Feedback from farmers on MDP

Times Contributor  

 

Voices from the audience at the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) open house held in Cheadle on May 30 expressed that subdivision regulations would not protect farmland from being developed.

The new MDP allows five subdivisions on a section of land prior to the need for an Area Service Plan (ASP). County Project Manager Linda Henrickson said that previously the growth management strategies were very strong policies, at one subdivision per section, and council decided to loosen up those restrictions. Since councils have changed, philosophies have changed.

“Five parcels out of a quarter section is encouraging these little cluster groups throughout the county,” said an audience member. “You say Ag is key. Someone who doesn’t live here will buy a quarter and take five titles out of a parcel. They save houses from the landfill in Calgary, put them on and we as neighbours have to deal with that.”

Consultant Alex Taylor said the alternative is not drawing a line, which opens the potential development for twenty parcels not requiring an ASP, and one with two or three requiring an ASP. He said it is unfair to choose winners and losers. The first couple people get five parcels and the third person may not get them. By drawing a line, some of the discretion is taken from Council, it establishes the rule. 

Some members felt that mobile or modular homes should be restricted and there should be different rules for developing on good farmland.

“It is not council’s place to say you have to live in a house, you can’t live a mobile home. There are people that have to live in less expensive dwellings, because that is what they can afford. It’s very difficult for council to step their toe over the line, to decide what kind of lifestyle people can and can’t live in this County,” said Henrickson. 

“The other thing is, we used to be strictly grain farmers. Now there isn’t as many grain farms as there used to be. We used to look at the type of soil. Soil to grow grain on was considered to be primo soil. Today everything is considered agricultural, because every soil and every landscape can be used for agricultural in some way. It can be pasture, or greenhouses or anything in agricultural use. Soil isn’t as precious as it was. I don’t know if that is good or bad. I guess that is a decision that will prove itself over time.”

It was clarified that what can and can’t be built, or its permanence falls more under the area of Land Use Bylaws and permits, but an overarching policy could be developed in the MDP.

There was some confusion over the servicing requirements. The plan encourages clustering the houses and using collective well sites, but having separate septic fields. In another section they are encouraging linking into community services and discouraging communal sites. Planners said they were using provincial guidelines and that Alberta Health was discouraging the use of communal systems. They said by limiting the number of wells, it limits further subdivision, but would defer to what ratepayer and Council wanted.

There was also some confusion over Area Service Plans already in play. Land owners wondered if they would have to have theirs amended or get new ones, or if they would be grandfathered over. The response was not all inclusive, as they would be looked at on a case-by-case basis once the MDP was approved. It was suggested those that were already accepted would not have to change.

There was a question over the directives used in the plan. One member asked when push comes to shove, what does the term discourage mean?

“The MDP policies can be written either-they must- should-or may. A lot of these are the should variety. They should, but there are no repercussions if they aren’t. Once they put in must…it absolutely has to, and sometimes people think that’s too strong. So, it depends on a case by case basis. If you think they should be prohibited, or cannot be… or if discouraged is too much the other way, let us know. We are trying to find the balance with this document,” said Taylor.

Another person questioned recreational provisions. 

“Where are we on the agreement of recreational facilities with the Town of Strathmore? The more growth we have around Strathmore, we will be putting more pressure on recreational facilities and they will be pushing back for more user fees,” he said.

Taylor said there is nothing yet in the MDP apart from the inclusion of parks and recreation. He suggested discussions with Council should be to coordinate growth and decide where those regional recreation services should be placed. 

“Just a general observation, on the discussion that the number one priority is agriculture for this county…if we continue down this road we are going now, of allowing all these subdivisions, then we do not truly believe that agriculture is the priority for this county,” said Don Sundgaard, a poultry farmer living near Standard. 

“Also, if you look at the future by adding more than one, two, three or six subdivisions in a quarter section…the demographics 10 years down the road, of the small landowners will dictate about what happens in the future forever, in this county. If we the landowners of this county support the number one priority, then some of things in this plan need to be changed. You can’t satisfy everybody. You talk about winners and losers. If you continue to allow these subdivisions the loser will be agriculture.”

Residents and ratepayers have the summer to make recommendations and changes to the plan. The final draft will go for approval in September.