[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.

Public Hearing Bylaw 15-25 MD of Bighorn - Town of Canmore IDP Amendment - January 13th, 2026

Transcript