Highway 817 subdivision fails over safety and road maintenance concerns

By Melissa Crispin-Piche Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

A proposal to create three acreages south of Strathmore failed to win approval from Wheatland County’s Municipal Planning Commission on Oct. 13, following a lengthy debate over highway safety and who should maintain the road serving the properties.

Council voted 4–3 against a motion to approve the subdivision with an added road-surfacing condition. 

The proposal would create three approximately five-acre parcels and a roughly 138-acre remainder parcel about 8.2 kilometres south of Strathmore along Highway 817.

Much of the discussion centred on a proposed public service road. The applicant would pay to build it to county standards, but the county would eventually assume responsibility for maintenance.

“Why would we enter into an agreement to allow a subdivision system to be set up that requires us to take over a road and the subsequent liabilities for maintaining it?” Coun. Keith Clayton asked.

The application had already been sent back in June over concerns about dust, maintenance and the road’s proximity to the highway.

In response, the applicant proposed moving the road farther from the highway right-of-way, paving its highway connection and adding speed-limit signage.

“These measures would aim to reduce but do not eliminate the original dust and maintenance concerns raised by MPC,” planner Hassan Saeed told the commission.

County staff also developed an alternative layout with a shorter service road and the proposed lots farther south. However, that option depended on a shared highway approach involving a neighbouring property owner who opposed the arrangement. The applicant also did not support it.

Staff recommended approving the original layout. Council members remained divided. Some questioned the long-term cost of maintaining a road for a small number of properties. Others raised concerns about county equipment travelling on Highway 817 and described collisions they recalled along that stretch.

No verified collision statistics or road-maintenance cost estimates were presented, but it was mentioned the cost to maintain the road would exceed any revenue gained from property taxes on the three parcels.

Discussion turned to whether the owners could maintain a private road and whether a permanent surface would reduce dust and the need for grading. 

It was explained to council that the applicant would pay for construction, and the county would take over after a two-year period.

Administration advised that chip seal would be a better option than maintainable road oil for a road of that size, while noting the county would then have to maintain that surface.

Staff also discouraged another referral. 

“Administration feels we have explored all of the options that are available,” a staff member said.

The final approval motion included an additional condition under the development agreement requiring chip seal or asphalt surfacing on the county’s portion of the road.

That condition was not enough to secure a majority.