Subdivision with conditions

Sharon McLeay  

Times Contributor  

 

An Area Structure Plan (ASP) for a development northeast of Strathmore, bordering RR250, has been put hold pending a second level Environmental survey.

The land involves two quarters bordering a seasonal and permanent Wetland area. The owner’s and developer’s plan was to place seven, three acre lots over three building phases. 

At the public hearing regarding the proposal, staff indicated that Alberta Health requested an Environmental Plan on the Phase Two area, due to the potential for contamination from a possible pesticide tank leak, situated on a neighbour’s land. Development staff said that County officers had been called to inspect the property and have asked the neighbours to address the issue by May 2013. The developer contends that the tanks were situated on the County right of way and if there is a leak, it is up to the County to help cover costs of the Environmental survey. 

“It is an interesting situation,” said developer Patricia Maloney. “There certainly is the possibility that there could be contamination … if there is, the tanks belong to a third party and are sitting on the County road allowance. The Nelsons shouldn’t be penalized because they didn’t contaminate anything. We think there should be some cost sharing by the County on the Environmental survey.”

Maloney said the study could be done at the time of development. She said the owners were concerned about the delays and increased cost that would result, if the second study was required. She said that the owners agreed to hold off on development of the second phase, if approval for the other two phases could go ahead.

“We do know it is a Wetland area and the plan is designed to maintain that,” said Maloney.

Planning and development staff disagreed with Maloney’s contention that the Environmental study could be done at the time of development, due to possible implications if the Wetland has been contaminated, and the fact that Alberta Health has made a stipulation that the testing be done.

Councillors indicated that they would like to see a more comprehensive development plan to make an informed decision. They suggested it may make a difference if the lot lines were placed differently. Maloney said approval is needed to change the lots and develop a more comprehensive plan. Staff indicated that a more comprehensive plan was not usually required at this stage and it may set a precedent for subsequent applicants. 

Francis Henrickson, a resident in the area, questioned the intent of the project to drill eight separate wells and wondered how that would impact the water table. A Water Availability study indicated that the aquifer supporting the area could support the subdivision and another six sections. Each lot is designed to have their own septic system and would require inspections. It was suggested that a centralized sewer system for the development would make more sense. As the area become more developed, the system could be tied into residential treatment centres. Maloney said that the County currently didn’t require this for acreages. 

There is a private runway on the land and Councillor Alice Booth questioned its status. Councillor Ben Armstrong asked whether the areas storm water drainage had been addressed. Several councillors indicated they were not in favour of the plan as it was presented. There was a request by council to put the application aside, until more information was given on the Environmental impact, and a more comprehensive plan could be presented to them.

At a second public hearing, the owners of a 28 acre parcel out subdivision questioned Staff and Council recommendations to allow a WID a caveat on the land. It was indicated that it was for assurance that the wetlands would not be filled in or developed. 

Councillor Brenda Knight indicated that there were provisions under the Water Act that allowed WID to apply a caveat against a property. Owners indicated that one wetland was fed by natural springs and the other was fed by runoff that was not part of the canal flow system. They said they had an agreement signed in 1994 to restrict grazing near the areas, but that agreement would run out next year. The owners were not against wetland preservation. They had worked in the past with Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Association to create a dugout, and develop an agrarian habitat where pheasant populations could be released. Council passed the application to second reading.