There are no plans to hammer out a new deal after a potential agreement between the Six Nations traditional government and two Caledonia developers fell through.
Last week, a draft agreement between the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council and the two developers of the Stirling Woods subdivision fell through over a condition that required the council be given jurisdiction over the land.
"That was the major issue," said developer John Kragten. "Really, in fact, was probably the only issue why it fell apart."
Native protesters occupied the site last month, claiming the new housing development was being built on Six Nations land. A potential agreement was reached shortly after.
The initial draft, sent by council lawyer Aaron Detlor, sets out 10 terms, including the jurisdiction item, to be agreed to by the developers.
The terms include ensuring that Venture Homes Ltd. does not construct a bridge for automobile traffic at the end of Stirling Street over the railway but that they do take all "reasonable steps" to provide for the construction of a bridge for pedestrian traffic.
Venture Homes also had to agree not to develop a parcel of land west of Stirling across the railway, as well as recognize a "no-go zone" for development.
The no-go zone would include land southwest of the Grand River and Highway 6 that fell under council jurisdiction and couldn't be developed without its consent.
In addition, the draft says Venture Homes will take reasonable steps to support the efforts of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute by giving a public affirmation of its efficacy.
The institute is a new body recently created to oversee development on land the Six Nations say is theirs.
Throughout the document, the developer is referred to as Venture Homes Ltd., although the registered developer of the land is a numbered company. Venture is the company of one of the partners of the numbered company.
A response to the draft, sent by the developers' lawyers, said the developers agreed to six terms and pointed out that they had no ownership over some of the lands mentioned in the initial document. It also pointed out the agreement had to be with the numbered company, not Venture.
Detlor said any construction that now goes forward on the land will not be in accordance with the law.