steinbach, MB | Mail within 100 m, 14 days; newspaper for zoning by-laws; online notices and email subscription | Booked delegations; everyone heard at hearings; no engagement policy or platform |
What “doing all it can” would add
- Post a sign on every site as well as mailing, as Brandon does under the same Act, so passers-by and tenants see it.
- Send an early letter when an application is filed, as Lethbridge does, and ask applicants for infill projects to hold a neighbourhood meeting before the hearing.
- Mail sooner, or wider, for larger projects. Mailing 21 days ahead instead of 14, or using 150 m instead of 100 m for multi-unit buildings, costs little.
- Offer opt-in email notice by address, which the Act already allows (s. 163(1)(c)), alongside the existing subscription.
- Put the full application file online with each notice: site plan, staff and engineering comments, and any traffic or drainage study the developer submits.
- Explain the rules in the notice: what counts as a formal objection, the 300-person threshold, and that variances and conditional uses can't be appealed.
- Use the openings in By-law 1809: let residents ask questions or speak briefly at the delegations item, and publish how to book a delegation.
- Set out when council will adjourn a hearing so residents can respond to new information, not only when applicants or staff need time.
- Report back on engagement with turnout, survey results and what changed, as Selkirk did, and adopt a short public participation policy.
- Map where density is expected, so hearings test a project's design rather than whether apartments belong on the block at all.
About this page
- Transcripts. Meeting quotes come from automatic transcripts of the official videos and are left as transcribed, including repeated words (“impact impact”, “legislative legislative”). The one exception is the city's name, which the transcription often misspells (“Steinbeck”) and which quotes show as Steinbach. Ellipses mark trimmed text; no sentence breaks were added. Each quote links to its moment in the video; check there before quoting elsewhere.
- Speakers. Speakers were matched to names by hand from how they are addressed in each meeting. Every quote is from a speaker identified with high confidence, with one exception. A.A.'s question on April 1, 2025 sits on a transcript voice label that merges several public speakers (medium confidence). He identifies himself in the preceding turn, and the minutes record his question. Council members, the mayor, city staff and the city's consultant are named. Residents and other members of the public are identified only by initials, including in counts and context boxes.
- Counts. Hearing outcomes come from the official minutes and recorded votes, cross-checked against the videos. Counting objectors is a judgment call. Minutes describe some people as “voiced concerns” rather than objecting, letters are not always described, and some letters supported the application. Treat the counts as approximate. Each application is counted once, even when it had several by-laws or hearings.
- Coverage. All 103 regular council meetings from January 2022 to September 15, 2026 were searched. Committee meetings, the city's correspondence and Municipal Board decisions were not reviewed. The notice wording comes from the council packages available to us (October 2024 to May 2025).
- Law and peers. Planning Act wording is from the official consolidation (current to Oct 2026). The 25-to-300 change and the end of Municipal Board hearings took effect in June 2025 and June 2026, after most hearings in this report. Peer practices come from each city's own notices, by-laws, policies and web pages, except Red Deer's 100 m mailing, which comes from a news report. Not confirmed: Winnipeg's mailing radius, how Winkler, Portage la Prairie and Selkirk deliver notices, and anything for Morden, whose website blocks automated reading. We could not confirm whether Steinbach posts signs on sites; none of its notices or meeting records mention one. By-law 1809 is the procedure by-law posted on the city's website, and we did not confirm whether it has been amended since 2006.
Sources
Council meetings (official YouTube recordings): Sept 20, 2022 · Oct 18, 2022 · Nov 1, 2022 · Aug 1, 2023 · Jan 16, 2024 · Mar 19, 2024 · Mar 4, 2025 · Mar 18, 2025 · Apr 1, 2025 · Aug 5, 2025 · Sept 16, 2025 · Dec 16, 2025 · Mar 17, 2026 · Apr 7, 2026 · Jul 21, 2026
- Council minutes and recorded votes, Jan 2022 – Sept 2026 (City of Steinbach), and council packages Oct 2024 – May 2025 (notice wording).
- Manitoba: The Planning Act, C.C.S.M. c. P80 (ss. 73.1, 74–77.2, 100, 109, 163, 167–170); S.M. 2025, c. 3 (300-objection threshold, assented June 3, 2025); Bill 40 explanatory note (“from at least 25”); Bulletin 2026-17 (Bill 33, assented June 1, 2026)
- Steinbach: Public notices, hearings & engagement; sample notice, By-law 2281; email subscriptions; Procedure By-law 1809; SteinbachOnline on the 2023 visioning workshop
- Related reports: Housing and development; Sewer backups; Homelessness; Traffic