[1:27] Testing. Testing.

[4:42] Okay, welcome to the regular um or

[4:45] welcome to the special council meeting

[4:46] of March 12th. Uh we'll call the meeting

[4:49] to order. Um

[4:52] before I go into introductions, I'll

[4:54] just uh ask everyone if they could

[4:56] please tell uh turn their cell phones to

[4:58] off as I do that myself.

[5:01] Um,

[5:04] and please note that the council

[5:06] meetings are being livereamed, recorded,

[5:08] and retained. All personal information

[5:10] collected will be managed in accordance

[5:12] with the access to information act. Uh,

[5:15] and with that, I will start with

[5:16] introductions, and I'll start with Jeff,

[5:18] please.

[5:18] >> Good morning, Jeff Holmes, chief

[5:19] » Good morning, Jeff Holmes, chief

[5:19] administrative officer.

[5:22] >> Good morning, Jennifer Lutz, division 7

[5:24] » Good morning, Jennifer Lutz, division 7

[5:24] counselor.

[5:26] >> Good morning, Peggy Johnson, division 6

[5:28] » Good morning, Peggy Johnson, division 6

[5:28] counselor. Good morning, Tiffany Nixon,

[5:30] division 4.

[5:31] >> Good morning, Angela Alers, division

[5:33] » Good morning, Angela Alers, division

[5:33] five and reef.

[5:34] >> Good morning, Angela Look, division

[5:36] » Good morning, Angela Look, division

[5:36] three.

[5:38] >> Morning, Greg Harris, division 2.

[5:39] » Morning, Greg Harris, division 2.

[5:39] >> Good morning, Dwayne Fulton, division

[5:41] » Good morning, Dwayne Fulton, division

[5:41] one.

[5:42] >> Good morning, Laura Campman's, executive

[5:43] » Good morning, Laura Campman's, executive

[5:43] assistant.

[5:45] >> Good morning, Abdullah Gonzalez,

[5:46] » Good morning, Abdullah Gonzalez,

[5:46] planner.

[5:47] >> Good morning, Jessica Ross, assistant

[5:49] » Good morning, Jessica Ross, assistant

[5:49] director of planning and development

[5:50] services.

[5:51] >> Good morning, Shelley French

[5:52] » Good morning, Shelley French

[5:52] Communications.

[5:54] >> Thank you. And before we um actually go

[5:56] » Thank you. And before we um actually go

[5:56] into the public hearing, maybe I'll just

[5:57] give a little bit of an overview of our

[5:59] bylaw number 0426. This is establishing

[6:02] the procedure and the conduct of public

[6:04] hearings. Um so there's quite a bit in

[6:07] this but after I open the public hearing

[6:09] uh we uh planning will do uh their um

[6:14] presentation to council and then the

[6:15] applicant or their agent will be

[6:17] provided an opportunity to uh give

[6:20] council new information and additional

[6:22] information for procedural fairness. Uh

[6:25] the applicant will be restricted on

[6:26] their time uh in which they can do their

[6:28] presentation. Following the applicant's

[6:31] presentation, uh we will allow anyone in

[6:34] the audience or online, anyone in the

[6:36] gallery or online uh to address council.

[6:38] They will be allowed five minutes to

[6:40] address council and then uh council may

[6:42] have additional questions afterwards. If

[6:45] you are speaking on behalf of a group or

[6:47] multiple parties that are not within

[6:48] your household, please let me know as

[6:50] the chair and then you'll be granted

[6:52] additional time if you're speaking on

[6:53] behalf of a group.

[6:55] Um, all we ask is that when you come to

[6:57] the mic, if you could just please state

[6:59] and spell your name for the record. We

[7:01] just want to make sure that we have the

[7:02] minutes as accurately reflected as we

[7:04] can. The mic will be live.

[7:08] So, with that, we have an agenda in

[7:10] front of us. Could I have a motion to

[7:12] adopt the agenda? Since it is a special

[7:13] meeting, we won't be taking any

[7:15] additional agenda items. Uh, moved by

[7:17] Councelor Nixon. I will call to question

[7:20] all in favor.

[7:22] And that motion is carried.

[7:27] So we'll move on to item uh number 3.1.

[7:30] So this is a a joint public hearing that

[7:33] will deal with the redesations of lands

[7:36] and that's bylaw number LU0126

[7:39] as well as the amending as well as

[7:41] amending the land use bylaw to insert a

[7:44] provision of water wells specific to the

[7:46] lands in question. So we will be doing a

[7:49] joint public hearing today. So with

[7:52] that, I will open both public hearings.

[7:54] Um, so the bylaw number, this is for

[7:56] bylaw number LU 0126

[8:00] being a bylaw of Mountain View County in

[8:01] the province of Alberta to amend land

[8:03] use bylaw number 1024 affecting the

[8:06] southeast 3331 West the 5th and plan

[8:11] 921018

[8:14] block A pursuant to the municipal

[8:16] government act as contained in the

[8:18] agenda package. With that, I will open

[8:20] the public hearing for that bylaw.

[8:23] Bylawa number 0126, a bylaw of Mountain

[8:26] View County in the province of Alberta

[8:28] to amend the land use bylaw number 1024

[8:31] to add section 12.2 country residential

[8:34] one district other development

[8:36] regulations subsection H as contained in

[8:39] the agenda package. And with that, I

[8:41] will open the public hearing on that

[8:42] bylaw. With that, I will turn it over to

[8:45] planning.

[8:48] Thank you, Madam Chair. A staff

[8:51] presentation begins on.

[9:11] Mine's still working.

[9:14] Yours are They're back on.

[9:17] All

[9:18] right, we're good again.

[9:23] » Okay, here we go. The staff presentation

[9:26] begins on page 1,26

[9:30] of the agenda package. Greg Brown is the

[9:33] applicant on behalf of AB Newfield and

[9:36] two Alberta companies. The applications

[9:39] are located within division 7.

[9:43] This slide provides a summary of the

[9:46] applications being presented for

[9:47] council's consideration today. To the

[9:50] left, the reesignation proposal involves

[9:53] multiple reasses designations to allow

[9:55] for a phase one mixeduse subdivision.

[9:57] This includes residential, commercial,

[9:59] industrial, and agree burn buffer

[10:02] between the two. In the center, the

[10:06] proposed textual amendment to section

[10:08] 12.2 of the line use bylaw. This

[10:11] includes provisions requiring water

[10:13] wells on residential lots to be drilled

[10:16] at a specific depth. And to the right,

[10:19] the proposed consent plan which provides

[10:22] the full buildout of the quarter

[10:24] section, including proposed facing and

[10:27] servicing strategies.

[10:30] The subject lands are located in the

[10:32] rural community of Netuk between the

[10:35] town of Ols to the west and the Q2 to

[10:38] the east.

[10:41] As seen on this slide, the area is

[10:44] characterized by a mix of uses. This

[10:47] includes large and a small agricultural

[10:50] pursuits, the Ols golf course and a

[10:52] multi-law residential developments to

[10:54] the north, lands designated as business

[10:57] industrial park to the east, and the

[11:00] town of Ols and the Ols College to the

[11:02] west and southwest.

[11:06] The topography in this area is

[11:08] relatively flat with gentle north to

[11:11] south slopes not exceeding 4%.

[11:16] Specifically on this quarter section

[11:18] soils have Canada land inventory class

[11:21] one rating with an aggressive land

[11:24] suitability rating system class three.

[11:26] The majority of the soils are considered

[11:29] very good to excellent excellent arable.

[11:35] There are no name water bodies or lakes

[11:38] identified on this property.

[11:42] The biohysical impact assessment

[11:44] submitted in support of this application

[11:47] include uh concludes that there are

[11:49] three ephemeral water bodies and one wet

[11:52] land on the property. As noted on this

[11:56] report, any impact on these features

[11:58] will require water act approval and

[12:01] compensation in accordance with water

[12:04] with um Alberta wetland policy.

[12:09] Oil and gas facilities are limited to

[12:12] natural gas lines currently servicing

[12:14] residences in the area.

[12:19] The phase one environmental site

[12:22] assessment found no evidence of active

[12:25] contamination from previous oil and gas

[12:28] activity. However, to ensure no drilling

[12:31] related waste is present, a soil

[12:34] management plan will be required as a

[12:36] condition of subdivision approval should

[12:39] council approve these applications.

[12:44] The historical aerial photographs from

[12:46] 2008 to the present demonstrate that the

[12:49] subject lands remain an undeveloped

[12:51] quarter section used for crop

[12:53] production.

[12:57] The proposed phase one will include 16

[13:00] contra residential one lots, two

[13:02] industrial business park lots, two parks

[13:05] and recreation district lots, six public

[13:07] utility lots along with internal roads,

[13:10] temporary gravel roads and a road

[13:13] widening. This totals 26 lots within

[13:17] 51.23

[13:18] acres.

[13:20] The exact number of subsequent

[13:22] development beyond phase one remains

[13:25] flexible. However, the long-term concept

[13:28] envisions a total of 62 lots of which 45

[13:32] are residential, six business

[13:35] industrial, seven for storm water, and

[13:38] four parks and recreation for a green

[13:41] buffer featuring a BM for visual

[13:44] screening and noise attenuation.

[13:51] Phase one will be accessed via three

[13:53] main internal subdivision roads directly

[13:56] from Retro 12. The first internal road

[13:59] provides access to the industrial

[14:01] commercial lots and includes a temporary

[14:04] gravel gravel turnaround. This road must

[14:07] be dedicated as a service road and

[14:10] constructed to county standards. The two

[14:12] northern internal roads provide access

[14:15] to the residential lots. They will be

[14:18] connected by a temporary gravel surface

[14:21] road and must also be constructed to

[14:23] county standards. Range 12 will be

[14:27] upgraded to an unrestricted road

[14:29] standard from Highway 27 intersection to

[14:32] the northern property line approximately

[14:35] 800 meters. As recommended by

[14:37] operational services, a phase approach

[14:40] to this upgrade will not be acceptable.

[14:43] Future phases will require the extension

[14:45] of these internal roads to county

[14:47] standards.

[14:51] Phase one proposes uh generally uh

[14:54] drains to the east towards range road 12

[14:58] while some western portions drain north

[15:01] and west. The application proposes six

[15:04] bio retention ponds located at the east

[15:07] end of the internal roads and two

[15:09] temporary dugouts within the remaining

[15:12] agricultural lands. These ponds will be

[15:15] within public utility lots.

[15:20] As outlined in the concept plan,

[15:22] development beyond phase one will

[15:25] require the decommissioning of two

[15:28] temporary dogouts and the construction

[15:30] of a permanent permanent storm water

[15:33] pond facility in the southwest corner.

[15:36] While the applicant is proposing a chair

[15:38] use arrangement for this facility with

[15:41] the all's cold course, the county

[15:43] reserves its position until the

[15:45] applicant provides additional

[15:47] information during future phasing

[15:50] applications.

[15:53] In accordance with the figure three of

[15:56] the municipal development plan, the

[15:58] proposal is within the highway 2 and 27

[16:00] special policy area. This policy area is

[16:04] a strategic location comparable to

[16:06] economic nodes intended to direct future

[16:09] higher density residential, commercial

[16:12] and industrial development like this

[16:14] application in order to minimize

[16:17] premature conversion of agricultural

[16:20] land elsewhere. The applicant has

[16:22] prepared engineering studies for phase

[16:25] one addressing servicing infrastructure

[16:28] and storm management in compliance with

[16:31] the municipal development plan.

[16:36] The applicant submitted a groundwater

[16:39] report as required by the water act to

[16:42] avoid interference with neighboring

[16:45] users drawing from shallow aquifers. All

[16:49] residential wells for phase one

[16:52] must be drilled to a minimum depth of 40

[16:56] m.

[16:58] Because the county does not typically

[17:00] require wells to be drilled before

[17:02] subdivision registration

[17:05] and the water act does not require

[17:07] approval for residential wells. The

[17:10] applicant proposes incorporating this 40

[17:13] meter requirement into section 12.2 of

[17:16] the land use bylaw. This ensures future

[17:19] development remains consistent with the

[17:21] reports findings and protects integrity

[17:24] of surrounding water wells.

[17:32] regarding

[17:34] the southern adjacent um lands adjacent

[17:38] to Highway 27. And in order to provide

[17:42] access to the industrial business park

[17:44] lots, a 30 meter service road will be

[17:47] required to be dedicated and be

[17:49] constructed to county standards.

[17:55] All entrances and exits for this

[17:58] proposal will be directly from Range

[18:00] Road 12. As confirmed, this road is

[18:03] required to be upgraded to an

[18:04] unrestricted road standard for

[18:07] approximately 800 meters.

[18:12] As confirmed in the concept plan, future

[18:15] phases will require a storm water pond

[18:17] to be constructed in the southwest

[18:19] corner. The chair approach proposed by

[18:22] the applicant with the old golf course

[18:25] will be evaluated in the future once

[18:28] more information is provided.

[18:33] This is general location of the

[18:36] ephemeral water body and the wetlands

[18:38] identified on this property. As

[18:40] indicated any impact of these features

[18:44] requires water act approval and Alberta

[18:47] wetland policy compensation.

[18:52] This is a general view of the proposed

[18:54] phase one adjacent to Range Road 12.

[19:01] Based on county's policies and the

[19:03] merits of the proposal, planning and

[19:06] development recommends support for these

[19:09] applications. The reassignation complies

[19:11] with the highway 227 special policy area

[19:15] and the textual amendment to the land

[19:17] use bylaw provides the legislative power

[19:20] to the approving authority to enforce

[19:23] minimum water well depths. As a result,

[19:26] these applications will have minimum

[19:28] impact on the surrounding area. Thank

[19:31] you. This concludes my presentation and

[19:33] the applicant and his team are here to

[19:35] answer any questions. Thank you.

[19:38] >> Thank you. Does the applicant have any

[19:39] » Thank you. Does the applicant have any

[19:39] new or additional information they would

[19:41] like to provide?

[19:52] Good morning, Ree and counselors. My

[19:54] name is Greg Brown. I'm one of the

[19:56] owners and the applicant. Uh with me

[19:59] today are most of the members of my

[20:03] consulting team. I still have one that

[20:05] might be on the road. Uh maybe. Okay.

[20:08] So, I've put together uh our consulting

[20:11] team that has worked on the various

[20:13] studies. Uh so, with me today are Ken

[20:17] Hugo as well as Elena Bleski or Felski,

[20:22] our professional hydraologist who did

[20:24] the groundwater and sewage treatment

[20:26] work. Dave Watt, professional engineer,

[20:30] uh municipal engineering. Bruce

[20:32] Nelligan, Penge, who did our

[20:34] transportation planning, had called us

[20:37] and said he's uh just running a little

[20:39] late. Paul Jacobs, Penge, a storm water

[20:43] management plan. Steven Tannis,

[20:47] uh, PhD, professional aologist,

[20:50] biohysical work. Mark Lahar,

[20:54] uh, professional geologist, soil and

[20:56] land use history. Uh, Mark is online.

[20:59] and I think he's out of the he's out of

[21:01] the country at this time. Darby Henshaw,

[21:04] registered public planner, uh public

[21:07] engagement.

[21:09] Uh Dave Hoggarth, uh worked with us on

[21:12] our marketing, uh work and the demand

[21:15] for the properties and he's not here at

[21:18] this time and myself.

[21:23] uh I will be the only presenter for our

[21:26] team uh to just give an introduction of

[21:29] a few additional facts related to uh the

[21:33] application.

[21:35] Um and then uh any questions can be

[21:38] forwarded to uh any members of the team.

[21:43] Um could I have the next slide on the

[21:47] presentation? Uh this is just an outline

[21:49] of the the comments that I'm going to be

[21:52] making.

[21:53] Uh our initial concept plan and

[21:56] applications were refined after hearing

[22:00] concerns and ideas by our neighbors at

[22:02] our initial openhouse with the input of

[22:05] the provincial and other referral

[22:07] agencies and the helpful comments and

[22:10] inputs from your county planners,

[22:12] engineers, and administration.

[22:15] groundwater and future wells. Our

[22:18] neighbors very valid concerns for

[22:21] maintenance of their ongoing wellwater

[22:23] supplies led to our hydraologists

[22:26] recommending a minimum 40 m well depth

[22:28] for all future wells. These new wells

[22:32] will draw water from aquifers below

[22:35] those of our neighbors where which are

[22:37] roughly 12 to 29 m below the surface.

[22:41] The administration helped us with the

[22:43] idea of a textual amendment to the

[22:45] county land use bylaw, which will

[22:48] require proof of a well having been

[22:51] drilled to a minimum of 40 m before a

[22:54] development permit is issued for future

[22:58] residential development.

[23:00] Sewage treatment. Due to seasonal high

[23:04] water tables in some portions of the

[23:06] quarter section, mounded septic

[23:09] facilities will be required for all

[23:12] future residential dwellings. These will

[23:14] be built to provincial standards.

[23:18] Storm water management.

[23:21] Our meetings with Jason Cluston, course

[23:24] superintendent, the golf club, helped us

[23:28] with what seems to be a win-win scenario

[23:30] for excess storm water. We proposed to

[23:34] enable the golf club to use some of the

[23:37] storm water from our storm water pond

[23:39] during dry periods. The details of this

[23:43] arrangement, which will require an

[23:45] amendment to the water license for the

[23:47] golf club, will be worked out with

[23:50] Alberta Environment, the golf club, the

[23:52] county, and Paul of our storm of storm

[23:56] water solutions as part of the more

[23:58] detailed engineering in the phase 2 land

[24:01] use and subdivision applications.

[24:04] Transportation impact assessment. Our

[24:07] transportation impact assessment was

[24:09] accepted by Alberta Transportation.

[24:12] It indicates that even after full

[24:14] development of the concept plan and

[24:17] steady growth of traffic along Highway

[24:20] 27, no improvements to the Range Road 12

[24:23] and Highway 27 intersection will be

[24:26] required other than an intersection

[24:29] delineation light required in roughly 20

[24:33] years.

[24:35] service road along Highway 27.

[24:38] Alberta Transportation indicated that a

[24:41] frontage or service road with a future

[24:44] opportunity for connection to the west

[24:46] was required along Highway 27 to control

[24:50] commercial access. This design feature

[24:53] has the added benefit of providing an

[24:56] attractive front of business appearance

[24:59] to the industrial commercial area for

[25:01] all users of Highway 27 and a desirable

[25:05] advertising and exposure opportunity for

[25:08] all future businesses.

[25:13] Burm and signage notice of the concept

[25:16] plan. A burm and linear open space is

[25:20] proposed as a transition and a noise and

[25:23] visibility buffer between the commercial

[25:26] industrial uses and the country

[25:28] residential uses. The proposal is for a

[25:31] 3.7 meter 12.1 ft high burm built to

[25:36] county standards. The integration of a

[25:39] linear open space between the

[25:41] residential lots and the burm will

[25:44] encourage residents to exercise, walk

[25:47] their dogs and meet each other in

[25:49] attractive naturalized setting. Use of

[25:52] this open space uh opportunity will help

[25:56] enhance users health and well-being.

[26:00] Adjacent to the Burm and Range Road 12,

[26:03] we propose a large and I quote like a

[26:06] buyer take notice sign indic indicating

[26:10] to all future lot buyers that the

[26:13] concept plan for this quarter section

[26:15] includes commercial industrial uses

[26:18] fronting on Highway 27 as well as

[26:22] country residential lots. We will also

[26:25] require all buyers to sign an

[26:27] acknowledgement of this concept plan and

[26:30] situation when purchasing a lot.

[26:33] Certainly, no one wants future residents

[26:35] to be surprised after they move in about

[26:39] any future commercial industrial uses

[26:42] south of the Burm adjacent to Highway

[26:44] 27.

[26:46] Temporary wetlands.

[26:48] We propose to have Steven and Tannis

[26:51] Conservation deal with Alberta

[26:53] environment and the seasonal wetland and

[26:56] ephemeral or temporal wetlands in a

[26:59] manner consistent with the water act

[27:01] approval for wetland disturbance.

[27:04] Soil and land use history.

[27:07] While there is no identified soil

[27:09] contamination

[27:11] due to the short-lived oil gas well

[27:14] drilled in 1978,

[27:17] to be cautious, Mark and Bofrost

[27:20] proposes to prepare a soil management

[27:23] plan that provides guidance to all

[27:26] parties parties disturbing soil in the

[27:28] vicinity of the decommissioned well to

[27:31] make sure that if any unexpected

[27:34] drilling related waste is encountered,

[27:36] that it is handled properly.

[27:41] Range road 12 asphalt overlay. We

[27:45] propose to provide an asphalt overlay

[27:48] over the current 75% load limit roadway

[27:53] on range road 12 in order to make it an

[27:56] unrestricted

[27:58] county road enabling 100% weight loads.

[28:02] This will preserve and enhance the

[28:05] county's investment in providing a high

[28:07] standard roadway to existing residents,

[28:10] users of the golf club as well as future

[28:13] residents and commercial industrial

[28:15] users and customers.

[28:19] Cost responsibility of the developer. We

[28:23] want to reinforce and confirm the

[28:26] administration report comments that we

[28:29] will be responsible for all costs

[28:31] associated with making phase one one and

[28:35] all future phases ready the build.

[28:39] So in conclusion,

[28:42] uh we would like to thank the

[28:44] administration for working with us

[28:46] throughout the planning application

[28:48] process to help us propose a plan that

[28:52] is consistent with the county vision and

[28:55] objectives for the highway 2 and 27

[28:58] special policy area in the MDP.

[29:01] We are pleased to propose and seek

[29:04] approval for a balanced, efficient, and

[29:07] coordinated growth plan that

[29:10] accommodates growth in the county and

[29:13] leverages the area's strategic assets,

[29:15] primarily the Olds Golf Club and the

[29:18] Highway 27

[29:20] transportation corridor, all in a manner

[29:24] that is appropriate for the quarter

[29:26] section and respects and preserves the

[29:29] ground groundwater. water supplies of

[29:32] our neighbors and their wells.

[29:35] So that is the conclusion of my

[29:38] presentation. Uh my consulting team and

[29:41] I are prepared to answer any questions

[29:43] you might have either now or at at a

[29:46] point in the public hearing.

[29:48] >> Uh thank you Mr. Brown. So we'll go um

[29:51] » Uh thank you Mr. Brown. So we'll go um

[29:51] uh we'll ask if there's anyone in the

[29:52] gallery that would like to speak and

[29:53] then we'll go online and I'm sure

[29:55] council will have questions for you and

[29:56] your team.

[29:57] >> Thank you.

[29:58] » Thank you.

[29:58] Uh so uh we'll move to the next portion

[30:01] of the public hearing. So we'll start

[30:03] with anyone who is in the gallery that

[30:05] wants to speak in favor or in opposition

[30:07] and then we will move to online. Any of

[30:09] those wishing to speak online once I ask

[30:12] the question if you could raise your

[30:14] virtual hand then we will make sure that

[30:15] administration um unmutes you and you're

[30:18] able to speak. So I'll first ask if

[30:20] there's anyone in the gallery that would

[30:21] like to speak uh in favor of this

[30:23] application.

[30:27] Is there anyone in the gallery who would

[30:28] like to speak in opposition to this

[30:30] application?

[30:35] » Like

[30:38] >> uh would you like to please come to the

[30:40] » uh would you like to please come to the

[30:40] um come to the mic and uh state and

[30:42] spell your name for the record, please?

[30:45] >> Uh my name is Jason Ken. CL L O S T O N.

[30:49] » Uh my name is Jason Ken. CL L O S T O N.

[30:49] I'm the superintendent of the Olds Golf

[30:51] Course. I'm in I'm here primarily to

[30:53] acknowledge that there's agreement in

[30:55] principle to man help new roast and Greg

[30:58] Brown manage their storm water. Uh and

[31:01] that is pretty much um why I'm here to

[31:04] support them. So if you have any

[31:06] questions for me as regarding the old

[31:08] golf course, I can certainly answer

[31:10] those.

[31:11] >> Thank you very much, Mr. Clusen. Thank

[31:12] » Thank you very much, Mr. Clusen. Thank

[31:12] you. So I'll ask one more time if

[31:15] there's anyone in the gallery who would

[31:16] like to either speak in favor or in

[31:18] opposition to this application.

[31:22] Okay. So, I'll move to online. Is there

[31:24] anyone online who would like to speak

[31:26] either in favor or in opposition to this

[31:28] application? And if you could please

[31:29] raise your virtual hand, we'll make sure

[31:31] we unmute you.

[31:36] Okay. So, seeing no one online who wants

[31:39] to speak in favor or in opposition, I

[31:41] will open the floor uh for council to

[31:43] ask questions. Uh to administration, uh

[31:46] the applicant in their team or um since

[31:49] no one spoke in favor or in opposition,

[31:51] uh we're looking for questions for the

[31:53] applicant or administration.

[31:57] Councelor Johnson.

[32:00] Um I have a couple of questions perhaps

[32:03] for the applicant. Yes, please go ahead.

[32:06] Thank you. Um thanks for uh both to

[32:08] planning and to the applicant for their

[32:10] uh presentations. Um I see in the

[32:14] extensive uh report that uh the top soil

[32:18] um is class one or aggressed class 3 and

[32:22] uh ranges from a depth of 2 to 3 m which

[32:26] is equivalent to 8 to 12 in. My

[32:29] understanding from looking uh at the uh

[32:32] studies that were done is that um a

[32:35] large amount of this top soil is going

[32:38] to be piled up into a burm and I'm

[32:41] wondering if that's the best use of the

[32:44] top soil.

[32:46] Uh our our proposal as we develop is to

[32:50] just use the top soil um from the roads

[32:55] that we are building. uh the top soil

[32:57] off of the pond as well as all the roads

[33:01] and then ultimately

[33:03] um not initially but certainly

[33:06] ultimately the top soil off the

[33:08] industrial lots will be available for

[33:12] that use. And so we will be using top

[33:15] soil from those areas uh on the up the

[33:20] outside or the upper portions of the

[33:22] burm. Uh we still will have some top

[33:26] soil in excess. Uh but all of the top

[33:29] soil that that is on the lots will be

[33:32] retained on the lots for the residents

[33:36] to incorporate into their property

[33:38] development.

[33:41] >> Thank Yes. Go ahead.

[33:43] » Thank Yes. Go ahead.

[33:43] >> Thanks. An unrelated second question.

[33:45] » Thanks. An unrelated second question.

[33:46] Um, one of the other documents uh in the

[33:48] package suggested that um the fire

[33:52] department was concerned that the

[33:55] permanent uh fire suppression water

[33:57] supply won't be built until phase two.

[34:01] Um I was wondering if you could speak to

[34:03] that concern please.

[34:05] >> Uh that is correct. I mean the we did

[34:08] » Uh that is correct. I mean the we did

[34:08] meet we've spoken to the county about

[34:11] fire and the timing of the pond uh as

[34:15] well as the fire chief ins

[34:19] uh we are located very close to the town

[34:21] of SS and he indicated even when that

[34:25] storm pond is available most likely they

[34:28] will be just moving trucks if there was

[34:31] the fire emergency that they would be

[34:34] moving trucks back and forth between in

[34:36] the town and um our particular site. But

[34:41] you are correct, we are not providing

[34:44] this storm pond until phase two and but

[34:48] we are hopeful that in this phasing uh

[34:52] that we will only be sort of three to

[34:56] four years

[34:58] uh in an ideal world only two to three

[35:00] years away from uh building the

[35:03] remainder of this plan after phase one.

[35:06] Part of the reason for the phasing of

[35:08] the development is we want to understand

[35:11] the exact market and we want to keep as

[35:14] much of the land in agricultural

[35:17] production for as long as it's not

[35:19] needed for the particular development

[35:21] itself and we'll be we'll be creating

[35:24] that effort. So uh it's it's correct the

[35:29] pond will not be available until our

[35:31] second phase or an emergency use. Um,

[35:34] but the fire chief, I just wanted to

[35:36] share that with you. In in his

[35:39] conversation as we were talking about

[35:41] setting up the proper access uh adjacent

[35:45] to the pond for possible use, he'd also

[35:48] indicated that, you know, he felt the

[35:51] proximity to the town was going to

[35:55] result in a fairly limited use of that

[35:58] pond,

[35:59] likely limited use.

[36:02] >> Thank you. And maybe just to follow up

[36:03] » Thank you. And maybe just to follow up

[36:03] to administration on that, I see that uh

[36:05] the fire department did send in a letter

[36:07] of concern in the first round, but they

[36:10] did not send in a letter of concern on

[36:12] the second SEC circulation. Um was there

[36:15] a ration? Did they did they note whether

[36:17] or not they still had the same concerns

[36:19] or were their concerns alleviated or did

[36:21] they just not send in um a a second

[36:23] response?

[36:25] >> No. In the second round, they didn't

[36:26] » No. In the second round, they didn't

[36:26] have the same concerns as uh Greg um had

[36:30] indicated. Um the applicant uh confirmed

[36:32] that there will be an area there for for

[36:34] the trucks to get access um in the

[36:37] southeast pond in the southwest pond and

[36:40] that uh they will be able to truck in

[36:42] water if there is uh any fires.

[36:45] >> Okay, thank you for that. Is there any

[36:48] » Okay, thank you for that. Is there any

[36:48] additional questions? Uh councelor

[36:49] Harris,

[36:50] >> Mr. Brown you in your plan for those

[36:53] » Mr. Brown you in your plan for those

[36:53] commercial/industrial

[36:55] lots. Um industrial is

[37:00] includes a wide variety of of things.

[37:03] Some of them could be very heavy water

[37:06] users. Um what when you're talking

[37:09] industrial what exactly are you talking?

[37:12] I I think uh

[37:15] we uh are applying for the um IBP the

[37:21] the low sort of you know the lower

[37:24] intensity industrial use. Um my

[37:27] understanding is any user uh of the

[37:31] properties uh potential user has to get

[37:34] their permit for water use from the

[37:37] province. they'll need a specific um a

[37:40] specific license to operate based on

[37:43] their water use. So, anyone that is

[37:46] deemed by the province to be asking for

[37:49] an excessive use of water, if it is not

[37:53] available in their testing or in the

[37:57] work that is being done through the our

[38:00] hydraologists, but mostly the provincial

[38:02] ones would not be granted approval on

[38:04] this site. So it is the it is really the

[38:09] provincial control of that water

[38:12] license. Every industrial commercial

[38:14] user must get that license from the

[38:16] province and and justify a proposed use.

[38:21] >> Okay.

[38:22] » Okay.

[38:22] >> Yes. Please go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[38:24] » Yes. Please go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[38:24] >> Um

[38:25] » Um

[38:25] >> Councelor Harris,

[38:26] » Councelor Harris,

[38:26] >> I'm concerned a little bit that we have

[38:30] » I'm concerned a little bit that we have

[38:30] other industrial parks nearby that are

[38:33] that are not full.

[38:35] Um, so I'm wondering what's going to

[38:38] happen if those do not attract

[38:42] um, buyers.

[38:45] What's your plans for that land? Well,

[38:47] as you can see by the plan, we are only

[38:51] proposing a stub uh frontage road onto

[38:55] our property, enabling us to have one

[38:59] retail or commercial property under the

[39:01] 2.5 acres and one of the sort of

[39:04] commercial industrial properties of 5

[39:07] acres. So if it takes a long time or it

[39:11] takes a medium amount of time, those

[39:14] lands will remain in agricultural

[39:16] production all of the land other than

[39:19] what is in phase one. We will only sell

[39:21] those and extend that frontage road as

[39:25] we see a demand. Uh I did notice this

[39:29] year uh that the Nuk Business Park there

[39:32] there was quite a bit of activity

[39:34] happening over the last year in that

[39:36] park. So those although that property

[39:39] has been developed and available over a

[39:43] number of years, it is start it is

[39:45] starting to fill up and the property to

[39:47] the southeast of this that was granted

[39:50] approval in the last couple of years has

[39:53] not started development. So, we intend,

[39:56] we feel that this frontage along Highway

[40:00] 27 is appropriate in the long-term

[40:05] ultimate use to be industrial, but we

[40:09] are leaving or we are deliberately

[40:11] leaving it as an agricultural use until

[40:14] there is an opportunity to sell the

[40:17] lots. So we may extend this industrial

[40:21] property in one phase or possibly two

[40:24] phases so we can keep the ongoing

[40:28] production agricultural production as

[40:30] whole as possible.

[40:32] >> Thank you.

[40:34] » Thank you.

[40:34] >> Uh councelor LS I had a kind of a series

[40:37] » Uh councelor LS I had a kind of a series

[40:37] of water related questions. Um and I'm

[40:40] not sure if we could speak to the

[40:42] hydraologists that would be great.

[40:52] And if I could just get you to state and

[40:54] spell your name for the record if you

[40:55] don't mind, please.

[40:55] >> I'm I'm Ken Hugo, HUGO. I'm a

[40:58] » I'm I'm Ken Hugo, HUGO. I'm a

[40:58] professional geologist with APA and we

[41:00] did the groundwater and the septic field

[41:02] studies for this project.

[41:03] >> Thank you, Councelor Lutz. So, um I am

[41:06] » Thank you, Councelor Lutz. So, um I am

[41:06] the division uh counselor for the area.

[41:08] So, I've definitely heard from residents

[41:09] that water is a big concern and I I like

[41:11] what you've done on mitigating some of

[41:14] those concerns. I think that's great. Um

[41:16] just water quality um does it impact

[41:18] much when it goes deeper to to the um

[41:21] beyond the 40 m um work's been done to

[41:24] make sure that the water quality is

[41:26] going to be good.

[41:27] >> We have installed a through the through

[41:30] » We have installed a through the through

[41:30] the reef. We have installed a a water

[41:32] well on the site so we know the aquifer

[41:34] is there and the water quality is

[41:36] acceptable. This is actually the same

[41:38] aquifer that was previously the town of

[41:40] old's uh water supply a long time ago.

[41:44] So it's it's uh it might take you know

[41:47] it depends upon the treatment. There

[41:48] might be some treatment for like high

[41:49] iron comes in from various wells but

[41:52] overall it's it's acceptable for for

[41:54] drinking water purposes.

[41:55] >> And is there any um what would the risk

[41:58] » And is there any um what would the risk

[41:58] be for co-mingling or communication

[42:00] between aquifers? Um

[42:02] >> um for for the commercial wells, Alberta

[42:04] » um for for the commercial wells, Alberta

[42:04] environment requires um that you can't

[42:07] you can't co-mingle aquifers has to be

[42:09] just a single aquifer source for the

[42:11] domestic wells that's that's um it is

[42:15] possible to do that still um their needs

[42:18] domestic aer or domestic demands are are

[42:21] are modest enough um you get by on two

[42:24] or three gallons per minute um so that

[42:27] uh the aer below the at the 40 meter

[42:31] depth should be enough to supply uh

[42:33] domestic needs as well. It's it's

[42:35] suitably productive for that. So, it's

[42:38] uh we can't say every we know about

[42:41] every well in the area, but generally

[42:43] we're you know we're fairly confident

[42:44] that that just a single aquifer will be

[42:46] used and and the drillers um the

[42:49] drillers have to take uh have to take

[42:51] efforts to seal off any upper aquifers

[42:54] uh in the well either through surface

[42:55] casing or grouting. So there's no

[42:57] there's no migration down the well boore

[42:59] and no coming and going should should

[43:01] happen.

[43:02] >> So I've heard um in that particular

[43:05] » So I've heard um in that particular

[43:05] farmland that there's definitely been

[43:07] wet spots and um

[43:10] some people feel that with the town of

[43:12] olds losing water so much um that that

[43:15] was a spot that actually water was was

[43:18] going to from all their pipeline leaks

[43:20] and and losing so much water. I guess

[43:23] the big question I've heard from

[43:25] residents is if water wells are

[43:28] impacted, who ends up holding the bag?

[43:32] Um

[43:34] I I've heard with different residents

[43:35] that um um their water wells aren't

[43:38] super strong or super great that there

[43:40] are times that um the water um uh

[43:43] quantity isn't there. So in your opinion

[43:47] and and this could be an administration

[43:48] question too. If there is an impact of

[43:51] water, what do we do about it?

[43:54] >> That's it's a complicated question

[43:55] » That's it's a complicated question

[43:55] because frequently when people's wells

[43:58] aren't producing as much, it's not a

[43:59] function of the aquifer being damaged.

[44:01] It's usually their well usually their

[44:03] well has deteriorated or their pumping

[44:05] system. So that would be you I can't I

[44:08] can't say if somebody's well go dry.

[44:10] It's due the neighbors. we have, you

[44:11] know, it's more of an investigation to

[44:13] see is the acquer actually drying up or

[44:15] is just a well. Um, despite what they

[44:18] say, wells often do have a life

[44:20] expectancy. Um, it can vary. It can go

[44:23] forever, but it that you know the first

[44:26] step would be is is the well

[44:28] productivity itself um bad? Um it is

[44:33] possible to um and then actually the

[44:35] data is available to do testing of the

[44:37] well prior to development if somebody

[44:39] has specific concern and see what their

[44:42] well productivity is and and then if

[44:44] they come back later and say uh our well

[44:47] is not as good we can we can go back and

[44:48] say well your aer has been drying up or

[44:50] or no your well is just it's being

[44:52] plugged with biological or chemical

[44:54] infrustation. So, so if there's somebody

[44:56] has specific concern, we can do like

[44:58] it's called a baseline water well test

[45:00] which your oil patch does a lot. Uh we

[45:02] wouldn't do quite as much as the oil

[45:04] patch wouldn't test for dissolved gases

[45:06] for instance, but basically the same

[45:07] thing. It establishes the the

[45:09] productivity of a well prior to whatever

[45:12] development is in the area.

[45:14] >> So maybe just for administration, um we

[45:17] » So maybe just for administration, um we

[45:17] don't give out the water licenses. So at

[45:20] the end of the day, if there is impacts

[45:22] to water wells, who's on the hook for

[45:23] it? Is it the individual land owner or

[45:26] who looks after them?

[45:29] >> Well, through the chair, I think the the

[45:30] » Well, through the chair, I think the the

[45:30] reality in this scenario given the

[45:32] density that's being proposed is we

[45:34] required uh a specialist to prove that

[45:37] there is a water or capable water source

[45:40] for that amount of lots. Um who's

[45:44] holding the the responsibility? I mean,

[45:47] essentially, if if it's proven that

[45:49] there's water, we trust the system

[45:51] that's in place. Um, I think like Mr.

[45:55] Hugo mentioned, there's a variety of

[45:58] things that could affect the water um,

[46:02] availability

[46:04] uh, on site. Um,

[46:06] the Alberta government gives us the the

[46:09] amount that could be used residentially

[46:12] um, and permitted that way. Uh, it's a

[46:16] hard one to answer because maybe maybe

[46:18] it isn't the the quantity, maybe it is

[46:20] something that's, you know, maintenance

[46:22] related. I I Yeah. So maybe it just as a

[46:25] process question, who would get that

[46:27] complaint? So would it come to the

[46:28] municipality or would it go to Alberta

[46:30] Environment?

[46:31] >> It would go to Alberta Environment.

[46:32] » It would go to Alberta Environment.

[46:32] >> Okay.

[46:35] » Okay.

[46:35] Thank you.

[46:37] Um so while I've got the hydraologist

[46:39] up, I may as well just ask a few

[46:40] questions on water as well. So um can

[46:43] you just explain how the depth of the

[46:46] well I think you've already alluded to

[46:48] this but how the depth of the well um

[46:51] would ensure uh that there was no

[46:54] drawing from the aquifer above. So we've

[46:56] put in this this um we're we're

[46:59] recommending administration is

[47:00] recommending with the applicant support

[47:02] uh 12.2 to be included in how how does

[47:04] that uh how does that limit

[47:08] >> uh we do have some exhibits that were

[47:11] » uh we do have some exhibits that were

[47:11] put together for our open houses and I

[47:13] wonder if the administration could pull

[47:15] that up. It was in the uh the 20

[47:19] graphics that we had submitted after the

[47:22] last open house and there were um

[47:27] there were graphics of the

[47:30] uh aquifers that were sitting below the

[47:33] >> cross-sections that describe the um the

[47:36] » cross-sections that describe the um the

[47:36] nature. There's the aquifers in the area

[47:38] all the pascapoo formation consists of a

[47:40] series of sandstones and shells and the

[47:43] shells are are generally um relatively

[47:46] almost impermeable u and the upper to

[47:49] get the graphics I could uh

[47:52] >> I think we have them in our agenda

[47:53] » I think we have them in our agenda

[47:53] package as well. Um so you're look are

[47:56] you just looking for the cross-sections?

[47:57] >> That's right.

[47:58] » That's right.

[47:58] >> Okay. So, we have cross-sections and

[48:00] » Okay. So, we have cross-sections and

[48:00] they're not great, but on page 47 and

[48:02] 50, I think we have um if you go to page

[48:06] 47 of the agenda package or 50 of the

[48:08] agenda package

[48:11] >> 1237. Okay.

[48:12] » 1237. Okay.

[48:12] >> Yeah, simplified. Carry on.

[48:15] » Yeah, simplified. Carry on.

[48:15] >> Yeah, there's a few more detailed ones

[48:17] » Yeah, there's a few more detailed ones

[48:17] that uh even Okay, those ones there.

[48:19] >> Yeah. Mhm.

[48:19] » Yeah. Mhm.

[48:20] >> Um if you look at that the cross-section

[48:22] » Um if you look at that the cross-section

[48:22] on the right, all the wells on the on

[48:25] the right side of that show the existing

[48:28] uh existing wells that have they get

[48:30] their their um their water from silty

[48:34] shells or sandstones and then there's a

[48:36] a thicker more uh uh shell layer uh and

[48:41] our wells is in the lower sandstone. So

[48:43] there's a separation of a shell layer um

[48:46] between the upper units and the lower

[48:47] units. And if you look at the little

[48:48] triangles on those those lines there,

[48:50] they signify the water levels. And you

[48:53] can see in most cases or almost all

[48:54] cases, the water levels in the upper

[48:56] aquifers are much higher than than our

[48:59] our well in our site is on on the left

[49:01] side is a lot higher. So most wells are

[49:04] are um and we can tell from those

[49:06] different water levels that those are

[49:08] separate aquifers and separated. Um so

[49:10] the well that was that we installed it's

[49:13] it's it's sufficiently productive to

[49:15] provide uh water for 400 houses for

[49:18] instance. Um so it's it's quite

[49:20] productive.

[49:21] >> Okay. So um we we've moved to a

[49:23] » Okay. So um we we've moved to a

[49:23] different question but I'll follow up on

[49:24] this one then. So you've talked about

[49:25] that the those two aquifers are not

[49:27] hydraulically connected. Um but you

[49:30] looked at static water levels and you've

[49:31] looked at cross-sections. Did you do any

[49:33] kind of a um a draw down test? Did you

[49:37] put anything in the neighboring wells

[49:38] when you did your pump test on the on

[49:40] the lower aquifer?

[49:41] >> Uh no. The uh the test that we did it's

[49:45] » Uh no. The uh the test that we did it's

[49:45] um it's we can do I usually recommend

[49:50] that an observation wall be 50 to 150

[49:53] meters away to see a response in the in

[49:55] the time of a test. So So we can um you

[50:00] know we probably we wouldn't have seen a

[50:01] response anyways. I think at the

[50:02] distances of the neighbors. Uh so that

[50:06] um that I mean we could have done that

[50:08] but I I I think our results would have

[50:10] been pretty sure our results would have

[50:11] been inconclusive with respect to that.

[50:14] Um it also requires it also the

[50:16] disadvantage also requires that the

[50:18] neighboring wells they can't be pumping.

[50:20] Um so we would had to shut down you know

[50:23] all like quite a few wells to to have an

[50:25] effective observation well. the effect

[50:27] of pumping from the neighbors would have

[50:28] over would have been over would have

[50:31] overridden any effect from our our

[50:33] pumping test. Um when it's uh if when

[50:37] they're licensed wells there is a

[50:38] requirement to um more and more of a

[50:41] requirement to measure water levels in

[50:43] in the wells or in observation wells uh

[50:46] to to see whether the the the water

[50:49] level in the aquifer is changing.

[50:51] >> Okay.

[50:51] » Okay.

[50:51] >> Not a requirement for domestic but but

[50:53] » Not a requirement for domestic but but

[50:53] quite often requirement for the

[50:55] commercial wells. Okay. And maybe I'll

[50:57] go to administration, then I'll come

[50:58] back just with my last question. So, um,

[51:00] the addition of of 12.2H,

[51:04] uh, can you just tell us what the

[51:05] purpose of of the addition is meant to

[51:08] address?

[51:09] >> So, we're referring to the land use

[51:11] » So, we're referring to the land use

[51:11] bylaw change, the

[51:13] >> the minimum of 40 meters.

[51:16] » the minimum of 40 meters.

[51:16] >> Yes.

[51:17] » Yes.

[51:18] >> So, uh, administration went back and

[51:19] » So, uh, administration went back and

[51:19] forth, um, as Mr. Brown mentioned to try

[51:22] to figure out a way to uh best deal with

[51:25] uh uh lessening the effect um or

[51:29] limiting the effect of the adjacent land

[51:30] owners as far as water well depth. Um

[51:33] and so the intent of that is if there is

[51:36] a is that if they drill the well at the

[51:40] the distance specified that it would

[51:43] have a limited negligible effect the

[51:46] adjacent land owners. So when we looked

[51:48] at um and worked with Brandon Associates

[51:51] and looked at Mr. Hugo's uh technical

[51:54] study, the recommendation in the

[51:56] conclusion was to go at the 40 meters um

[51:59] minimum to lessen the effect on the

[52:01] adjacent land owners. So the intent is

[52:04] you cannot build a house until you have

[52:07] proved that your water is coming from a

[52:09] specific aquifer.

[52:11] >> Okay. And then maybe I'll just go back.

[52:13] » Okay. And then maybe I'll just go back.

[52:13] So can you explain to us and maybe it's

[52:15] in the way the well is completed or such

[52:17] but could you explain to us how the

[52:19] minimum depth of 40 m actually addresses

[52:22] the impact of not drawing from the upper

[52:24] aquifer as versus the lower aquifer

[52:27] >> between the uh the shells which don't

[52:29] » between the uh the shells which don't

[52:29] allow any or don't allow much comm you

[52:33] know geological terms they do but um uh

[52:36] they don't allow much communication

[52:38] between the upper aquifer and the lower

[52:39] aquifer. Um that's that's one barrier.

[52:42] So we can draw we can we can draw water

[52:44] from one aquifer and not affect the the

[52:46] other aquifer whether it's drawing from

[52:47] the upper aquifer not affecting the

[52:49] lower one or vice versa. The well

[52:51] completion designs um they are required

[52:54] to have uh to seal off the upper zones

[52:57] either through either they they put

[52:58] steel surface casing uh through the

[53:01] upper zones or else they'll they'll put

[53:03] down a liner which is they put grout

[53:05] like clay grout around the outside of

[53:07] the liner above the perforated zones. So

[53:10] we don't have any water flowing from

[53:11] those those upper sandstones down the

[53:13] well uh and then being pumped out by the

[53:15] well. So the the design of the dwell is

[53:18] is is is meant to minimize cross

[53:21] formational flow they call it.

[53:23] >> Okay. So just so I just so I'm fully

[53:26] » Okay. So just so I just so I'm fully

[53:26] understanding this if you drill the well

[53:27] to a certain depth you cannot complete

[53:29] the upper aquifer you have to complete

[53:31] only the lower aquifer. Am I

[53:33] understanding that correct? for that is

[53:35] a in the directive the groundwater

[53:38] directive for commercial wells that is

[53:40] you can only have the lower aquifer and

[53:42] then for and it's also that's part of

[53:46] the the the bylaw for for this one is

[53:48] that you cannot complete any any get any

[53:51] production out of the upper aquifers um

[53:53] for domestic wells that uh you wouldn't

[53:55] in this in this practically in this case

[53:58] because the lower aquifer is so

[53:59] productive you wouldn't you wouldn't

[54:00] bother having a multiple multiple

[54:03] aquifer zone

[54:04] uh besides uh water flowing down the

[54:06] well, there's potential for adverse

[54:08] chemical interactions between two zones.

[54:11] So, it's not good practice anyways to

[54:13] have uh they just do it they do it in

[54:15] domestic wells if if they have a bunch

[54:16] of zones that are like half gallon a

[54:18] minute and they'll string together, you

[54:20] know, four or five zones to get a two or

[54:22] three gallon a minute well. Uh but it's

[54:25] like I say, that's only allowable in

[54:26] domestic situations. uh here if we say

[54:29] there's there's uh the acquer zone has

[54:31] to be below 40 meters that means they

[54:33] have to seal off any any zone they might

[54:35] encounter that is productive above the

[54:37] 40 meter depth.

[54:39] >> Okay. So in your opinion uh this

[54:41] » Okay. So in your opinion uh this

[54:41] condition of having wells having to be

[54:43] deeper than 40 mters addresses the issue

[54:46] of not being able to coingle.

[54:48] >> Yes. Yes. Okay. and and we've done that.

[54:50] » Yes. Yes. Okay. and and we've done that.

[54:50] We recommend that for other projects too

[54:52] that you know if there's a potential for

[54:54] uh you know interactions with upper

[54:56] zones you know especially the oil patch

[54:58] um if there's a good zone you know for

[55:00] their frack walls or whatever for the

[55:01] fracking bondages are enormous we say

[55:03] it's good to go even way more than 40

[55:06] meters so it's it's it's a it's a fairly

[55:08] common uh practice that we we go for we

[55:11] uh separate aers than other people are

[55:13] using.

[55:14] >> Okay. Yes. M just I I just like to add

[55:17] » Okay. Yes. M just I I just like to add

[55:18] and and follow up on administration's

[55:20] comment. We uh the recommendation for

[55:23] the depth came from the hydraologists

[55:26] and and their assessment of the

[55:28] situation that we're facing. But really

[55:31] the the the requirement to change the

[55:34] bylaw is because the county is not able

[55:37] to control when they issue a building

[55:39] permit or development permit. they can't

[55:41] control under your bylaw

[55:45] where people drill their well. So the

[55:48] the idea came forward that in this

[55:50] particular area that that there would be

[55:54] a specification and we we accepted that

[55:58] even though someone is not you know they

[56:02] do not have a permit on their own

[56:04] property that we agreed that a well

[56:07] should be drilled before they even

[56:09] approach uh getting the permit and it

[56:12] must be proven just to make sure someone

[56:15] doesn't get the county permit. Then

[56:17] they, you know, we tell them to do it.

[56:19] They say they're going to do it and

[56:20] ultimately they drill it and they drill

[56:22] into this other aquifer. And we said,

[56:24] "No, let's make sure what's our

[56:26] ironclad. Make sure and that is drill

[56:29] the well, get it below 40 m, then come

[56:32] and talk to us about build building your

[56:35] house."

[56:35] >> Okay. Thank you.

[56:36] » Okay. Thank you.

[56:36] >> That ensures that it happens.

[56:38] » That ensures that it happens.

[56:38] >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Lutz.

[56:40] » Okay. Thank you, Councelor Lutz.

[56:40] >> Just a a quick followup on the baseline

[56:43] » Just a a quick followup on the baseline

[56:43] testing. If a landowner wanted to do

[56:45] that, um what's the cost for that? And

[56:47] is it something that the developer would

[56:49] um

[56:51] help the land owner do or are they on

[56:53] their own dollar to do baseline testing?

[56:56] >> The costs are less than $1,000.

[56:59] » The costs are less than $1,000.

[56:59] And I'll leave it up to Greg to say um

[57:02] whether he'd be

[57:05] comfortable with

[57:06] >> and and it's it's usually done it's all

[57:08] » and and it's it's usually done it's all

[57:08] it's it'll be done by a local licensed

[57:10] water well driller. the pumping test and

[57:12] the groundwater sample collection.

[57:14] >> And Mr. Brown, I'm just wondering if the

[57:16] » And Mr. Brown, I'm just wondering if the

[57:16] land owners would be responsible to

[57:17] cover those costs on their own or if the

[57:19] developer would help them basing

[57:28] the permission, but they would also

[57:30] greatly bet if they've already had

[57:32] problems with their wells in the last

[57:34] few years. It's certainly not our

[57:35] development. They've got, as was stated,

[57:38] some likely problem,

[57:40] >> but perhaps we could assist with half of

[57:43] » but perhaps we could assist with half of

[57:43] that testing cost and then let them

[57:47] decide what to do with their existing.

[57:49] >> And then just a question for

[57:50] » And then just a question for

[57:50] administration. Um, did we check with

[57:53] law on this bylaw if it's um we'll get

[57:56] our hands slapped because of provincial

[57:58] overreach or uh because we don't

[58:00] regulate water. So, um, we've checked

[58:03] that out that we are not going to get in

[58:05] trouble with the province.

[58:06] >> Yeah. Through the chair, um, this was,

[58:08] » Yeah. Through the chair, um, this was,

[58:08] uh, a big discussion as we've mentioned

[58:10] between us. Um, and yes, we do have the

[58:12] ability to ask for additional

[58:14] information to essentially facilitate

[58:17] um, a development on a site. And so,

[58:19] this is acceptable as a condition. It's

[58:22] a, if you read the wording, it's a says

[58:24] prior to issuance of the development

[58:25] permit. So, it's a condition of a

[58:27] development permit, which we are

[58:29] absolutely allowed to do.

[58:32] Thank you. Is there any additional

[58:33] questions? So, I'll go to councelor

[58:34] Nixon and then councelor Falton. Um,

[58:36] just as far as that aquifer goes, the

[58:39] lower aquifer, are we very certain that

[58:42] every lot will be able to hit that

[58:43] aquifer or are there some lots that

[58:45] maybe will not don't have access to that

[58:47] aquifer? And then what happens uh

[58:49] planning maybe could answer that part of

[58:50] the question. What happens with a

[58:52] building permit?

[58:55] >> Um,

[58:56] » Um,

[58:56] yes, in every every development, we're

[58:58] not sure until you drill the well.

[59:01] uh we're fairly confident uh even this

[59:03] one we've encountered if that's not

[59:05] there there's likely to be other backers

[59:08] 40 40 mters is not uh is not a terrible

[59:11] depth they you know typical not typical

[59:14] but they they can go up to 500 ft 150 m

[59:18] so if the sacker is not there it' be not

[59:20] great because it' be more expensive to

[59:22] go deeper but there is potential uh if

[59:24] this one's not there to find deeper ones

[59:26] also

[59:27] >> so so that the well driller going out on

[59:30] » so so that the well driller going out on

[59:30] the site would go down. He must be below

[59:34] 40 m. If he can't find water at 40, I

[59:37] guess he drills the well to 45 and he

[59:40] drills the well to 50, you know, looking

[59:42] for uh that aquafer that ultimately he

[59:45] must get, but he cannot go above 40

[59:47] meters.

[59:49] >> Thank you, councelor Fton.

[59:53] » Oh, sorry. I thought that I thought that

[59:55] answered. Go ahead. Part one. Part two.

[59:57] What happens if they can't find it? um

[59:59] certainly said through the chair they um

[1:00:01] if they can't find water then they do

[1:00:03] not have a development on that lot. Uh

[1:00:05] that's the reality of of how this is set

[1:00:08] up. Uh it is the responsibility of the

[1:00:10] land owner to to get that water but as

[1:00:12] Mr. Hugo said it's 40 minimum so they

[1:00:15] can go deeper. Yes, it's more expensive

[1:00:17] but uh that is that minimum threshold.

[1:00:20] >> Okay. Thank you councelor Fton.

[1:00:24] » Okay. Thank you councelor Fton.

[1:00:24] So my my question is have you guys

[1:00:26] consulted with the town of Ols uh seeing

[1:00:30] and how your property west property is

[1:00:32] west property line is only a half a mile

[1:00:34] now from the town of prop uh boundary.

[1:00:38] So we're aware of the proposed data

[1:00:42] center that will be a neighbor to the

[1:00:44] northwest of you. So presumably that

[1:00:48] there will be

[1:00:50] uh deep services provided in somewhere

[1:00:53] in that area. So have you consulted with

[1:00:55] them on the on the future plans of of

[1:00:58] the towns coming out on 27 or on the

[1:01:00] quarter to the north or the half to the

[1:01:02] north sorry and the potential of when

[1:01:06] connections to municipal water and

[1:01:08] wastewater may be available.

[1:01:11] >> We have not consulted with the town on

[1:01:14] » We have not consulted with the town on

[1:01:14] that issue. uh we started uh we've been

[1:01:18] on these lands for 15 years now and

[1:01:22] we've been working with the county

[1:01:24] policies and so we're following the

[1:01:26] county policy and uh we're interested of

[1:01:30] course in what happens although I note

[1:01:32] in the news in the last week this data

[1:01:34] center was uh refused but doesn't mean

[1:01:37] they won't come back but I I think we

[1:01:39] feel uh it's not incumbent on the town

[1:01:43] to give us access or where it might

[1:01:45] come. But with the overall with the

[1:01:48] densities that are allowed in the 2 and

[1:01:50] 27 in the municipal development plan

[1:01:53] that pipe servicing would be very uh

[1:01:57] financially not feasible and uh so we we

[1:02:00] didn't pursue it. We are following the

[1:02:03] current policies and feel that this

[1:02:06] program of having each lot have their

[1:02:09] own well have their own septic field

[1:02:12] matches what we see as the objectives of

[1:02:15] the county.

[1:02:16] >> Thank you. Uh councelor Fulton followup.

[1:02:18] » Thank you. Uh councelor Fulton followup.

[1:02:18] >> Just one one quick followup. So uh so at

[1:02:22] » Just one one quick followup. So uh so at

[1:02:22] full buildout you' be 45 domestic wells.

[1:02:26] So what what is the cost to drill a well

[1:02:29] now per to get to at least 40 meters?

[1:02:32] What what's the cost now to drill?

[1:02:34] >> I have an upside figure that he uses

[1:02:36] » I have an upside figure that he uses

[1:02:36] $100 a foot. So it'd be about $12,000

[1:02:40] for just the well um upside per lot. Um

[1:02:44] that doesn't include the the pump

[1:02:46] installation or tie into the house. But

[1:02:48] but 10,000 12,000 is is per well. And

[1:02:52] just uh on our well that we drilled for

[1:02:55] on this quarter to test things. I think

[1:02:58] the total well driller bill to us was

[1:03:00] about $15,000

[1:03:03] >> all in.

[1:03:04] » all in.

[1:03:04] >> Okay. Yes. Council.

[1:03:05] » Okay. Yes. Council.

[1:03:05] >> So and then read extensively your the

[1:03:09] » So and then read extensively your the

[1:03:09] mound idea for the septic. Uh do you

[1:03:13] have a base idea baseline idea of what a

[1:03:16] septic mound would cost now? because the

[1:03:20] cost of septic systems uh is seems to

[1:03:23] has increased quite dramatically over

[1:03:26] time that we've had in other

[1:03:28] applications that people have had to

[1:03:30] change from a open discharge to a mound

[1:03:33] or a field system and the costs seem to

[1:03:36] be quite large in in those reported

[1:03:38] instances. So just curious as to what

[1:03:41] you would propose or potential would be

[1:03:44] to do mounds, you know, 45 mounds at at

[1:03:49] buildout um

[1:03:50] >> would be how much per moundish?

[1:03:53] » would be how much per moundish?

[1:03:53] >> I'm not well actually I'm not too

[1:03:56] » I'm not well actually I'm not too

[1:03:56] familiar with the cost for the septic

[1:03:58] field. I people have told me the cost of

[1:04:00] mounds versus a conventional uh you know

[1:04:03] blow grade system is not much different.

[1:04:05] Um, and so some some installers they

[1:04:08] they've told me that mounds are, you

[1:04:10] know, they they don't they don't mind

[1:04:12] doing them. Uh, I mean, in terms of cost

[1:04:14] and and effort, it's not it's not much

[1:04:16] different, but uh maybe it didn't it

[1:04:19] probably would be a bit more, but when

[1:04:20] you add factor in all the tanks and the

[1:04:22] pumps and the distribution systems, the

[1:04:24] the mound system, the extra sand and

[1:04:26] stuff is that's

[1:04:28] >> what would be 10 to 15,000

[1:04:30] » what would be 10 to 15,000

[1:04:30] >> more. Um, yeah, I'd think even less than

[1:04:32] » more. Um, yeah, I'd think even less than

[1:04:32] that. But

[1:04:33] >> I was just asking since you asked for a

[1:04:35] » I was just asking since you asked for a

[1:04:35] number and Ken didn't give you a number

[1:04:37] whether it was 10 to 15,000

[1:04:40] to do that septic mound and

[1:04:42] >> versus a conventional system. Yeah, it

[1:04:44] » versus a conventional system. Yeah, it

[1:04:44] might be 10,000 more.

[1:04:46] >> Okay. Uh, councelor Harris.

[1:04:49] » Okay. Uh, councelor Harris.

[1:04:49] >> Um, just a procedural one for planning.

[1:04:51] » Um, just a procedural one for planning.

[1:04:51] Um, under our recommendations,

[1:04:54] uh, and the changes to the land use

[1:04:56] bylaws, other reg we're only including

[1:04:58] phase one. Is there a reason we're not

[1:05:00] including the whole project?

[1:05:02] >> Yeah, so uh through the chair, we're

[1:05:04] » Yeah, so uh through the chair, we're

[1:05:04] including phase one at this time because

[1:05:05] that's what we're in front of you today

[1:05:07] asking for. Uh when and if phase 2,

[1:05:09] three, however it gets built out in the

[1:05:12] future, uh that will then be a textual

[1:05:14] amendment that would be required um

[1:05:17] later on. We go through the same process

[1:05:19] again.

[1:05:20] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:05:21] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:05:21] >> Uh councelor Johnson,

[1:05:23] » Uh councelor Johnson,

[1:05:23] >> back to the water question. Do we know

[1:05:26] » back to the water question. Do we know

[1:05:26] what the recharge source is for the

[1:05:28] recommended aquifer that's 40 meters?

[1:05:32] >> Uh yes, it's it's they've done studies

[1:05:37] » Uh yes, it's it's they've done studies

[1:05:37] using various isotopes and stuff in in

[1:05:40] the aquifers in Alberta and the recharge

[1:05:42] of these is very very slow like out

[1:05:45] hundreds to thousands of years. So, it's

[1:05:48] basically like all all of our bedrock

[1:05:50] aquifers, not not our maybe our gravel

[1:05:52] aquifers next to a river, but basically

[1:05:55] um basically it's it's a it's mining uh

[1:05:58] the groundwater. We're uh the volumes we

[1:06:01] take out of the there's an observation

[1:06:03] wall network in uh in Alberta um that

[1:06:06] Alberta environment has. We're not

[1:06:08] lowering the water table or not

[1:06:09] dewatering too many aquifers, you know,

[1:06:11] but mostly because our our water demands

[1:06:12] for domestic and our our industrial is

[1:06:15] uh is is modest or small. It's the

[1:06:18] agricultural guys that dewater the

[1:06:20] aquifers and we don't due to the we

[1:06:22] don't have either the the aers are not

[1:06:24] sufficient productivity or quality is

[1:06:26] not good enough or or the demand isn't

[1:06:28] there. But if we if we had them we would

[1:06:30] be have you know acryer dewatering in

[1:06:33] Alberta quite a bit if if we use them

[1:06:35] for irrigation. But we generally don't.

[1:06:38] Um and and I haven't seen, you know,

[1:06:40] looking at the changes in water levels

[1:06:42] with time with in acreage areas. I see

[1:06:44] very little if any decline in water

[1:06:47] levels. Um it's it's a slow recharge

[1:06:49] process. There's some that goes on and

[1:06:51] and since the demand isn't very much,

[1:06:53] it's it's quite sustainable.

[1:06:55] >> Is the source like the

[1:06:56] » Is the source like the

[1:06:56] >> No, the source is source is is is

[1:06:59] » No, the source is source is is is

[1:06:59] probably local area. So, so the

[1:07:01] advantage with the water wells is if if

[1:07:03] there's a if there's even drought, even

[1:07:05] a long-term drought, uh the our

[1:07:07] groundwater is more sustainable than

[1:07:09] surface water, um like a 10-year

[1:07:11] drought, for instance. Uh obviously,

[1:07:13] we'll have a lot of other problems and

[1:07:14] some acreage wells going dry if we have

[1:07:16] a 10-year drought. But, um but it it

[1:07:19] does have that resilience against uh

[1:07:21] against uh you know, variations in in

[1:07:23] surface water precipitation conditions.

[1:07:28] There any other councelor look?

[1:07:31] >> I'm going back to councelor Nixon and

[1:07:34] » I'm going back to councelor Nixon and

[1:07:34] obviously all of our concerns seems to

[1:07:37] be around water. Have you considered as

[1:07:39] a developer to drill these 40 meter

[1:07:42] wells ahead of time and sell a water

[1:07:45] service lot so that you and we know the

[1:07:49] water is available for these purchasers?

[1:07:54] Well, I I think that by the even the

[1:07:57] nature of the uh application process, if

[1:08:01] a homeowner uh was to drill a well,

[1:08:05] spend the money up front, um if there is

[1:08:08] no water, that person is not going to

[1:08:10] buy that lot. And um we would then

[1:08:15] likely on another portion of the site, I

[1:08:18] mean each of the sites is 2 acres, we

[1:08:20] would likely try to drill another well

[1:08:22] and see whether we can find another well

[1:08:24] on that same lot. Um it we feel it's not

[1:08:28] logical to drill 45 wells on the

[1:08:32] property right off the bat.

[1:08:34] uh we will see through our first phase

[1:08:37] exactly

[1:08:38] um the proof will be in the pudding I

[1:08:40] should say in that first 15 lots whether

[1:08:43] the aquifers are as Ken says or not but

[1:08:46] if we don't get a well at 40 m based on

[1:08:50] what I understand maybe it'll be 50

[1:08:52] maybe it'll be 60 m but this particular

[1:08:55] area which as Ken has said used to be

[1:08:58] the water supply area for the town of

[1:09:00] olds the water in this area is very

[1:09:04] abundant compared to many other

[1:09:07] locations. So, we feel very confident we

[1:09:10] are going to find wells. Whether the

[1:09:13] well costs $30,000 or $15,000,

[1:09:17] we believe we will find water.

[1:09:20] >> Hey, is there any other questions?

[1:09:24] » Hey, is there any other questions?

[1:09:24] So maybe I'll just um go to the roads um

[1:09:27] in uh I apologize but I there was a lot

[1:09:30] of discussion within the agenda package

[1:09:32] of temporary gravel roads and such.

[1:09:34] Could you just tell us what the um what

[1:09:38] the long-term

[1:09:39] um plan is for the internal roads and

[1:09:42] what uh what surface you're planning and

[1:09:45] such.

[1:09:46] >> Could you bring forward the plan? Yes.

[1:09:49] » Could you bring forward the plan? Yes.

[1:09:49] Uh basically in the in the sorry in the

[1:09:52] first phase we just want to extend our

[1:09:56] roads four lots deep uh and end that

[1:10:00] with a graveled uh culde-sac or bulb for

[1:10:04] turnarounds. And the county asked for

[1:10:08] emergency purposes could we build uh a

[1:10:12] gravel emergency access adjacent to the

[1:10:14] west boundary of those lots. So, we

[1:10:17] agreed for emergency purposes we would

[1:10:20] do that. However, once the lots look

[1:10:24] like they're moving and we're selling

[1:10:26] them and we concentrate our sales in

[1:10:29] these 16 country residential lots, we'll

[1:10:32] then start working on the next phase.

[1:10:34] And we would extend the crescent in

[1:10:37] either one phase or two depending on the

[1:10:40] absorption out of the area. Uh we would

[1:10:43] then remove that gravel surface and the

[1:10:46] bulbs and extend the roads as a fully

[1:10:49] paved county standard road and uh either

[1:10:54] in in one additional or maybe two

[1:10:56] additional roads uh uh phases so that

[1:11:00] this crescent which you see on the plan

[1:11:03] would be fully paved ditching all of

[1:11:06] which is to county standard.

[1:11:09] >> Okay. Thank you. And so the plan for the

[1:11:11] » Okay. Thank you. And so the plan for the

[1:11:11] first phase is that orange line that we

[1:11:13] see running north to uh north to south

[1:11:15] would be a would be a gravel um road for

[1:11:17] emergency purposes.

[1:11:18] >> Yeah. It's just the the emergency access

[1:11:22] » Yeah. It's just the the emergency access

[1:11:22] is just between the upper

[1:11:24] >> y

[1:11:25] » y

[1:11:25] >> uh upper residential and the lower

[1:11:27] » uh upper residential and the lower

[1:11:27] residential road.

[1:11:28] >> Okay.

[1:11:29] » Okay.

[1:11:29] >> Yeah.

[1:11:29] » Yeah.

[1:11:29] >> Thank you.

[1:11:30] » Thank you.

[1:11:30] >> That's the only gravel component. We'd

[1:11:32] » That's the only gravel component. We'd

[1:11:32] also on the uh down in the south off the

[1:11:35] industrial road, we would also have a

[1:11:37] graveled circular area for emergency

[1:11:41] access.

[1:11:42] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh and this is to

[1:11:44] » Okay. Thank you. Uh and this is to

[1:11:44] administration. So, um the applicant has

[1:11:47] stated that they're going to put an

[1:11:49] additional ashalt overlay on Range Road

[1:11:51] 12. I I believe I saw in the package

[1:11:54] that the county has already built the

[1:11:56] base of that road, but um is there any

[1:11:58] additional work on that road that needs

[1:12:00] to be done other than just an additional

[1:12:02] overlay to make that a non-band service,

[1:12:04] a non-bann road?

[1:12:07] >> Yeah. No, through the chair. Um so yeah,

[1:12:09] » Yeah. No, through the chair. Um so yeah,

[1:12:09] that is the requirement. Whatever is

[1:12:11] required is the requirement. I mean I I

[1:12:13] don't have anything else to add other

[1:12:15] than that that that will be verified. It

[1:12:16] would be an unrestricted road. The

[1:12:19] developer is required to go up to the

[1:12:21] quarter line. Anything above that may

[1:12:23] affect the turning into the uh uh old

[1:12:25] golf club that will be a project through

[1:12:27] under operations and the county will

[1:12:29] foot that additional uh upgrade.

[1:12:31] >> Okay. So the the idea is that it will be

[1:12:33] » Okay. So the the idea is that it will be

[1:12:33] a non-band standard and whatever is

[1:12:35] required to take it to a nonban standard

[1:12:37] will be done. Yeah.

[1:12:38] >> Okay.

[1:12:39] » Okay.

[1:12:39] >> Is there something you'd like to add? Uh

[1:12:40] » Is there something you'd like to add? Uh

[1:12:40] Reeve, this is Bruce Nelligan who uh

[1:12:43] Watt Consulting did an analysis on Range

[1:12:47] Road 12 and you might ask him in

[1:12:50] additional questions, but my

[1:12:51] understanding is the county built this

[1:12:53] road relatively recently and all of the

[1:12:57] foundation work uh and u construction

[1:13:00] standards were u at excellent level.

[1:13:04] It's just that the the surface was not

[1:13:07] built deep enough to get it to the 100%.

[1:13:10] And that's what we're pursu perceiving

[1:13:12] to go up. So maybe Dave Watt would be

[1:13:15] better than Bruce Melligan to answer

[1:13:17] that.

[1:13:17] >> Madam Reed, my name is David Watt Wat

[1:13:22] » Madam Reed, my name is David Watt Wat

[1:13:22] and uh I'm now officially retired, but I

[1:13:27] was involved in this project from the

[1:13:28] get-go. So, uh, just to answer the

[1:13:31] question, um, we had a

[1:13:36] an assessment done of the condition of

[1:13:39] Range Road 12. We brought our geoteex

[1:13:42] out to take a look at that and, uh, it's

[1:13:45] in pretty good shape. We have a few

[1:13:48] concerns about uh some possible uh

[1:13:52] deterioration of the subgrade uh gravels

[1:13:56] due to the course of time and the fact

[1:13:58] that it's basically a cold mix ash fault

[1:14:00] on the on the road right now. The plan

[1:14:03] is to u uh strip back the uh the surface

[1:14:10] ensure that the gravels are have good

[1:14:13] integrity. add additional gravels

[1:14:15] probably in the order of 8 in uh and

[1:14:19] then pave the road to uh to the

[1:14:21] municipal standard and and we're just

[1:14:23] basically going by the standard that's

[1:14:25] provided in your policy 4005

[1:14:29] uh for those roadways. So we are aware

[1:14:33] that u I mean the road is in actually

[1:14:35] very good shape when you consider it but

[1:14:37] we are looking at you know do we need to

[1:14:41] uh

[1:14:42] take care of any abnormalities that we

[1:14:45] might find prior to paving it.

[1:14:47] >> Thank you very much. Uh, councelor

[1:14:50] » Thank you very much. Uh, councelor

[1:14:50] Nixon,

[1:14:51] >> uh, just a question maybe to

[1:14:52] » uh, just a question maybe to

[1:14:52] administration. I it said in the agenda

[1:14:54] package that we would also pave to 100%

[1:14:57] downfree standard. I think it was to the

[1:15:00] golf course or just after the golf

[1:15:01] course. One, what was the reasoning for

[1:15:03] that? Two, what's the price tag?

[1:15:06] >> I can't answer the price tag component

[1:15:08] » I can't answer the price tag component

[1:15:08] to it. I I I'm sorry, but the Yes, it's

[1:15:10] from the quarterline north.

[1:15:12] >> Yeah. So I I can maybe speak to that

[1:15:14] » Yeah. So I I can maybe speak to that

[1:15:14] because it was one of my suggestions

[1:15:15] that we um ensure that the road is

[1:15:18] completed to the same standard to uh

[1:15:21] include the access to the golf course,

[1:15:24] but the developer would be responsible

[1:15:26] to the edge of their property line and

[1:15:28] then if there's any additional work, I

[1:15:30] think there might already be some long

[1:15:32] patching done on that uh entrance to the

[1:15:34] golf course, but it would be

[1:15:35] investigated and considered as part of

[1:15:37] the project and ensure that the the banf

[1:15:40] free standard includes the entrance into

[1:15:42] the golf course. So, it's a very small

[1:15:44] area. Uh from a price point of view, we

[1:15:46] wouldn't uh know that until we did some

[1:15:49] engineering and the project commenced.

[1:15:51] >> Council Nixon,

[1:15:51] » Council Nixon,

[1:15:52] >> was the reasoning for extending it and

[1:15:54] » was the reasoning for extending it and

[1:15:54] and covering that extra portion just

[1:15:56] because of the volume of traffic or just

[1:15:59] why?

[1:15:59] >> Yes, it' be the volume of traffic. It's

[1:16:01] » Yes, it' be the volume of traffic. It's

[1:16:01] probably one of our busiest sections of

[1:16:03] road with the traffic going to and from

[1:16:05] the golf course and of course turning is

[1:16:07] hard on surfaces and so we'd want to

[1:16:09] make sure that um you know that aspect

[1:16:12] is looked after. Certainly the county's

[1:16:14] contribution and and portion would be at

[1:16:16] council's discretion and it would be a

[1:16:17] budget project. Uh so if council deemed

[1:16:20] it was not required down the road that

[1:16:22] would be at council's discretion to to

[1:16:24] change the funding.

[1:16:26] >> Thank you. Is there any additional

[1:16:27] » Thank you. Is there any additional

[1:16:27] questions?

[1:16:29] No. I've got uh councelor Lutz uh just

[1:16:33] when we move to operations I want to

[1:16:34] make sure we're done roads.

[1:16:36] >> No, go ahead. Ask your question please.

[1:16:38] » No, go ahead. Ask your question please.

[1:16:38] >> Um

[1:16:40] » Um

[1:16:40] so when in the background information um

[1:16:43] with operations, it was mentioned a few

[1:16:45] times that the um PLU

[1:16:49] questions about that who's going to

[1:16:50] maintain pathways, roadways and and the

[1:16:53] access was deemed um by the golf course

[1:16:54] is unusual. Is that unusual

[1:16:58] scary or is that unusual just not

[1:17:02] typically done or what do we mean by

[1:17:03] unusual? Is that something to be

[1:17:06] concerned about?

[1:17:07] >> Uh

[1:17:09] » Uh

[1:17:09] so it is sorry it is unusual because we

[1:17:13] don't have um the same kind of agreement

[1:17:16] elsewhere in the county. So we don't

[1:17:18] know how does it work.

[1:17:22] How does it work? Uh I think that what

[1:17:24] you're saying is that um uh the

[1:17:27] applicants proposed to have this chair

[1:17:30] share um storm pond with the with the

[1:17:33] old golf course. Yes.

[1:17:35] >> So it would be kind of a three-way

[1:17:37] » So it would be kind of a three-way

[1:17:37] agreement then since we own the land and

[1:17:40] um

[1:17:41] >> yeah that's what is the applicant is

[1:17:42] » yeah that's what is the applicant is

[1:17:42] proposing that it will be a threeway

[1:17:45] agreement. uh the old school golf

[1:17:47] course, the developer and uh the county

[1:17:51] but then ultimately we will once uh it

[1:17:54] is built usually the county takes

[1:17:58] control over that. So that is the reason

[1:18:01] why we don't know how this chair

[1:18:02] agreement would look like.

[1:18:06] So do we know are we responsible for

[1:18:08] maintaining pathways and landscaping and

[1:18:10] those type of things?

[1:18:11] >> Yeah. So, so, so it's unusual because

[1:18:14] » Yeah. So, so, so it's unusual because

[1:18:14] it's normally us like Dulu said, like we

[1:18:16] normally are the ones that would

[1:18:17] maintain and and take care of those

[1:18:18] PULs. This is part of phase two or three

[1:18:22] or whatever future phase comes forward.

[1:18:24] Um, and so yes, that is something that

[1:18:27] we would take on typically as the county

[1:18:29] once everything is constructed and

[1:18:31] approved, uh, we would deal with the

[1:18:33] Pwells.

[1:18:34] >> Okay. And just another one on um

[1:18:37] » Okay. And just another one on um

[1:18:37] >> Oh, sorry. Uh, Mr. Do you want to add uh

[1:18:39] » Oh, sorry. Uh, Mr. Do you want to add uh

[1:18:39] to do you want to add something?

[1:18:41] >> Well, I I just might uh add to that

[1:18:43] » Well, I I just might uh add to that

[1:18:43] because in the discussion relative to

[1:18:46] the pond and to the golf club and that

[1:18:49] that discussion of being unusual, the

[1:18:52] pond itself, the PUL will be uh taken

[1:18:56] over by the county. We'll build it to a

[1:18:59] standard that it's acceptable to you,

[1:19:01] both the pond and the access road

[1:19:03] adjacent to it. Uh but in this case,

[1:19:08] Jason and the golf club would like to uh

[1:19:11] and we've agreed to to build the pump,

[1:19:13] put a pump in. He would be the one

[1:19:16] operating it to to actually turn on the

[1:19:18] pump to pump the water back into the

[1:19:20] golf club, even though the pond is owned

[1:19:23] by the county. So, we need discussions

[1:19:26] between the county and the golf club and

[1:19:30] build that into the license to make sure

[1:19:33] that it's operationally fine and the

[1:19:36] county is not paying for the pump uh or

[1:19:39] its operation.

[1:19:41] So, I think that's the unusual

[1:19:43] component.

[1:19:44] >> Okay. Councelor Lutz, did you have

[1:19:45] » Okay. Councelor Lutz, did you have

[1:19:46] another question? Just on that same

[1:19:47] thread for um planning like the um

[1:19:50] comments that we got back from the

[1:19:51] engineer technologist um important

[1:19:54] details remain outstanding and then um

[1:19:58] on the second circulation it still

[1:20:01] sounded like um more information is

[1:20:04] going to be needed to be submitted uh

[1:20:07] engineering drawings is can you give me

[1:20:11] a little bit more on on what's

[1:20:13] outstanding?

[1:20:15] Yeah. So I think just to reflect back to

[1:20:17] the PU that that consideration will be

[1:20:19] ironed out uh better uh proposed in a

[1:20:22] future phase. Um not something that

[1:20:24] we're uh especially concerned with in

[1:20:27] today's uh proposal. And then uh

[1:20:29] respecting the important details that uh

[1:20:31] are still needed. Absolutely. There are

[1:20:33] construction full construction drawings

[1:20:35] that need to be uh submitted as part of

[1:20:37] the subdivision uh side. This is the

[1:20:40] reasonzoning uh consideration and so um

[1:20:43] some of those more um finite details

[1:20:45] will be provided um should the

[1:20:47] redesignation be successful and we go

[1:20:49] forward for subdivision.

[1:20:52] >> So I'll just uh add um I I think that

[1:20:56] » So I'll just uh add um I I think that

[1:20:56] it's the engineering details of the

[1:20:58] road, the access of the pond, the the

[1:21:01] pump, all of those are the technical

[1:21:03] details that are being asked for by

[1:21:05] operations.

[1:21:07] perfectly illegitimate and it normally

[1:21:09] would come through in the engineering

[1:21:12] phase of the development. However, when

[1:21:15] we u go through our first phase and

[1:21:18] we're now looking, okay, we've got to

[1:21:21] develop this and sell these lots. But as

[1:21:24] we go forward for the second phase, we

[1:21:26] will start to that dialogue between the

[1:21:28] county and the golf club and Alberta

[1:21:33] environment about the change to the golf

[1:21:35] club's license because we can't go

[1:21:37] forward with the ultimate design of that

[1:21:40] pond until we know that the license

[1:21:43] which they we're we're we would need to

[1:21:46] change has been accepted by Alberta

[1:21:48] Environment. So, we'll be going through

[1:21:50] many more of those engineering and

[1:21:52] technical details as part of our next

[1:21:56] application when that pond is part of

[1:21:58] it. And the Alberta Environment

[1:22:01] themselves have said, well, we're also

[1:22:03] interested in greater details coming

[1:22:06] from you. So, we're fully aware of that

[1:22:08] and we'll we'll work on that in the next

[1:22:10] phase.

[1:22:11] >> Okay. Thank you. Is there any additional

[1:22:13] » Okay. Thank you. Is there any additional

[1:22:13] question?

[1:22:15] Councelor Lutz,

[1:22:16] >> um I don't know if you can speak on

[1:22:18] » um I don't know if you can speak on

[1:22:18] behalf of Dave Hoggarth, but what are

[1:22:20] you seeing or anticipating for the um

[1:22:24] uptake of these residential lots? We've

[1:22:26] kind of covered the industrial lots, but

[1:22:28] we would have been interested to hear

[1:22:30] what his perception was.

[1:22:31] >> The uptake of which lots? The

[1:22:33] » The uptake of which lots? The

[1:22:33] >> selling the residential lots.

[1:22:35] » selling the residential lots.

[1:22:35] >> Um I mean, it seems the market uh we

[1:22:40] » Um I mean, it seems the market uh we

[1:22:40] have to put these lots onto the market.

[1:22:42] We have not done that. We have uh Dave

[1:22:45] has been speaking to various builders

[1:22:48] and apparently

[1:22:50] just in the last period of time uh last

[1:22:54] months he seems to be having much

[1:22:56] greater interest than he had two years

[1:22:58] ago when we started this process. So he

[1:23:01] is providing us with an ongoing update.

[1:23:05] But it seems that there are now rather

[1:23:07] than just one or two, there might be

[1:23:09] three or four builders who would be

[1:23:11] interested in taking up uh some of these

[1:23:15] lots once we get through the uh

[1:23:19] subdivision process, the engineering,

[1:23:21] the subdivision and the legal plan

[1:23:23] process. So if we are granted an

[1:23:27] approval and we start working on that

[1:23:29] next phase, we'll start to get a much

[1:23:31] better feel for what's uh exactly what

[1:23:34] the absorption might be for those lots.

[1:23:37] >> Okay. And uh councelor Nixon,

[1:23:40] » Okay. And uh councelor Nixon,

[1:23:40] >> I just had a question in regards to the

[1:23:42] » I just had a question in regards to the

[1:23:42] turnaround um for the temporary

[1:23:44] turnaround for the business portion. Why

[1:23:48] is it set so far in?

[1:23:50] Well, basically we we don't really want

[1:23:53] to build more road than we have to. If

[1:23:56] we have to wait, basically the access

[1:23:59] points for those two lots will come in

[1:24:02] the first half of their property and we

[1:24:04] would finish the uh the groundwork, the

[1:24:08] foundation and the surface paving as

[1:24:11] part of the ultimate extension. Um,

[1:24:14] basically it's just it's a timing and a

[1:24:17] cost uh a front ending. The industrial

[1:24:20] roads are much more expensive because of

[1:24:24] the weight requirements than the

[1:24:25] residential roads. So we're just trying

[1:24:27] to to minimize our frontending cost

[1:24:30] without any loss of efficiency for the

[1:24:32] users.

[1:24:36] » Okay. So I have a question for

[1:24:38] administration. Um there there's a

[1:24:41] request in the application to reduce the

[1:24:43] size of the business park I believe.

[1:24:48] >> Uh that is correct. That is the request

[1:24:49] » Uh that is correct. That is the request

[1:24:49] from from the applicant. So basically

[1:24:51] he's requesting that in order to have a

[1:24:54] taller burm he would require more land

[1:24:57] on that um second strip here that says

[1:25:00] SP for parks and recreation to allow

[1:25:04] that. And then so that means that these

[1:25:07] lots uh uh phase one and the future lots

[1:25:11] will be slightly

[1:25:13] smaller but um at the subdivision stage

[1:25:18] usually municipalities are allowed to um

[1:25:21] allowed uh 10% variance. So we have calc

[1:25:25] taking that into consideration and there

[1:25:27] is no issue with that.

[1:25:29] >> Okay thank you for that.

[1:25:32] » Okay thank you for that.

[1:25:32] Um, and uh

[1:25:36] the the last question I have just I'm

[1:25:38] curious. So, we're recommend or u the

[1:25:40] the council's being asked to look at a

[1:25:43] uh parks and wreck district, a PPR

[1:25:45] district. Um but there's a lot of

[1:25:48] discussion in the application about

[1:25:49] passive recreation. I'm just wondering

[1:25:51] why we would go PPR and not the parks

[1:25:54] and conservation district.

[1:25:56] >> Sure. Uh so uh PPR is is typically the

[1:26:00] » Sure. Uh so uh PPR is is typically the

[1:26:00] the one that we use for this type of

[1:26:02] thing. And the reason we don't use PPC,

[1:26:04] which is the parks and conservation

[1:26:05] district, is because this is typically

[1:26:07] used for lands that are sensitive in

[1:26:09] nature, something that we need to

[1:26:10] preserve, keep in its natural state. And

[1:26:13] so yes, recognizing it's still like

[1:26:14] passive and the the possibility for

[1:26:16] passive recreation that can still be

[1:26:18] allowed in parks and uh recreation,

[1:26:21] which is typically what we use for these

[1:26:22] types of things. So it's the sensitivity

[1:26:24] of land that lacks in this regard.

[1:26:26] That's why it's PPR. Okay. Thank you for

[1:26:30] that. Uh, councelor Fulton.

[1:26:32] >> Yes. Just back to the housing question

[1:26:35] » Yes. Just back to the housing question

[1:26:35] and you said multiple builders

[1:26:36] interested. Is there going to be any

[1:26:38] architectural controls

[1:26:40] implemented in throughout the project?

[1:26:42] Because I'm pretty sure you don't want

[1:26:44] to have a mobile home on one lot and a

[1:26:46] $2 million house on the next one. So,

[1:26:49] >> we will be uh looking at a an element of

[1:26:53] » we will be uh looking at a an element of

[1:26:53] architectural controls on the property.

[1:26:55] We have not uh set that up yet, but we

[1:26:58] do want to have some level of standard.

[1:27:02] Uh we likely will not be uh setting an

[1:27:05] architectural control that says all

[1:27:07] houses must be tutor style or colonial

[1:27:11] style. It's not going to be a level of

[1:27:14] architectural control, let's say,

[1:27:16] similar to some subdivisions which

[1:27:18] developers would do. But for sure we

[1:27:21] will be setting conditions when people

[1:27:23] purchase the lots for the forms uh of

[1:27:27] houses which they're able to put on and

[1:27:29] the sort of just a coordinated

[1:27:32] appearance of how that is going to be.

[1:27:34] We're also going to have to have things

[1:27:36] which we will be working on ourselves

[1:27:39] and you might have seen from the report

[1:27:41] uh controlling surface runoff um water

[1:27:46] on their own properties because water

[1:27:48] has to run over easements adjacent to

[1:27:50] properties. There's going to be a number

[1:27:51] of controls which we apply to those

[1:27:54] homeowners and that will be done in

[1:27:57] addition to the you know the exercising

[1:28:00] of the bylaw. But we not we will not be

[1:28:03] getting into an excessive number of

[1:28:06] controls on the property. But I do hear

[1:28:08] your point and we have exactly the same

[1:28:10] feeling.

[1:28:14] » Hey uh maybe just one last question for

[1:28:17] me on the open houses. So you had it

[1:28:19] looks like you had a fairly good turnout

[1:28:21] at your first open house and you did

[1:28:22] hold a second open house. Did you have

[1:28:24] good turnout at the second open house?

[1:28:26] >> Um

[1:28:28] » Um

[1:28:28] I guess it's a good news bad news. uh

[1:28:31] the the the turnout was disappointing

[1:28:33] from our point of view that we only had

[1:28:37] um sort of four households that were

[1:28:40] there. Uh the couple of a land couple of

[1:28:43] land owners from the south who were

[1:28:46] mostly concerned about storm water and

[1:28:48] spoke to Paul about that and I think

[1:28:50] there was two or three I think it was

[1:28:52] three households were represented out of

[1:28:55] our 21 neighbors. So we were a little

[1:28:58] disappointed. However, um all of this

[1:29:01] material of our changes had been ex had

[1:29:04] been sent to people a couple of times

[1:29:07] with the changes over the period of

[1:29:09] time. So, I'm assuming people were

[1:29:12] generally happy with what they were

[1:29:14] seeing which became our amendments. Uh

[1:29:17] the first open house we did have about

[1:29:19] 30 uh people attend. We have about 21 22

[1:29:23] neighbors. So, that's a quite a good

[1:29:26] representation. And so we were pleased

[1:29:28] by that. And as I mentioned in my

[1:29:31] presentation,

[1:29:32] the the comments that were made by the

[1:29:35] public were that they that directly

[1:29:38] resulted in our 40 meter minimum depth

[1:29:42] because the greatest issue they had was

[1:29:44] with the water. So I I feel that between

[1:29:47] the county and ourselves, we've been

[1:29:50] able to come up with a resolution to

[1:29:52] address their biggest concern.

[1:29:54] >> Thank you. So, I'll look to council to

[1:29:57] » Thank you. So, I'll look to council to

[1:29:57] see if there's any additional questions.

[1:30:00] Uh, councelor Nixon,

[1:30:01] >> sorry, I do just have one clarifying

[1:30:02] » sorry, I do just have one clarifying

[1:30:02] question. Um, throughout the agenda

[1:30:05] package, uh, there's different total

[1:30:08] amounts of acreages that are mentioned.

[1:30:10] Like one point says 51.23 and another

[1:30:14] part says 56 something something and

[1:30:16] something else says 62 something. What

[1:30:18] what's the actual total volume of the

[1:30:20] phase that we're looking at right now?

[1:30:23] Right through the chair uh phase one

[1:30:25] will be uh 51.23 acres more or less.

[1:30:29] Right. This is approximately.

[1:30:31] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:30:35] » Okay. There any additional if there's no

[1:30:37] additional questions I will ask if

[1:30:39] planning has any closing comments.

[1:30:43] >> No closing comments. Thank you.

[1:30:45] » No closing comments. Thank you.

[1:30:45] >> Thank you. And does the applicant have

[1:30:46] » Thank you. And does the applicant have

[1:30:46] any closing comments now that you've

[1:30:48] just went and sat? Um I we like to get

[1:30:50] steps in as well.

[1:30:52] >> Thank you. use of the applicant waves.

[1:30:55] » Thank you. use of the applicant waves.

[1:30:55] Um, so with that,

[1:30:58] uh, I will close the public hearing for

[1:31:01] bylaw number LU 0126

[1:31:04] and I will close the public hearing for

[1:31:06] bylaw number 0126.

[1:31:09] And we will take a um, a break until uh,

[1:31:13] 10:35.

[1:40:30] Okay. So, we will resume the special

[1:40:32] council meeting of March 12th. We have

[1:40:35] closed the public hearing uh for both uh

[1:40:39] the bylaw number LU0126

[1:40:41] and for bylaw number 0126.

[1:40:45] So I will look for a motion uh for

[1:40:48] second reading on bylaw number LU0126

[1:40:51] and then we can start the debate. Um

[1:40:53] councelor Lutz. So I move that council

[1:40:56] give second reading to bylaw number

[1:40:58] LU126

[1:40:59] redesating the lands within Southeast

[1:41:02] 33315

[1:41:04] and plan number 9210118

[1:41:07] block A.

[1:41:08] >> Thank you. And so not a debate, a

[1:41:10] » Thank you. And so not a debate, a

[1:41:10] discussion. I'll open the floor for um

[1:41:12] for any comments.

[1:41:16] Uh, councelor Lutz.

[1:41:19] So, because this is my area, I feel I

[1:41:22] should speak to it. Um,

[1:41:25] I would say there's a certain level of

[1:41:27] stakeholder fatigue. This area's been

[1:41:31] between the the highway and olds. I

[1:41:35] think there is a realization that there

[1:41:37] will be development. And I think um you

[1:41:40] look back at the background and how long

[1:41:42] these discussions have happened. Um I

[1:41:46] think we got a ton of feedback in the

[1:41:47] 2022 when it was the quarter to the

[1:41:50] east. Um you've done a lot of open

[1:41:53] houses. You've answered a lot of

[1:41:55] questions and I I I feel like um

[1:41:58] residents in the area have kind of just

[1:42:00] accepted the fact that sooner or later

[1:42:02] that area is going to close. Um, I hate

[1:42:05] losing farmland and you can't really

[1:42:07] pick better farmland than that. It's

[1:42:09] it's beautiful, but um, you can't stop

[1:42:12] growth and um, I I believe that if

[1:42:15] county sets policy um, we should follow

[1:42:18] our policies and have that

[1:42:20] predictability for for business so that

[1:42:22] they can um, take the risks and hire the

[1:42:25] experts and and do the work. And you've

[1:42:28] done really good work. I'm I'm happy to

[1:42:30] see um I wasn't allowed to council

[1:42:32] wasn't supposed to attend the the public

[1:42:34] open house. So um some of this

[1:42:36] information was new to me on Friday and

[1:42:38] I think you've done your best to address

[1:42:40] water well concerns with that special uh

[1:42:43] 40 meter and I appreciate that. It shows

[1:42:45] that you've listened and we definitely

[1:42:47] see other developers that um it's more

[1:42:49] of a checkbox exercises and they they

[1:42:51] don't mitigate concerns. So I do

[1:42:53] appreciate that. I think you've

[1:42:55] addressed the fire concerns. So, um I am

[1:42:58] going to support this.

[1:42:59] >> Thank you. Is there any other comments?

[1:43:01] » Thank you. Is there any other comments?

[1:43:01] Uh councelor Harris?

[1:43:03] >> Yeah. Um I'm generally not in favor of

[1:43:07] » Yeah. Um I'm generally not in favor of

[1:43:07] this type of in this quality of farmland

[1:43:10] being absorbed and turned into a

[1:43:12] development. Uh however, I agree with

[1:43:15] councelor Lutz. um you can't hold

[1:43:20] progress up um other than to ensure that

[1:43:26] um developers have done due diligence

[1:43:28] and that all that can be considered is

[1:43:31] considered including engagement with the

[1:43:33] with the people in the area. Um, I think

[1:43:36] as far as the location of it alongside

[1:43:39] 27 and next to a very um, popular

[1:43:44] amenity makes the most sense. Um, so

[1:43:48] I'll support it as well.

[1:43:50] >> Thank you. Is there any other additional

[1:43:51] » Thank you. Is there any other additional

[1:43:51] comments?

[1:43:53] >> No. Well, I also commend um,

[1:43:56] » No. Well, I also commend um,

[1:43:56] administration and the applicant for uh,

[1:43:58] for bringing forward possible solutions

[1:44:00] or a solution for addressing water

[1:44:03] concerns. I think that's uh that's not

[1:44:05] something we've seen before and I think

[1:44:06] that's a great um I think that's a great

[1:44:09] addition uh to this application.

[1:44:12] So if there's no uh no other comments

[1:44:15] then we have second reading on the

[1:44:16] floor. I will call to question. All in

[1:44:18] favor

[1:44:22] and opposed

[1:44:24] and that motion is carried.

[1:44:27] So I'll look for third reading for bylaw

[1:44:29] number 0 LU0126. Uh councelor Lutz. So I

[1:44:32] further move that council give third

[1:44:34] reading to bylaw number LU0126

[1:44:37] redesating the lands within Southeast

[1:44:39] 33315

[1:44:41] and plan number 921018

[1:44:44] block A.

[1:44:46] >> Thank you. Is there any discussion?

[1:44:49] » Thank you. Is there any discussion?

[1:44:49] I will call to question. All in favor

[1:44:55] and opposed.

[1:44:57] And that motion is carried.

[1:45:00] And so now we can move on uh to the

[1:45:02] changes to bylaw number 0126. I'll look

[1:45:05] for a motion, please. Councelor Harris,

[1:45:07] >> I'll move the council give second

[1:45:08] » I'll move the council give second

[1:45:08] reading to bylaw 01/26

[1:45:12] to amend the land use bylaws other

[1:45:14] development regulations within the

[1:45:17] country residential 1 district by adding

[1:45:20] well depth requirements for phase 1

[1:45:23] within the southeast of 3331

[1:45:26] west of the 5th.

[1:45:27] >> Thank you. Any discussion?

[1:45:32] Seeing none, I will call to question.

[1:45:34] All in favor

[1:45:37] and that motion is carried. Councelor

[1:45:39] Harris,

[1:45:40] >> I'll move the council give third reading

[1:45:42] » I'll move the council give third reading

[1:45:42] to bylaw 0126

[1:45:45] to amend the land use bylaws other

[1:45:47] development regulations within the

[1:45:49] country residential one district by

[1:45:51] adding well-d depth requirements for

[1:45:53] phase 1 within the southeast of 3331

[1:45:57] west of the 5th. Thank you. Any

[1:46:00] discussion?

[1:46:02] I'll call to question. All in favor?

[1:46:05] And that motion is carried. And we have

[1:46:08] one additional motion for the concept

[1:46:09] plan.

[1:46:11] >> Uh, councelor Nixon.

[1:46:13] » Uh, councelor Nixon.

[1:46:13] >> I would move that council approve the

[1:46:14] » I would move that council approve the

[1:46:14] concept plan for the entire quarter

[1:46:16] section in the southeast 3331 west of

[1:46:19] the 5th and plan 9210118

[1:46:22] block 8.

[1:46:23] >> Thank you.

[1:46:25] » Thank you.

[1:46:25] Is there any discussion? Councelor

[1:46:27] Lights,

[1:46:28] >> I'm just wondering to administration.

[1:46:30] » I'm just wondering to administration.

[1:46:30] Um, so there could be amendments to the

[1:46:33] concept plan in the next, you know,

[1:46:36] decade or whatever. How does that work?

[1:46:38] >> Yeah. So, uh, so today council's being

[1:46:40] » Yeah. So, uh, so today council's being

[1:46:40] asked to look at the concept plan that's

[1:46:41] presented today in the agenda package.

[1:46:43] Uh, if there was some changes to the

[1:46:45] concept plan with future phases, that is

[1:46:46] something that can be contemplated um at

[1:46:49] a future time.

[1:46:51] >> Thank you. As long as they meet the

[1:46:53] » Thank you. As long as they meet the

[1:46:53] densities in the MDP. Okay. Is there any

[1:46:56] further discussion on that motion?

[1:47:00] No. Okay. I will call to question. All

[1:47:02] in favor?

[1:47:06] Uh, sorry. All in favor

[1:47:08] and opposed. And that motion's carried.

[1:47:14] And I will look to Jeff. I believe that

[1:47:16] concludes uh all of the uh items on the

[1:47:20] agenda for today.

[1:47:21] >> Correct, Ree? That is the end of the

[1:47:22] » Correct, Ree? That is the end of the

[1:47:22] agenda.

[1:47:23] >> Thank you. And so with that, I will

[1:47:25] » Thank you. And so with that, I will

[1:47:25] adjourn the special council meeting of

[1:47:26] March 12th. Thank you everyone for

[1:47:28] coming.

Special Council - Public Hearing - 12 Mar 2026

Transcript