Fine tuning the Muirfield solution

Sharon McLeay
Times Contributor

 

Wheatland County tasked their planning staff with a complex puzzle, when they asked them to find resolutions for the Lakes of Muirfield Direct Control quandaries that plagued council in 2016.
On Feb. 21, staff forwarded a draft bylaw with six options, amending the Direct Control 9 bylaw 2007-56. The Feb. 21 agenda attachments include the draft. Council felt none of the options really fit the reality of the Muirfield solution they needed
“We probably should be going back to the land owners and everyone else. If council is looking for something, please give us some direction to staff and we can put something together, bring it forward, and go to first reading and public hearings. As much clarity as we can give, so much the better,” said Gerry Melenka, Wheatland County planning manager.
“My theory is bringing back a basic one and servicing discussions can be discussed at public hearings,” said Councillor Brenda Knight.
Deputy Reeve Armstrong strongly urged that measures be taken for future development and servicing issues.
“Somewhere out there we have to have some control over how much development we allow out there, before we have a permanent solution for waste water,” said Armstrong.
Staff said the developer already has registered 400 condominium units. Melenka said there is no subdivision condition to put in place to deal with that.
Knight suggested imposing a $12 million dollar bond from the developer to secure servicing for any future development on undeveloped cells and if he defaults on providing servicing, the money used to put servicing in place.
“Definitely we need to bring this to a public hearing,” said Councillor Alice Booth. “This is our time to step up. There are cells that are not built on, and no lots are sold. If development on those is limited until that water line is in, it will put pressure on the developer. Let’s not limit ourselves to one or two questions. Everything that is going wrong in this development should be on the table and discussed; coming to a resolution of where we allow development and not allow development and put stringent rules on that.”
After discussion, staff was asked to rework the bylaw to better-fit situations with a clearer draft that fits council’s needs. The reworked draft will come back for review at the March 14 meeting.