[0:02] All right. Uh we are now in the public
hearing portion of our council meeting.
[0:08] So this is uh public hearing for bylaw
15-25
[0:13] uh MD big horn and town of Canmore IDP
amendment.
[0:19] Can I please get a motion to open the
public hearing for bylaw 15-25?
[0:25] Uh councelor Smith has that. All in
favor? Thank you. Motion is passed. I
[0:31] want to welcome everyone uh here today.
Public hearing procedure sheets have
[0:35] been being provided in the agenda center
on the MD's website. Pursuant to bylaw
[0:41] 11-25, an amendment to the procedural
bylaw, the public may now also attend
[0:46] public hearings via Microsoft Teams.
[clears throat]
[0:50] Instructions were provided on the public
notices posted in the newspapers as well
[0:55] as the MD's website. If you are
attending by Microsoft Teams while
[0:59] listening to the presentations, your
microphones must be muted. If you wish
[1:03] to speak, you must raise your virtual
hand and wait until you are called upon.
[1:07] Then you can activate your microphone
and your camera must be turned on. This
[1:11] public hearing is being held to hear
proposed bylaw 15-25
[1:15] being a bylaw to amend the
intermunicipal development plan for the
[1:19] town of Canmore and the municipal
district of Bigor number 8 in accordance
[1:23] with the municipal government act
chapter M-26
[1:27] RSA 2000 as amended. In a public
hearing, council must hear from any
[1:32] person, group of persons, or person
representing them who claims to be
[1:36] affected by the proposed bylaw or
resolution and who has complied with the
[1:40] procedures outlined by council. I may
also hear from any other person who
[1:44] wishes to make representations and whom
council agrees to hear. There are a few
[1:49] housekeeping items I would like to go
over. If you will be speaking tonight,
[1:52] please make sure to start by stating
your name. Uh please make sure your
[1:56] phone is silenced and just letting
everybody know that this meeting is
[2:00] being livereamed on YouTube and a
recording of the stream is available for
[2:05] future viewing.
Administration will introduce the
[2:08] proposed bylaw. Counselors will then be
given the opportunity to ask questions
[2:12] of administration.
Uh the applicant which is usually
[2:18] [laughter]
we don't have an applicant to speak.
[2:22] Councilors will be given an opportunity
to ask questions of administration. We
[2:27] will then hear from the public wishing
to speak in favor, in opposition, or
[2:31] with a neutral position of proposed
bylaw 15-25,
[2:35] starting with the public present in the
room, followed by the public wishing to
[2:39] speak via Microsoft Teams. Whether
speaking in favor, opposition, or
[2:44] neutral, people speaking on their own
behalf may speak for a maximum of five
[2:47] minutes. People speaking as a
spokesperson for a group or petition may
[2:51] speak for a maximum of 10 minutes.
Counselors will be given an opportunity
[2:54] to ask questions after each speaker
concludes. At no time will disrespectful
[2:59] comments or questioning of anyone's
integrity be allowed. Council is then
[3:03] provided a last opportunity to ask
relevant questions of administration on
[3:07] the proposed bylaw and then the public
hearing will be closed. I will remind
[3:11] everyone that once the public hearing is
closed, no further oral or written
[3:14] submissions will be received on proposed
bylaw 15-25.
[3:20] May we now have the introduction of the
proposed bylaw from MD administration.
[3:28] Thank you. Um I'm here today to present
uh bylaw 1525, Jenny Caspar. It's
[3:33] manager of planning and development
services. Uh so this is the town of
[3:37] Canmore and the MD of Big Horn uh
intermunicipal development plan
[3:40] amendment.
So in February and March of 2020 um the
[3:46] town of Canmore and the MD of Big Horn
uh adopted the intermunicipal
[3:50] development plan. Uh at the MD it was
under bylaw 209.
[3:55] So the purpose of the uh intermunicipal
development plan is to guide land use uh
[4:00] planning on lands bordering uh both
municipalities.
[4:04] So focus areas include environmental
consideration, utility servicing,
[4:09] transportation corridors, and future
land use. And also it includes a
[4:14] collaboration framework, so referral and
decision-making processes and dispute
[4:18] resolution.
Section 631 of the municipal government
[4:24] act uh outlines the requirements for
preparing and amending uh an IDP.
[4:30] uh it is a statutory document which must
be uh adopted by bylaw and a public
[4:35] hearing must be held in accordance with
section uh 692 of the MGA.
[4:42] So the intermunicial intermunicipal
committee committee is a formal body
[4:47] which is established to oversee
collaboration between the
[4:50] municipalities.
uh it consists of representatives from
[4:54] both town of Canmore and MD of Big Horn
and it meets regularly to review all
[5:00] agreements between the town and the MD.
So at the uh at a recent meeting uh they
[5:07] identified several updates uh for the
intermunicipal development plan. The
[5:12] first update being a update to figure
one which is the overview map. The
[5:17] second is the addition of figure three
which shows the IDP plan areas and the
[5:23] third being um requested separately by
the town administration uh which was a
[5:29] text amendment to section 1.4 plan goals
and that was to add the word facilities.
[5:38] The figure one overview map is here. On
the left hand side, you'll see the
[5:42] current map. And on the right hand side,
you'll see the amended map showing the
[5:46] area south of Highway 1A as the
additional uh IDP area that was added
[5:51] and referral area. And this is uh figure
three, which is map two, which is the
[5:56] new map showing that area south of
Highway 1A. So the pink area shows the
[6:02] notification area and the yellow area
shows the the plan area.
[6:10] The text amendment in section 1.4 uh is
shown in red text below. So I'll read
[6:16] out uh section 1.4. So uh it is to
ensure long-term compatibility of future
[6:22] land use within both municipalities.
That includes the consideration of
[6:26] transportation corridors and facilities,
steep creeks and other waterways,
[6:31] resource extraction activities, utility
corridors, historic resources, and
[6:36] environmental matters within the area.
[6:42] So, the bylaw was circulated um to
various internal and external
[6:47] departments for comment, and that was a
30-day circulation period.
[7:01] Um and it was also advertised for two
consecutive weeks as per the municipal
[7:07] government act in the Rocky Mountain
outlook, the Cochran Eagle and the
[7:10] Albertan newspapers. Uh, so it was also
posted on the MDFA court website and
[7:15] social media platform and we did receive
one public hearing submission received
[7:21] prior to the submission deadline um
containing questions or concerns and
[7:26] that submission was including in
included in the council package. Um, as
[7:31] a brief summary, the submission had
several questions outlining
[7:35] clarification on why these specific
areas were included in the IDP
[7:40] amendment. questions regarding the
public engagement process and
[7:44] leaseholder involvement in the IDP
process. So as I mentioned the full
[7:48] letter is in the council package.
[7:54] Uh that concludes the presentation and I
am available for questions.
[8:01] Thank you. Are there any questions for
administration?
[8:07] Go ahead deputy reef.
[8:10] So [clears throat] I'm looking at the
text section and just just have a quick
[8:16] question when I read it the first time
and if you leave out the facilities it
[8:23] talks about corridors, steep creeks,
waterways,
[8:28] resource extraction,
utility corridors, historic resources,
[8:34] environmental matters within an area. It
kind of gives you the image of
[8:40] a place um places like corridors,
features, geographic features
[8:47] um and yet we're adding facilities. So
how does that adding facilities from a
[8:55] municipality's point of view change
things?
[9:14] Yeah. Through through the reef to
councelor Tuza. Um it's it's kind of a
[9:18] catchall for any development that could
be considered in that area. So as it
[9:22] stands, transportation corridors and
facilities. So that can include any sort
[9:27] of buildings or developments in that
area. Okay.
[9:30] » Thank you.
[9:34] Thank you. Um
just to build off of that, um
[9:42] like how is facilities defined? I I
don't know that uh
[9:51] where where did this come from? This was
uh recommended by town of Canmore
[9:56] administration as an addition to the um
IDP.
[10:01] And I don't believe facilities is
defined, but I can check the document.
[10:34] through the reve I don't see a
definition in the document okay
[10:50] I'm not sure
[10:55] where that came from. Go ahead, Deputy
Real.
[11:00] Would it be fair to say that the changes
we're seeing here today um speak to
[11:08] notification of the municipalities when
development takes place in the
[11:14] highlighted areas
[11:17] » through the reef? That is correct. Um
the changes you see today are including
[11:22] that area in the IDP plan area and also
in the referral area. So um this is to
[11:28] capture any future development permit or
area structure plan so on and so forth
[11:34] applications within that area. They'd
have to be circulated to the town of
[11:38] Camar for comment.
>> Thank you.
[11:45] » And then I think we're copying each
other's questions here. Uh my next
[11:49] question is uh what differentiates
between the plan area and the
[11:53] notification area? I've always just
thought this was more about
[11:57] notification.
What's the difference on the map
[12:04] uh to the reap the plan area is where
the development um could potentially
[12:09] occur and the referral area is the
referral um boundary. Um so similarly
[12:15] around the hamlet of dead man's flats
there's a plan area um which indicates
[12:20] where um applications could be proposed
and then the referral area is the uh
[12:25] larger area of circulation.
[12:37] Thank you.
[12:42] There any other questions?
[12:49] » Go ahead, councelor James.
>> Um, yes, thank you. Um,
[12:55] I might be just overthinking of it.
Thinking it, so I'm going to keep this
[12:59] really basic. on page um on the figure
three map two. Um could you please help
[13:08] me understand what uh notification area
means?
[13:20] Um so the pink area would be notifying
um any land owners within that pink area
[13:27] of uh the any development proposed
within the plan area. So that's the
[13:32] referral boundary area.
[13:42] Uh why would we not be referring to the
other side of the highway when it's
[13:47] adjacent
lands?
[13:51] Why would that area only
[13:56] the plan area is adjacent to the
highway? Why would we not be notifying
[14:01] on the other side of the highway as
well?
[14:19] So, so in this case if an application is
received within that area we would
[14:24] notify it is an IDP area. So
notifications get sent between town of
[14:30] camour and empty of big form. So
typically what happens is we would
[14:33] notify the town um and then they would
have their own circulation process and
[14:39] list that they would follow. Um I'm
going to also flip to that section of
[14:43] the IDP um so that we can get more
information on that.
[15:32] So section three of the IDP goes over
our application referral process. Um so
[15:36] it is very specific. So the initiating
municipality is the municipality that
[15:41] has jurisdiction over the lands for
which an application has been made. So
[15:45] in this case the MD of big horn if it's
within our boundaries we have
[15:49] jurisdiction over that uh application in
responding the responding municipality
[15:55] is the municipality that shares the
boundary with the initiating
[15:59] municipality.
So all new area structure plans,
[16:03] amendments to MDPs, a ASPs of the
initiating municipality that may affect
[16:09] lands within the IDP plan area or
notification area shall be circulated
[16:14] for comment by the initiate initiating
municipality to the land owners and
[16:18] responding municipalities administration
as required in the MGA and as identified
[16:24] in the initiating municipality statutory
plan policies. It goes on to conceptual
[16:30] schemes. So on all new conceptual
schemes or amendments to conceptual
[16:34] schemes, redistricting and subdivision
applications within the IDP plan area of
[16:39] the initiated municipality shall be
circulated for comment to land owners
[16:43] and the responding municipalities
administration.
[16:47] uh where an application for a
development permit for a discretionary
[16:52] use is received within the plan area uh
and an area structure plan or area
[16:58] redevelopment plan has not been
approved, the application shall be
[17:02] circulated by the initiated municipality
for comment to the responding
[17:06] municipalities administration.
Um and then it goes on um to the
[17:12] responding municipalities response um
that it should focus on municipalities,
[17:17] infrastructure, roads, utilities,
drainage, off-site impacts. Um so so
[17:23] these are the parameters for the for the
notifications in section 3.2 of the plan
[17:29] area. So it does spell it out a lot
better than just the map would. Um but
[17:34] the main the main point being that
they're adding this area to the IDP um
[17:42] plan area and referral area.
[17:47] » Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions for
[17:52] administration?
[17:58] Um, I had one more question just under
page 513 bylaw 1525 referrals. There's
[18:06] internal and external.
Uh, was there a requirement to notify
[18:11] the lease holders in the external
[18:16] division of this? Uh there is no
requirement to notify lease holders
[18:24] » is and that's from the MGA or how
how do we know that
[18:36] it's not identified in the IDP or in our
in in MD of Acorn's land use bylaw. It's
[18:42] also not not identified. Typically you
would notify the land owners. In this
[18:46] case, the land owner was notified being
the province. Um, and then it's up to
[18:51] them to notify their lease holders.
[18:56] Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions for
[19:02] administration?
Sorry. Go ahead, councelor.
[19:06] » Thank you. through the reef
questions about again I'm just
[19:13] I don't want to dwell on this too much
but the notification area you mentioned
[19:18] that this was to notify if anything was
to
[19:25] happen on this area you mentioned to
notify uh black days arc but it's
[19:32] outside of this notification area
um the area that is listed here says Bo
[19:39] Valley Wildland Provincial Park.
Is there any
[19:45] dwellings, structures, residents in that
area that
[19:57] » so through the reef to councelor Fitz
Morris, there is a dwelling within the
[20:01] yellow plan area but not in the
provincial park. Okay.
[20:08] clarification to dwellings.
>> And you said uh
[20:16] if anything
[20:19] if a request comes in for discretionary
uses, what about permitted uses do we
[20:25] need to and what permitted uses are in
that area
[20:31] » through the reef to councelor Fitz
Morris. Uh, the IDP section 3.2 only
[20:36] references discretionary use. Uh, it
doesn't reference permitted use, but I
[20:41] can look up permitted uses in that
district if you bear with me one moment.
[21:22] uh through the reef to councelor Fitz
Morris. Uh the forestry district lists
[21:26] several permitted uses. So I'll read
them out here. Accessory buildings,
[21:30] extensive agriculture, farm structures,
logging, parks, shipping containers, and
[21:36] signs, fence, and freestanding signs. Uh
and also list several discretionary
[21:41] uses. Um so let me know if you'd want me
to run through those as well
[21:44] » please.
Okay. So the um accessory uses
[21:50] discretionary uses are um accessory uses
aggregate extraction uh intensive
[21:56] agriculture airport private airirstrip
bed and breakfast campground cemetery
[22:03] community garden
outfitting and guiding communication
[22:07] towers and facilities. Dwelling factory
built dwelling single detached energy
[22:13] cons energy generation system small
environmental education facilities group
[22:19] care facility
horicultural operation industrial work
[22:24] camp commercial kennel livestock log
sorting and transportation staging area
[22:29] natural resource extraction natural
resource extraction facility addition
[22:34] public utilities and buildings
recreation facilities ities, recreation,
[22:40] staging area, remote group facility,
sawmill signs, so awning, canopy,
[22:46] fascia, projecting, roof and wall signs
and waste transfer site.
[22:56] That is quite a list for uh
Wildland Provincial Park. Thank you.
[23:07] Go ahead, councelor Morris.
>> There was one letter received that was
[23:12] noted had questions. Were there answers
to these questions
[23:19] » through the reef to councelor Fitz
Morris? We do we have prepared answer to
[23:23] answers to these questions which we can
either provide now or during the um
[23:27] administration questions at the end of
the public um hearing process.
[23:36] Why don't we do it now? We're here now.
[23:42] » Is there a page number?
>> No.
[23:49] So the first question um was with
regards to were there any sight specific
[23:54] considerations taken into account when
including these parcels in the amended
[23:58] IDP
um such as use access or environmental
[24:02] considerations. Uh so administration is
not aware of any sight specific
[24:06] considerations that were applied.
However, um such considerations would
[24:11] typically include legal access um and
minimal topographic and environmental
[24:17] constraints that could support future
development potential of a parcel. Uh so
[24:22] many of the lands bordering the empty of
Big Horn and town of Camour are quite
[24:26] restricted in terms of topography and
access. Uh question two kind of uh flows
[24:32] into that. Um
oh sorry, question one. I I skipped down
[24:39] question one was above that. So there
was clarification on why these two
[24:44] specific parcels were included and
whether any other areas or parcels were
[24:48] considered as part of this review. Uh
the the comment goes on to mention um
[24:53] that the existing MD of Big Horn and
Rocky View County IDP map which reflects
[24:58] the broader uh boundarybased planning
approach as compared to a sightspecific
[25:02] one. Uh so the IDP intermunicipal
committee um as I mentioned regularly
[25:08] reviews all of the agreements between
the MD of Big Horn and the town of
[25:12] Camour when they were reviewing the IDP.
Uh they noted several changes and
[25:17] updates to the IDP. Administration
doesn't have information regarding the
[25:22] specific discussions that occurred at
that IDP committee um meeting uh and
[25:27] whether other parcels were considered in
the update. Um should the amendments
[25:32] under this bylaw 1525 be approved, the
new area identified under figure 3 um
[25:38] will adhere to the application referrals
process outlined under section 3.2 of
[25:43] the IDP. So that was the section I I had
read out regarding the different
[25:47] referral uh processes for each type of
application. Regarding the Rocky View
[25:52] County IDP, um the plan area, I I'm just
um guessing, but it could be much larger
[25:59] due to the limited topographical
constraints in the area as well as more
[26:03] privately owned lands in these areas
leading to more development potential
[26:07] for the lands.
Um so that tied into the second question
[26:12] which I had read first. Um and then the
third question uh notes the um
[26:18] long-standing lease holders. So there
was um a statement that given the
[26:22] presence of long-standing leaseold lands
within the planning area, would it be
[26:27] appropriate for the language in the IDP
to also reference lease holders? Um so
[26:34] administration's response to that is
that a future IDP update should the
[26:38] intermunicipal committee pursue this
could include an update to address
[26:41] leaseolder interests. Um although the
amendments proposed under the current
[26:46] bylaw 1525 um only currently relate to
those three amendments that were
[26:51] outlined by administration. Um should a
future IDP update be pursued, lease
[26:56] holders can become involved in the
public and stakeholder engagement
[26:59] process um as well as the public hearing
process.
[27:04] Uh the final question was clarification
on whether the original IDP engagement
[27:09] practices were considered in this
update. Uh including direct mail notice
[27:14] to newly affected areas. Um it mentions
section 1.5 appears to read as though
[27:20] these parcels would have been part of
the original direct mail openhouse and
[27:25] public hearing process. So just to
clarify, section 1.5 of the IDP talks
[27:30] about how the original IDP was prepared.
Um and it involved oversight from the
[27:36] inter intermunicipal collaboration
committee, public and stakeholder
[27:40] engagement through open houses, web
pages, and communication in the local
[27:45] newspapers as well as um direct mailouts
and a public hearing. Uh so the proposed
[27:52] IDP amendments under this bylaw 1525
uh followed the plan amendment process
[27:59] under section 4.1.1
of the IDP
[28:04] um and were circulated both internally
and externally by administration
[28:09] um and uh they were sent to the land
owner in this new area which is the the
[28:16] province.
So section 4.1.1 of the IDP policy 2
[28:22] specifically states that if an amendment
is recommended by the ICC so the
[28:26] intermunicipal committee the
recommendation shall be considered by
[28:30] both councils to direct administration
to initiate the IDP amendment. So this
[28:35] is in this is the case here uh the
intermunicipal committee uh directed
[28:40] town of camour and the MD of big horn to
bring these forward um to their
[28:44] respective councils for decision.
[28:52] Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Ruza.
Go ahead.
[28:57] So, based pardon [clears throat] me,
based on the amendments to this document
[29:03] that we're looking at today, I just want
to pass just a hypothetical.
[29:09] So, if a lease holder in the yellow on
figure three, map two,
[29:16] I'm assuming any lease holder of that
area, if they wanted to develop a
[29:21] facility of any kind, how does this
just if you could spell it out for me,
[29:28] how this bylaw or this policy applies or
the this sorry, the bylaw, how does this
[29:35] bylaw apply?
[29:38] What are we getting at today?
>> Yes. And so um administration would look
[29:44] at the IDP and identify that it would be
whatever type of application this is. It
[29:50] would be within the um IDP plan area. Uh
we would look to see what type of
[29:55] application it is. So let's say it's a
discretionary use development permit.
[30:00] For example, policy three of section 3.2
2 states that um if it's not within an
[30:09] area structure plan or area
redevelopment area, which it's not, um
[30:13] the application shall be shall be
circulated by the initiating m
[30:17] municipality for comment to the
responding municipalities
[30:21] administration. So, we would um review
the application, make sure that it's
[30:25] complete, um we would send that to town
of Camour's administration. They would
[30:31] be able to circulate the application. Um
and then comments would be collected and
[30:37] then it would go through the uh MD of
Big Horn's normal process. So uh
[30:42] currently discretionary applications go
to the municipal planning commission for
[30:46] decision and it would follow along with
that process for a development permit.
[30:50] There's obviously a different process
for depending on what type of
[30:54] application.
>> Thank you.
[30:59] Just to follow up from that question
then, um, would it be any different if
[31:03] it was a permitted use versus a
discretionary use?
[31:11] It doesn't appear that section 3.2 has
uh any um uh
[31:18] policies for permitted uses. So, it
wouldn't apply. It doesn't mean that
[31:22] administration wouldn't send that
application, but it's it's not in the
[31:27] IDP.
>> So, if some if if a permitted use was
[31:31] applied for, we would still have to
notify. We wouldn't have to because it's
[31:35] permitted.
>> We wouldn't have to.
[31:36] » But if a discretionary use was applied
for, we'd have to notify.
[31:40] » Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[31:45] » Go ahead. Go ahead, counselor Jane.
>> Um, thank you. So then that information
[31:51] is sent to the town of Canmore and it's
their responsibility to notify the
[31:56] individual land holders
um
[32:01] north of the highway etc in the area or
would they be notified?
[32:06] » Uh correct. Um the through section 3.2
um states that we'd send it to the
[32:12] municipalities administration and then
they would circulate
[32:22] Any further questions?
[32:29] Thank you.
If there's no more questions for
[32:33] administration at this time, we will now
move on to the members of public who
[32:37] wish to speak to the proposed bylaw
15-25.
[32:41] Please raise your hand if you wish to
speak and when called upon a reminder to
[32:45] state your name and if your position is
in favor, neutral or opposition. You
[32:50] have five minutes to speak as an
individual or 10 minutes to speak as a
[32:53] spokesperson for a group. Council will
also have an opportunity to ask each
[32:58] member of public uh questions after your
presentation.
[33:02] Please raise your hand if you wish to
speak.
[33:14] Go ahead. Yeah, you can come and have a
seat right here.
[33:58] and it is um where I was born and raised
and it's very personal. So the timing of
[34:05] this seems very odd to have these two
parcels just signaled out. Um, on the
[34:13] presentation it did say, and it's just a
very minute detail, but it did say
[34:18] December 24th for the Rocky Mountain
Outlook. It was December 25th that it
[34:23] came out. Um,
and I would just like clarification on
[34:30] how so the while the province does own
uh the affected lands, there's only two
[34:39] affected lands that are
um noted in this new amended map. And I
[34:47] really appreciate the MD for um how they
advertised it because I feel compared to
[34:54] the town of Camour, it was very clear,
transparent, and I I really appreciate
[34:59] the transparency there. Um I would just
like to know clarification on how the
[35:06] province was notified. Um and then for
the figure three, the notification area
[35:15] on the yellow part um in the town of
Camour, it directly borders on a piece
[35:22] of property that is noted as FD, so
future development
[35:28] within the town of Camar. So, I'm just
wondering why
[35:33] if these lands were missed, why were we
not considering other lands? So, that's
[35:39] my only comment cuz directly across from
the yellow
[35:45] is um a large parcel that's also crown
land that is zoned CWFD
[35:54] or maybe not CW but future development.
[36:00] Thank you. Um, are there any questions?
[36:08] Can I just confirm with you? I don't
know if you can see it from here, but is
[36:12] it just like this
parcel of land?
[36:17] » Yeah, just directly. Yeah, directly
across.
[36:21] » Okay. But not the whole green. Um, so
directly across there is a parcel that
[36:27] is zoned FW or sorry FD, future
development. But everything, if I may
[36:35] just kind of
Sorry, I guess you guys can't really see
[36:40] this, but everything just up in here is
all kind of that wildland park, but
[36:45] directly across from the
um the parcels that are mentioned is
[36:51] zoned future development
>> and it but it's still leaf or crown
[36:56] land.
>> Well, it's the same as right
[37:00] » as the two parcels that are being
being included now.
[37:05] » Yeah.
>> Go ahead, Deb.
[37:10] » Thank you. I have a question for
administration.
[37:14] So,
[37:21] » u corrected again. I need that once in a
while.
[37:28] » Go ahead, councilors.
I have a question. The area you're
[37:33] referring to across the road, is that
the area known as Indian Flats?
[37:38] » I'm I'm not sure.
>> The open area if we're talking in
[37:42] between
uh the the industrial building and then
[37:47] would be the road to the Alpine Club. Is
that the area?
[37:51] » There's actually three parcels in that
area. So, one of the parcels
[37:57] um starts at the top of that map. I'd
have to look up the town of Cameron, but
[38:03] it starts like right up into this
corner. It was the old um Transla
[38:10] building and then that goes directly and
it borders right onto the yellow area.
[38:15] So, my question is just if we're
including the yellow area, why would we
[38:21] not include future development? And then
this was previously zoned um natural
[38:30] area and it just recently got reszoned
to the forestry district. So
[38:37] I'm just confused as why we're not
considering everything that's cuz if you
[38:42] look at the the map there, it looks very
undeveloped.
[38:46] So why are we not considering other
things in the town of Camour? And I'm
[38:50] also confused just as the pink area
because why would we not be notifying
[38:58] other areas like I'm just confused and
there was a question asked for
[39:04] clarification on the notification area
and the plan area but so that
[39:10] notification area would just be to the
province.
[39:13] So so the lease holders have no rights
here. They weren't notified about this
[39:19] change
and they wouldn't be notifi and the land
[39:26] Yeah.
[39:31] the land the land holders across the
tree wouldn't be notified either.
[39:39] And in in my submission, it just shows
like a highlighter where it's like you
[39:43] highlight both sides of the map. Let's
do the notification. Let's be fair.
[39:48] Let's be transparent. But this to me
just says we're gonna signal out two
[39:54] properties
that have a similar family history.
[40:00] And that's my concern. But I also don't
really have a concern about it being in
[40:06] the IDP because I feel like it is a
sensitive area and I do think that
[40:11] council is more than capable of
overseeing the development.
[40:19] Thank you. I understand what where
you're coming from with uh the area
[40:24] across the street from the 1A there. So,
thank you for highlighting that to all
[40:30] of us. That's important.
Are there any other questions?
[40:38] » Okay, thank you.
>> Is there anyone else wishing to speak
[40:43] here today
[40:46] and nobody online? Okay.
[40:52] All right. It looks as though we do not
have anyone else here to speak today.
[40:57] Um, I'll now ask council if there are
any final questions for administration.
[41:03] Go ahead, Deputy Reef.
[41:08] So, an issue was raised about if there
was development on the north side of
[41:13] Highway 1A in that green section on the
map. And I'm going to say I'm going to
[41:19] expand that a little bit further all the
way up to Harvey Heights.
[41:24] So, in that green area, MD land, if we
can pull the map up again, please.
[41:46] Now, I realize this is a an agreement
between Canmore
[41:51] and the MD, but the question was raised
if there's development
[41:57] north of the yellow highlighted area,
and I'm going to say even all the way up
[42:01] to Harvey Heights,
[42:05] if there was an application that came to
the MD, what is the MD's
[42:09] responsibilities?
Um because I think the question is why
[42:15] was this yellow area highlighted? Why is
notification area
[42:20] and then what is the difference if
there's development on the other side of
[42:24] the highway?
[42:31] » Uh yes, thank you. Uh Haley Gavin, the
director of planning and development
[42:35] services through uh to the through the
reef to deputy reef ta. Um I think in
[42:41] the bigger picture first of all that we
need to
[42:45] um consider is this intermunicipal
development plan already exists. So
[42:52] there was a um process that was
undertaken several years ago to
[42:58] determine between the two municipalities
what the plan area was. [snorts] Now, it
[43:04] primarily focuses in around uh Smith
Creek, Dead Man's Flats over in that
[43:10] area. Now,
I guess to get to the crux of why this
[43:16] particular land was identified and uh
brought forwards in this way is because
[43:23] I don't recall exactly when it was, but
it was certainly before I started with
[43:27] the MD. there was
talk of a um potential application
[43:35] coming forwards in this particular area.
Now, an application was never submitted
[43:42] to the MD. So, I want that to be clear.
We never received a development permit
[43:46] application for that potential
development that was being talked about
[43:52] coming to this land.
We received a referral from the
[43:57] government of Alberta which is the
correct process. They received an
[44:02] application. They refer to the
jurisdiction which is the MD to get our
[44:07] comments and thoughts on that particular
application. somehow
[44:11] um
that potential application was that
[44:17] information were shared far and wide and
lots of people heard about it and I
[44:22] guess when the town of Canmore I don't
want to speak for them but I would
[44:26] imagine when they looked at the IDP they
were like oh if there's an application
[44:32] in this area we're not mandatory to be
notified they wouldn't be notified by
[44:37] the province because it's not their
jurisdiction it's ours. They wouldn't be
[44:41] notified by us because it wasn't in the
IDP.
[44:45] So, could I sit here today and say,
would me and my team, if we received a
[44:50] discretionary application, would we
notify the town? Most likely. Do we have
[44:57] to? No. So, this change mandates us to
notify the town. And I will be clear
[45:06] that us notifying the town is not us
asking the town for permission. It's
[45:12] asking the town for their comments. Same
as any other referral that we do to
[45:17] Alberta transportation, Alberta parks,
any other government government agency,
[45:23] ministry, utilities, ATCO, uh uh the
railway if that's applicable. We do
[45:29] referrals to all manner of agencies. We
collect their comments. Then when we
[45:33] come to MPC, we provide a recommendation
on an application and we show what we
[45:39] receive during the the circulation
through the referral process. It doesn't
[45:44] mean that an application would get
approved or denied based on those
[45:49] comments. It means that we have to
consider those comments and we may add
[45:53] conditions to mitigate any concerns that
were brought up. So I just want to be
[45:59] clear on that. There's a very long-
winded explanation, but I'm hoping that
[46:03] it answers your question.
[46:08] Go ahead, Deputy.
>> Thank you. I I should have brought that
[46:11] up earlier and we could just kind of got
to the point. Um, but I'm wondering if
[46:17] we're all being just a tiny bit
shortsighted in that
[46:22] we should maybe extend that yellow area
on MD.
[46:29] um MD no on the MD property everything
that's MD ordering Canmore
[46:38] why we wouldn't treat it the same way
and that we would simply notify them if
[46:41] we've had applications for development
[46:47] » uh through the reev uh to deputy reevor
I guess the um position of
[46:53] administration on this uh particular
amendment um we don't have any concerns
[46:59] with it the way that it's been um
requested. Um I think you know given
[47:06] that we need both municipalities
approval for this and my understanding
[47:11] is well I won't say that they have
approved it but I I believe they may
[47:15] have today. Um
I I believe that moving forward with
[47:19] this amendment um would be okay, but I
would also certainly suggest a more
[47:25] thorough review because I feel like
there's more to look at than just the
[47:29] notification area um and whether how
recent this discussion occurred. I was
[47:35] not involved. I don't go to those
meetings. So I don't know um exactly
[47:39] what was talked about but I think that
you know in the policies of the IDP it
[47:44] does say that the administrations can
come forward um with some other
[47:49] amendment suggestions and perhaps a more
thorough review. Uh you will see uh when
[47:54] we uh go to the um RFD for the council
decision we did receive other comments
[48:02] of other changes that other um
departments or agencies would like to
[48:07] see. So I do think a more thorough
review um is warranted to take a look at
[48:12] what other amendments could occur. Uh
but at this time administration you know
[48:18] for essentially making a notification
mandatory in this particular area is
[48:26] sufficient at this point I would say.
>> Go ahead Deputy. Thank you for that. And
[48:33] I I think yeah, a thorough review is is
warranted down the road. And I can
[48:38] sympathize with the lease holder. It
they would almost feel like they're
[48:43] being singled out for whatever reason.
um based on what we're seeing here
[48:47] today, whereas we could have maybe
avoided this by
[48:54] having that thorough review and saying,
you know, looking at all of the MD
[48:57] property that borders a community and
when we should be notifying same as any
[49:02] other municipality that we border um
similar agreements.
[49:10] » Um sorry, I have a question just to kind
of follow up with that. Do
[49:16] do the IDPS have an expiry date because
I've heard they're coming due typically
[49:20] across Alberta right now.
[49:27] » Go ahead what
>> uh through the reef. Um I was going to
[49:30] uh reference section 4.1.1 of the IDP
and it does make reference to a a review
[49:37] of the IDP four years after approval.
So, I'm not sure if that was the date
[49:42] you were looking at, but um to tag on to
what um uh Haley was discussing, there
[49:49] are several ways that this document can
be amended. Like I said, we are going by
[49:53] policy two of section 4.1.1, which is
the IDP amendment is recommended by the
[49:59] IC. Um it can also be an administrative
initiated um amendment. It could be an
[50:06] amendment for um by those other than the
town or the MD, so by a member of the
[50:12] public. And it can be a joint
administration administrative review,
[50:16] which is what I mentioned of the
four-year timeline.
[50:22] And that four years is coming up pretty
quick here. Is that
[50:27] that's
okay.
[50:31] Sorry.
Oh gosh. Okay.
[50:36] Are there any other questions? Sorry,
Jen Mar. Go ahead, councelor Smith.
[50:42] » Um, I have a couple of clarifications I
need for this uh the discussion on
[50:50] notifications.
Um,
[50:54] and it's that I don't understand the
provincial portion of the notifications.
[50:59] Do we know what
their requirement is and their process?
[51:05] Like if we notify the province that
we've got an application coming forward,
[51:09] what
do they have anything holding them to
[51:15] um notifying their lease holders? Do we
know that process? If we were going to
[51:20] look into
amendments,
[51:25] is this something
that we need through the reef to
[51:31] councelor Smith? Um, I'm not aware of
the provincial process for notifying
[51:35] lease holders. Um, during a
comprehensive review of the IDP, it can
[51:39] certainly be looked into. I see no
reason why it couldn't, but I'm not
[51:44] aware of their process.
[51:48] Go ahead, councelor.
>> Okay, another one on notification. When
[51:53] we send uh notification to the town of
Canmore um and we send it to them uh
[52:02] uh as a referral for the area, um do
they then notify businesses
[52:08] um uh residents, everyone in the area?
Do we have to give them an extended
[52:15] amount of time so that um their
residents and rateayers can be notified
[52:22] within the MGA timeline?
How does that process work
[52:29] through the REAP to councelor Smith? Um
the timeline is is identified in policy
[52:34] six um which states 21 days. So the
initiating municipalities administration
[52:39] shall provide the receiving
municipalities administration with 21
[52:43] days to respond to planning application
circulations unless additional time is
[52:48] needed. Um so that that aligns with our
other circulations. So we would allow 30
[52:54] days typically if we were referring to
um referring development permit
[52:59] applications for example or or um uh
redistricting applications. So that
[53:06] aligns with our timelines for
[53:14] » Yep. Wrapping my head around that one.
Thank you,
[53:18] » Councelor James. You had a question.
>> Um yes, thank you and thank you for
[53:26] um kind of that segue, Councelor Smith,
on uh leaseholders.
[53:32] um the grazing lease holder disposition
often leaves the grazing lease owner
[53:39] holders
with no notification when we do
[53:43] development permits in the rural areas.
So I think some uh if there is some way
[53:50] that we can mechanize a process of know
getting and finding out who those lease
[53:56] holders are um in this area or
municipallywide
[54:02] um would be would be helpful in uh
notification process.
[54:12] » Thank you.
Um, are there any other questions for
[54:16] administration?
Um, I just had uh one more question that
[54:22] came from our uh member of public. How
was the province notified
[54:30] » through the reef? The province was um we
notified them by email. Uh, so they
[54:35] received a similar notification
>> and like who is it just like a general
[54:41] general alberta gov.AB?
>> We do have specific um area managers for
[54:49] this area. So So we do email it to the
specific area.
[54:53] » Okay.
>> Manager. Thank you.
[54:58] » All right. Are there any other
questions?
[55:04] Um,
sorry. Well, you're going to get the
[55:08] next question. Is there anything that
administration would like to clarify
[55:12] [laughter]
from today's hearing?
[55:15] » Haley, go ahead.
>> Yes. Through the rings. Um, I'm just
[55:19] going to pull up my screen again here
and I don't want to get too far into
[55:23] these weeds because this is not our land
use bylaw and not our land use
[55:27] districts. So, preface with that, but I
will share my screen here.
[55:33] Uh just taking a look at this area uh on
the town of Canour's uh land use
[55:39] districts here. So there was a mention
of a future development area. So I'm
[55:43] assuming this parcel uh which is set
back and not uh directly adjoining um
[55:50] the MD of Big Horn. So there are
permitted and discretionary uses for
[55:55] that district. The ones along the front
are industrial one and two. And then to
[56:00] the far right hand side here is the
conservation of wildsand district. Um
[56:06] and I can defer to Miss Casperitz to
read out the permitted and discretionary
[56:10] uses for those two districts if council
thinks that would be helpful.
[56:16] » Sure. While we're on the topic
>> thank you. So permitted uh uses within
[56:22] that district are wildlife corridor and
wildlife habitat patch discretionary
[56:26] uses, accessory building and accessory
uses two developments approved prior to
[56:32] third reading of bylaw 099.
Um existing developments on a specific
[56:37] site prior to third reading of bylaw
099.
[56:44] very very few uses.
[56:49] » And for the future development district,
which is the district that the cursor is
[56:53] on right now, um the permitted uses are
public utility, discretionary uses are
[56:58] accessory buildings, uh uh extensive
agriculture, intensive agriculture,
[57:05] athletic and recreational facility,
outdoor, campground, open space, public
[57:09] building.
[57:13] Go ahead, Deputy Reef.
>> Go ahead, Director Gavin.
[57:18] » And if I may, I just wanted to say this
is from the town of Camel's interactive
[57:23] community map. So, I would assume that
this is up to date and accurate. I just
[57:28] want to disclaimer that in case the map
has changed, but this is how it is today
[57:33] in real time. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Go ahead, Deputy Reef Tus. on
[57:38] that little tiny patch of uh the last
piece of green that we talked about. If
[57:44] there was a discretionary use applied
for in that little who would get
[57:50] notified?
[57:58] I guess it falls on empty property. It's
empty, isn't it?
[58:07] If I may through the reeve to deputy
reeve you said the green piece you mean
[58:12] at the top here
>> when you were just highlighting
[58:21] sorry yes there's and that one if would
there be applications that come to the
[58:27] MD for those properties
>> through the reef to the deputy reef both
[58:31] of those parcels are inside the town of
Cour
[58:34] » oh they're in
[58:42] Go ahead, councelor James.
>> Would not would not our intermunicipal
[58:48] agreement have them notify us and then
we would be responsible for distributing
[58:54] that notification such as they are
>> through the reeve to councelor James.
[59:00] No, because those lands are not inside
the IDP plan area.
[59:08] » Gotcha. Thank you.
[59:58] I know maps are good. Yeah, we've got
another question from councelor James.
[1:00:03] Go ahead.
Is it not in the MGA that any uh
[1:00:10] development within 1.5 kilometers of
another municipality notification is
[1:00:17] required
>> through the reef to councelor James it's
[1:00:23] 1.6 six and that's only if you don't
have an IDP and we have one that defines
[1:00:29] the plan area
[1:00:33] » and just to bring everybody back to when
these IDPS were initially made we had to
[1:00:38] do 13 of them. Uh we hired a consultant
uh any IDP that we we asked for many
[1:00:46] exceptions or exemptions
uh from the province. We got a couple of
[1:00:51] them, but not very many. And we didn't
really understand what they were for at
[1:00:56] the time. It was just everybody has to
do these. So, we hired a consultant.
[1:01:02] They kind of knocked them out and we got
them done. And I think as we've started
[1:01:08] to roll roll down the path here, we've
understood where where their power is.
[1:01:15] And uh I see their power as in providing
a notification area. Um and that's
[1:01:22] that's what I see it as. But I think it
is important for us to review all of
[1:01:28] them. Um if they've if they've all come
or are close to that four year mark,
[1:01:34] then we should be looking at those. But
um this one was more challenging. And I
[1:01:40] do remember back in the day we looked at
areas that
[1:01:44] could we saw the potential for being
developed and if we didn't see potential
[1:01:48] for being developed
um or it would not have an immediate
[1:01:52] impact to the MD um so like that higher
up triangle um we kind of just kept it
[1:01:59] out because we didn't really understand
what the whole point of this was to
[1:02:04] begin with. Um, so now that we
understand it a bit more, I think
[1:02:09] reviewing it in a way that we've talked
about today would be important and we
[1:02:13] should be looking at all of them cuz
there there could be value in in doing
[1:02:18] that with all of them. But um yeah, I
think today was a really good
[1:02:23] opportunity to uh dive into IDPs again
and uh uh bring this back to the
[1:02:29] forefront of uh what they mean to us.
Um, is there anything else from
[1:02:35] administration that you'd like to
clarify
[1:02:38] from today's hearing?
Okay.
[1:02:42] Um, all right. We have now come to the
end of the public hearing. I remind all
[1:02:46] present that council will not accept any
uh further written or oral submissions
[1:02:50] on this matter once the hearing is
closed. Councilors, is there any reason
[1:02:54] I cannot close the meeting?
Seeing none, I now declare the hearing
[1:02:59] closed for bylaw 15-25.
Thank you very much for coming.