Municipal Development Plan moves forward

Times Contributor 

 

Only five members of the public came out to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) public hearing held in Wheatland Council chambers on Sept. 16.

County planners, along with Dillon Consulting, amalgamated all the public open house information with details mentioned by ratepayers during the summer through the website and input by County council. Planners asked for councils approval for second reading of the proposal, moving forward to a final draft for third reading.

“We have spent a year on this project. It has been a very rewarding one. Good input has made it a better document,” said Alex Taylor, Project manager for Dillon Consulting. “We believe it contains strong policies that reflect what we heard from the ratepayers and council.”

The plan was restructured into three areas, which are Heritage, Growth and Services. It still includes agricultural concerns and attention to natural areas, water preservation/conservation, historical preservation and parks and recreation development, as well as tourism enhancements. It recommends managing growth and preserving agricultural land. Commercial and industrial development areas are to be clustered in designated areas, and subdivisions of six lots or greater on one quarter section will be encouraged to consolidate their servicing, and be located to the most appropriate areas. The full MDP draft can be seen on the Wheatland County website.

The idea of transfer credits was taken out, until the province implements a mechanism for its use. Confined feeding operations were removed, as they don’t fall under county jurisdiction. The terms ‘sensitive’ and ‘significant’ under the Environmental Assessment section were clarified, opening up a less restrictive interpretation. Vegetative restoration along defined water bodies was modified, as it falls under provincial mandate, and the county would participate in current watershed management groups rather than initiate practises on its own. Storm water management will be applicable to all development proposals; regional storm water and waste water references that were controlled by provincial mandate were removed. Servicing requirements were clarified for water well and septic use, with direction to connect to municipal lines where possible. Natural resource clustering was changed to locate development where the resources were located, but discourage development of things like gravel pits on prime agriculture land, near hamlets or water bodies. Mobility and transportation guidelines would also consider non-resident visitors.

There was a request at the hearing to include Hutterite colonies in the MDP and define development for their colonies, as they often have 100 people or more living in one area. It was asked that they be subject to county bylaws. Planners indicated that Hutterites were no different than other farmers and were currently assessed and given development permits the same as everyone else. The number of houses was not the issue; rather consolidation of the water and sewer services to a centralized system was the concern.  Planners said any concerns that fall under Land Use Bylaws could be part of relevant discussions there.  Any special conditions granted were under sections with discretionary guidelines. Councillors questioned whether Hutterite colonies could be included under agricultural section due to their unique communal structure and culture. It was questioned if the colonies fell under residential, agriculture, commercial or industrial designation, or all of the above.

There was a suggestion that there needed to be more information included under oil and gas development using industry development appropriate guidelines, so that Council could arrive at a balanced decision.

 “It was a long process with a lot of reviews,” said Steve Marshman, who was involved in oil industry guideline discussions. “I was blown away that it doesn’t present more information for you to review.” 

Council indicated they didn’t have much say in oil and gas development in the county, as surface rights and resource development was under the ERCB and the province’s direction.

Clarification on the use of bio-retention swales was asked for, as it was a fairly new technology. There was also a request to include solar and wind technology in the guidelines, including the possibility of new technology appropriate to use in hamlets. Dean Kipley felt Council should give more forward thought to off-the-grid enterprises.

A local developer asked for terminology clarification under development and agricultural use guidelines. Clarification was also wanted on whether existing ASP’s would be grandfathered. 

“County ratepayers have in good faith, done everything to standards and it would be disappointing to find out they spent all that money and they were not approved,” said Dan Thiessen, who is currently working on development processes for his property. 

There was also a request to include an adjacent landowner notification policy, which was currently listed as discretionary.

Planners were encouraging council to approve the second and third reading, so the document could be in place prior to the election in October. Members of the audience were adverse to the idea and wanted the document to be available to residents, considering the amount of changes made. Some members of Council were also against rushing the document through.

“I take exception to rush a major document such as this through Council prior to the election. We want a good document and a final document,” said Councillor Brenda Knight.

Reeve Glenn Koester said the information given at the public hearing was for council’s consideration and that the public had been notified and should have been present if they had concerns.  Second reading was approved with Councillor Alice Booth and Councillor Brenda Knight in opposition.