Letter to the Editor – Jul 2026

Dear Foothill Council Members

My name is Ed Pinchin, and I am the father of Robin Grouette, one of the applicants in the subdivision hearings you held on May 13. My wife and I have lived and paid taxes in Foothills County for 56 years. There is no doubt we were disappointed in the outcome of the hearing but I have to say I was even more disappointed and even disgusted with the performance of all of our elected council members.

I realize being on council is often a thankless, boring job but each and every one of you wanted the position and even spent your time and money running for election. However, now that you have the job you at least owe your constituents the effort to conduct yourselves to the best of your ability. What I saw from all your performances was far from that. In both hearings you appeared totally disinterested and bored. You never asked one question about the information presented by the applicants and certainly did not challenge any of the outrageous and irrelevant statements made by each of the 7 objectors. Councillors, who effectively act as judge and jury on these applications, cannot possibly make fair responsible decisions if they don’t bother to understand the various elements of those applications. From my perspective it seemed as though you sat at the table but failed to perform even the most basic obligation of your job. Things like subdivision rules, regulations and guidelines did not matter to you but instead you read the room, saw 7 objectors (voters) and 2 applicants (voters) and took the politically expedient route. It was a cowardly performance by all of you.

It was obvious to any thinking person that the objections to the application were all based in NIMBY (not in my back yard). They were all looking for any excuse to deny this application and thereby maintain the “pristine environment” they currently enjoy. They expressed concern about preserving the environment and riparian rights while ignoring the fact that all of Pothole Creek on the property in this application was being protected by the donation of over 8 acres of Environmental Reserve Easement. They even presented a slide show purporting to show the wildlife they were protecting when indeed the pictures were taken miles from the property in question. Most councillors didn’t know or care, but Pothole creek is very small, averaging 3 or 4 feet wide whereas the pictures showed a stream 20 feet wide or more. They professed to want to honour their neighbour’s property rights and at the same time were attempting to prevent the drilling of any new water wells on those neighbouring lands just to preserve their own well’s viability. They tried to use the hazardous curve on the municipal Plummers Road as an excuse for refusing the application when in effect the municipality created the problem many years ago when they first allowed that curve. One objector even asked the County to recover some of the costs for a road built more than 25 years ago by their former owners. Every councillor should have challenged this request because such a precedent would open a pandora’s box of litigation on every municipal road that was originally built privately, including the 2 that I did.

I take exception to councillor Kendal’s reasons for her motion to deny the application. Several months ago, she refused the applicant’s offer to visit the property and see for herself the various issues at stake. That alone clearly indicated she had already made up her mind against the application without any knowledge of the situation on the ground. She said she was concerned about the effects new water wells would have on existing wells. She completely ignored the fact all property owners have equal rights to access the ground water beneath their own land regardless of who drilled the first well. She also ignored the fact that the landowner who was concerned with his well-being drained is getting water from a well 240 feet deep and is certainly in an entirely different bedrock aquifer from the shallower adjacent wells which draw water from sand and gravel beds above the bedrock. She was also concerned about the safety aspect of having more traffic on the dangerous curve of the municipal Plummers Road. She ignored the fact that problem was first created by the municipality when they allowed that dangerous curve in the first place. She ignored the fact that the sight lines, both north and west from the existing intersection of 240 St and Plummers road are at least 1/2 mile, better than many other approved intersections in the municipality. As well, if the Plummers road curve hazard needs to be corrected then it is entirely a municipal responsibility, not the applicants. She also did not acknowledge that the property in question was already zoned Country Residential and nearly 1/3 of it was being dedicated as Environmental Reserve Easement to protect the riparian rights of Pothole Creek. The property is well suited for Country Residential use and would provide 2 new lots to ease some of the pressure on council to allow more country living space. She was also concerned that the building sites on the new lots would be at the base of a steep hill so if someone or something destroyed the forest cover on the upper slopes they just might have a problem. If you can’t build on steep sloping land and you can’t build at the base of a hill, where exactly can you build? Flat prairie farmland? Would that be better? This like all her other reasons were complete utter nonsense!

I could go on and on about the shortcomings of council’s performance at the hearing but hope the above sufficiently illustrates the problem. All in all, I believe it was a shameful performance by every councillor in attendance and feel very strongly if you are not willing to do your job properly and thoughtfully examine the issues coming before you then you should resign and let someone else do the job. We as taxpayers deserve much better!

Sincerely
Ed Pinchin