Testing. Testing.
Okay, welcome to the regular um or
welcome to the special council meeting
of March 12th. Uh we'll call the meeting
to order. Um
before I go into introductions, I'll
just uh ask everyone if they could
please tell uh turn their cell phones to
off as I do that myself.
Um,
and please note that the council
meetings are being livereamed, recorded,
and retained. All personal information
collected will be managed in accordance
with the access to information act. Uh,
and with that, I will start with
introductions, and I'll start with Jeff,
please.
>> Good morning, Jeff Holmes, chief
» Good morning, Jeff Holmes, chief
administrative officer.
>> Good morning, Jennifer Lutz, division 7
» Good morning, Jennifer Lutz, division 7
counselor.
>> Good morning, Peggy Johnson, division 6
» Good morning, Peggy Johnson, division 6
counselor. Good morning, Tiffany Nixon,
division 4.
>> Good morning, Angela Alers, division
» Good morning, Angela Alers, division
five and reef.
>> Good morning, Angela Look, division
» Good morning, Angela Look, division
three.
>> Morning, Greg Harris, division 2.
» Morning, Greg Harris, division 2.
>> Good morning, Dwayne Fulton, division
» Good morning, Dwayne Fulton, division
one.
>> Good morning, Laura Campman's, executive
» Good morning, Laura Campman's, executive
assistant.
>> Good morning, Abdullah Gonzalez,
» Good morning, Abdullah Gonzalez,
planner.
>> Good morning, Jessica Ross, assistant
» Good morning, Jessica Ross, assistant
director of planning and development
services.
>> Good morning, Shelley French
» Good morning, Shelley French
Communications.
>> Thank you. And before we um actually go
» Thank you. And before we um actually go
into the public hearing, maybe I'll just
give a little bit of an overview of our
bylaw number 0426. This is establishing
the procedure and the conduct of public
hearings. Um so there's quite a bit in
this but after I open the public hearing
uh we uh planning will do uh their um
presentation to council and then the
applicant or their agent will be
provided an opportunity to uh give
council new information and additional
information for procedural fairness. Uh
the applicant will be restricted on
their time uh in which they can do their
presentation. Following the applicant's
presentation, uh we will allow anyone in
the audience or online, anyone in the
gallery or online uh to address council.
They will be allowed five minutes to
address council and then uh council may
have additional questions afterwards. If
you are speaking on behalf of a group or
multiple parties that are not within
your household, please let me know as
the chair and then you'll be granted
additional time if you're speaking on
behalf of a group.
Um, all we ask is that when you come to
the mic, if you could just please state
and spell your name for the record. We
just want to make sure that we have the
minutes as accurately reflected as we
can. The mic will be live.
So, with that, we have an agenda in
front of us. Could I have a motion to
adopt the agenda? Since it is a special
meeting, we won't be taking any
additional agenda items. Uh, moved by
Councelor Nixon. I will call to question
all in favor.
And that motion is carried.
So we'll move on to item uh number 3.1.
So this is a a joint public hearing that
will deal with the redesations of lands
and that's bylaw number LU0126
as well as the amending as well as
amending the land use bylaw to insert a
provision of water wells specific to the
lands in question. So we will be doing a
joint public hearing today. So with
that, I will open both public hearings.
Um, so the bylaw number, this is for
bylaw number LU 0126
being a bylaw of Mountain View County in
the province of Alberta to amend land
use bylaw number 1024 affecting the
southeast 3331 West the 5th and plan
921018
block A pursuant to the municipal
government act as contained in the
agenda package. With that, I will open
the public hearing for that bylaw.
Bylawa number 0126, a bylaw of Mountain
View County in the province of Alberta
to amend the land use bylaw number 1024
to add section 12.2 country residential
one district other development
regulations subsection H as contained in
the agenda package. And with that, I
will open the public hearing on that
bylaw. With that, I will turn it over to
planning.
Thank you, Madam Chair. A staff
presentation begins on.
Mine's still working.
Yours are They're back on.
All
right, we're good again.
» Okay, here we go. The staff presentation
begins on page 1,26
of the agenda package. Greg Brown is the
applicant on behalf of AB Newfield and
two Alberta companies. The applications
are located within division 7.
This slide provides a summary of the
applications being presented for
council's consideration today. To the
left, the reesignation proposal involves
multiple reasses designations to allow
for a phase one mixeduse subdivision.
This includes residential, commercial,
industrial, and agree burn buffer
between the two. In the center, the
proposed textual amendment to section
12.2 of the line use bylaw. This
includes provisions requiring water
wells on residential lots to be drilled
at a specific depth. And to the right,
the proposed consent plan which provides
the full buildout of the quarter
section, including proposed facing and
servicing strategies.
The subject lands are located in the
rural community of Netuk between the
town of Ols to the west and the Q2 to
the east.
As seen on this slide, the area is
characterized by a mix of uses. This
includes large and a small agricultural
pursuits, the Ols golf course and a
multi-law residential developments to
the north, lands designated as business
industrial park to the east, and the
town of Ols and the Ols College to the
west and southwest.
The topography in this area is
relatively flat with gentle north to
south slopes not exceeding 4%.
Specifically on this quarter section
soils have Canada land inventory class
one rating with an aggressive land
suitability rating system class three.
The majority of the soils are considered
very good to excellent excellent arable.
There are no name water bodies or lakes
identified on this property.
The biohysical impact assessment
submitted in support of this application
include uh concludes that there are
three ephemeral water bodies and one wet
land on the property. As noted on this
report, any impact on these features
will require water act approval and
compensation in accordance with water
with um Alberta wetland policy.
Oil and gas facilities are limited to
natural gas lines currently servicing
residences in the area.
The phase one environmental site
assessment found no evidence of active
contamination from previous oil and gas
activity. However, to ensure no drilling
related waste is present, a soil
management plan will be required as a
condition of subdivision approval should
council approve these applications.
The historical aerial photographs from
2008 to the present demonstrate that the
subject lands remain an undeveloped
quarter section used for crop
production.
The proposed phase one will include 16
contra residential one lots, two
industrial business park lots, two parks
and recreation district lots, six public
utility lots along with internal roads,
temporary gravel roads and a road
widening. This totals 26 lots within
51.23
acres.
The exact number of subsequent
development beyond phase one remains
flexible. However, the long-term concept
envisions a total of 62 lots of which 45
are residential, six business
industrial, seven for storm water, and
four parks and recreation for a green
buffer featuring a BM for visual
screening and noise attenuation.
Phase one will be accessed via three
main internal subdivision roads directly
from Retro 12. The first internal road
provides access to the industrial
commercial lots and includes a temporary
gravel gravel turnaround. This road must
be dedicated as a service road and
constructed to county standards. The two
northern internal roads provide access
to the residential lots. They will be
connected by a temporary gravel surface
road and must also be constructed to
county standards. Range 12 will be
upgraded to an unrestricted road
standard from Highway 27 intersection to
the northern property line approximately
800 meters. As recommended by
operational services, a phase approach
to this upgrade will not be acceptable.
Future phases will require the extension
of these internal roads to county
standards.
Phase one proposes uh generally uh
drains to the east towards range road 12
while some western portions drain north
and west. The application proposes six
bio retention ponds located at the east
end of the internal roads and two
temporary dugouts within the remaining
agricultural lands. These ponds will be
within public utility lots.
As outlined in the concept plan,
development beyond phase one will
require the decommissioning of two
temporary dogouts and the construction
of a permanent permanent storm water
pond facility in the southwest corner.
While the applicant is proposing a chair
use arrangement for this facility with
the all's cold course, the county
reserves its position until the
applicant provides additional
information during future phasing
applications.
In accordance with the figure three of
the municipal development plan, the
proposal is within the highway 2 and 27
special policy area. This policy area is
a strategic location comparable to
economic nodes intended to direct future
higher density residential, commercial
and industrial development like this
application in order to minimize
premature conversion of agricultural
land elsewhere. The applicant has
prepared engineering studies for phase
one addressing servicing infrastructure
and storm management in compliance with
the municipal development plan.
The applicant submitted a groundwater
report as required by the water act to
avoid interference with neighboring
users drawing from shallow aquifers. All
residential wells for phase one
must be drilled to a minimum depth of 40
m.
Because the county does not typically
require wells to be drilled before
subdivision registration
and the water act does not require
approval for residential wells. The
applicant proposes incorporating this 40
meter requirement into section 12.2 of
the land use bylaw. This ensures future
development remains consistent with the
reports findings and protects integrity
of surrounding water wells.
regarding
the southern adjacent um lands adjacent
to Highway 27. And in order to provide
access to the industrial business park
lots, a 30 meter service road will be
required to be dedicated and be
constructed to county standards.
All entrances and exits for this
proposal will be directly from Range
Road 12. As confirmed, this road is
required to be upgraded to an
unrestricted road standard for
approximately 800 meters.
As confirmed in the concept plan, future
phases will require a storm water pond
to be constructed in the southwest
corner. The chair approach proposed by
the applicant with the old golf course
will be evaluated in the future once
more information is provided.
This is general location of the
ephemeral water body and the wetlands
identified on this property. As
indicated any impact of these features
requires water act approval and Alberta
wetland policy compensation.
This is a general view of the proposed
phase one adjacent to Range Road 12.
Based on county's policies and the
merits of the proposal, planning and
development recommends support for these
applications. The reassignation complies
with the highway 227 special policy area
and the textual amendment to the land
use bylaw provides the legislative power
to the approving authority to enforce
minimum water well depths. As a result,
these applications will have minimum
impact on the surrounding area. Thank
you. This concludes my presentation and
the applicant and his team are here to
answer any questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Does the applicant have any
» Thank you. Does the applicant have any
new or additional information they would
like to provide?
Good morning, Ree and counselors. My
name is Greg Brown. I'm one of the
owners and the applicant. Uh with me
today are most of the members of my
consulting team. I still have one that
might be on the road. Uh maybe. Okay.
So, I've put together uh our consulting
team that has worked on the various
studies. Uh so, with me today are Ken
Hugo as well as Elena Bleski or Felski,
our professional hydraologist who did
the groundwater and sewage treatment
work. Dave Watt, professional engineer,
uh municipal engineering. Bruce
Nelligan, Penge, who did our
transportation planning, had called us
and said he's uh just running a little
late. Paul Jacobs, Penge, a storm water
management plan. Steven Tannis,
uh, PhD, professional aologist,
biohysical work. Mark Lahar,
uh, professional geologist, soil and
land use history. Uh, Mark is online.
and I think he's out of the he's out of
the country at this time. Darby Henshaw,
registered public planner, uh public
engagement.
Uh Dave Hoggarth, uh worked with us on
our marketing, uh work and the demand
for the properties and he's not here at
this time and myself.
uh I will be the only presenter for our
team uh to just give an introduction of
a few additional facts related to uh the
application.
Um and then uh any questions can be
forwarded to uh any members of the team.
Um could I have the next slide on the
presentation? Uh this is just an outline
of the the comments that I'm going to be
making.
Uh our initial concept plan and
applications were refined after hearing
concerns and ideas by our neighbors at
our initial openhouse with the input of
the provincial and other referral
agencies and the helpful comments and
inputs from your county planners,
engineers, and administration.
groundwater and future wells. Our
neighbors very valid concerns for
maintenance of their ongoing wellwater
supplies led to our hydraologists
recommending a minimum 40 m well depth
for all future wells. These new wells
will draw water from aquifers below
those of our neighbors where which are
roughly 12 to 29 m below the surface.
The administration helped us with the
idea of a textual amendment to the
county land use bylaw, which will
require proof of a well having been
drilled to a minimum of 40 m before a
development permit is issued for future
residential development.
Sewage treatment. Due to seasonal high
water tables in some portions of the
quarter section, mounded septic
facilities will be required for all
future residential dwellings. These will
be built to provincial standards.
Storm water management.
Our meetings with Jason Cluston, course
superintendent, the golf club, helped us
with what seems to be a win-win scenario
for excess storm water. We proposed to
enable the golf club to use some of the
storm water from our storm water pond
during dry periods. The details of this
arrangement, which will require an
amendment to the water license for the
golf club, will be worked out with
Alberta Environment, the golf club, the
county, and Paul of our storm of storm
water solutions as part of the more
detailed engineering in the phase 2 land
use and subdivision applications.
Transportation impact assessment. Our
transportation impact assessment was
accepted by Alberta Transportation.
It indicates that even after full
development of the concept plan and
steady growth of traffic along Highway
27, no improvements to the Range Road 12
and Highway 27 intersection will be
required other than an intersection
delineation light required in roughly 20
years.
service road along Highway 27.
Alberta Transportation indicated that a
frontage or service road with a future
opportunity for connection to the west
was required along Highway 27 to control
commercial access. This design feature
has the added benefit of providing an
attractive front of business appearance
to the industrial commercial area for
all users of Highway 27 and a desirable
advertising and exposure opportunity for
all future businesses.
Burm and signage notice of the concept
plan. A burm and linear open space is
proposed as a transition and a noise and
visibility buffer between the commercial
industrial uses and the country
residential uses. The proposal is for a
3.7 meter 12.1 ft high burm built to
county standards. The integration of a
linear open space between the
residential lots and the burm will
encourage residents to exercise, walk
their dogs and meet each other in
attractive naturalized setting. Use of
this open space uh opportunity will help
enhance users health and well-being.
Adjacent to the Burm and Range Road 12,
we propose a large and I quote like a
buyer take notice sign indic indicating
to all future lot buyers that the
concept plan for this quarter section
includes commercial industrial uses
fronting on Highway 27 as well as
country residential lots. We will also
require all buyers to sign an
acknowledgement of this concept plan and
situation when purchasing a lot.
Certainly, no one wants future residents
to be surprised after they move in about
any future commercial industrial uses
south of the Burm adjacent to Highway
27.
Temporary wetlands.
We propose to have Steven and Tannis
Conservation deal with Alberta
environment and the seasonal wetland and
ephemeral or temporal wetlands in a
manner consistent with the water act
approval for wetland disturbance.
Soil and land use history.
While there is no identified soil
contamination
due to the short-lived oil gas well
drilled in 1978,
to be cautious, Mark and Bofrost
proposes to prepare a soil management
plan that provides guidance to all
parties parties disturbing soil in the
vicinity of the decommissioned well to
make sure that if any unexpected
drilling related waste is encountered,
that it is handled properly.
Range road 12 asphalt overlay. We
propose to provide an asphalt overlay
over the current 75% load limit roadway
on range road 12 in order to make it an
unrestricted
county road enabling 100% weight loads.
This will preserve and enhance the
county's investment in providing a high
standard roadway to existing residents,
users of the golf club as well as future
residents and commercial industrial
users and customers.
Cost responsibility of the developer. We
want to reinforce and confirm the
administration report comments that we
will be responsible for all costs
associated with making phase one one and
all future phases ready the build.
So in conclusion,
uh we would like to thank the
administration for working with us
throughout the planning application
process to help us propose a plan that
is consistent with the county vision and
objectives for the highway 2 and 27
special policy area in the MDP.
We are pleased to propose and seek
approval for a balanced, efficient, and
coordinated growth plan that
accommodates growth in the county and
leverages the area's strategic assets,
primarily the Olds Golf Club and the
Highway 27
transportation corridor, all in a manner
that is appropriate for the quarter
section and respects and preserves the
ground groundwater. water supplies of
our neighbors and their wells.
So that is the conclusion of my
presentation. Uh my consulting team and
I are prepared to answer any questions
you might have either now or at at a
point in the public hearing.
>> Uh thank you Mr. Brown. So we'll go um
» Uh thank you Mr. Brown. So we'll go um
uh we'll ask if there's anyone in the
gallery that would like to speak and
then we'll go online and I'm sure
council will have questions for you and
your team.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Uh so uh we'll move to the next portion
of the public hearing. So we'll start
with anyone who is in the gallery that
wants to speak in favor or in opposition
and then we will move to online. Any of
those wishing to speak online once I ask
the question if you could raise your
virtual hand then we will make sure that
administration um unmutes you and you're
able to speak. So I'll first ask if
there's anyone in the gallery that would
like to speak uh in favor of this
application.
Is there anyone in the gallery who would
like to speak in opposition to this
application?
» Like
>> uh would you like to please come to the
» uh would you like to please come to the
um come to the mic and uh state and
spell your name for the record, please?
>> Uh my name is Jason Ken. CL L O S T O N.
» Uh my name is Jason Ken. CL L O S T O N.
I'm the superintendent of the Olds Golf
Course. I'm in I'm here primarily to
acknowledge that there's agreement in
principle to man help new roast and Greg
Brown manage their storm water. Uh and
that is pretty much um why I'm here to
support them. So if you have any
questions for me as regarding the old
golf course, I can certainly answer
those.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Clusen. Thank
» Thank you very much, Mr. Clusen. Thank
you. So I'll ask one more time if
there's anyone in the gallery who would
like to either speak in favor or in
opposition to this application.
Okay. So, I'll move to online. Is there
anyone online who would like to speak
either in favor or in opposition to this
application? And if you could please
raise your virtual hand, we'll make sure
we unmute you.
Okay. So, seeing no one online who wants
to speak in favor or in opposition, I
will open the floor uh for council to
ask questions. Uh to administration, uh
the applicant in their team or um since
no one spoke in favor or in opposition,
uh we're looking for questions for the
applicant or administration.
Councelor Johnson.
Um I have a couple of questions perhaps
for the applicant. Yes, please go ahead.
Thank you. Um thanks for uh both to
planning and to the applicant for their
uh presentations. Um I see in the
extensive uh report that uh the top soil
um is class one or aggressed class 3 and
uh ranges from a depth of 2 to 3 m which
is equivalent to 8 to 12 in. My
understanding from looking uh at the uh
studies that were done is that um a
large amount of this top soil is going
to be piled up into a burm and I'm
wondering if that's the best use of the
top soil.
Uh our our proposal as we develop is to
just use the top soil um from the roads
that we are building. uh the top soil
off of the pond as well as all the roads
and then ultimately
um not initially but certainly
ultimately the top soil off the
industrial lots will be available for
that use. And so we will be using top
soil from those areas uh on the up the
outside or the upper portions of the
burm. Uh we still will have some top
soil in excess. Uh but all of the top
soil that that is on the lots will be
retained on the lots for the residents
to incorporate into their property
development.
>> Thank Yes. Go ahead.
» Thank Yes. Go ahead.
>> Thanks. An unrelated second question.
» Thanks. An unrelated second question.
Um, one of the other documents uh in the
package suggested that um the fire
department was concerned that the
permanent uh fire suppression water
supply won't be built until phase two.
Um I was wondering if you could speak to
that concern please.
>> Uh that is correct. I mean the we did
» Uh that is correct. I mean the we did
meet we've spoken to the county about
fire and the timing of the pond uh as
well as the fire chief ins
uh we are located very close to the town
of SS and he indicated even when that
storm pond is available most likely they
will be just moving trucks if there was
the fire emergency that they would be
moving trucks back and forth between in
the town and um our particular site. But
you are correct, we are not providing
this storm pond until phase two and but
we are hopeful that in this phasing uh
that we will only be sort of three to
four years
uh in an ideal world only two to three
years away from uh building the
remainder of this plan after phase one.
Part of the reason for the phasing of
the development is we want to understand
the exact market and we want to keep as
much of the land in agricultural
production for as long as it's not
needed for the particular development
itself and we'll be we'll be creating
that effort. So uh it's it's correct the
pond will not be available until our
second phase or an emergency use. Um,
but the fire chief, I just wanted to
share that with you. In in his
conversation as we were talking about
setting up the proper access uh adjacent
to the pond for possible use, he'd also
indicated that, you know, he felt the
proximity to the town was going to
result in a fairly limited use of that
pond,
likely limited use.
>> Thank you. And maybe just to follow up
» Thank you. And maybe just to follow up
to administration on that, I see that uh
the fire department did send in a letter
of concern in the first round, but they
did not send in a letter of concern on
the second SEC circulation. Um was there
a ration? Did they did they note whether
or not they still had the same concerns
or were their concerns alleviated or did
they just not send in um a a second
response?
>> No. In the second round, they didn't
» No. In the second round, they didn't
have the same concerns as uh Greg um had
indicated. Um the applicant uh confirmed
that there will be an area there for for
the trucks to get access um in the
southeast pond in the southwest pond and
that uh they will be able to truck in
water if there is uh any fires.
>> Okay, thank you for that. Is there any
» Okay, thank you for that. Is there any
additional questions? Uh councelor
Harris,
>> Mr. Brown you in your plan for those
» Mr. Brown you in your plan for those
commercial/industrial
lots. Um industrial is
includes a wide variety of of things.
Some of them could be very heavy water
users. Um what when you're talking
industrial what exactly are you talking?
I I think uh
we uh are applying for the um IBP the
the low sort of you know the lower
intensity industrial use. Um my
understanding is any user uh of the
properties uh potential user has to get
their permit for water use from the
province. they'll need a specific um a
specific license to operate based on
their water use. So, anyone that is
deemed by the province to be asking for
an excessive use of water, if it is not
available in their testing or in the
work that is being done through the our
hydraologists, but mostly the provincial
ones would not be granted approval on
this site. So it is the it is really the
provincial control of that water
license. Every industrial commercial
user must get that license from the
province and and justify a proposed use.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Yes. Please go ahead, Mr. Harris.
» Yes. Please go ahead, Mr. Harris.
>> Um
» Um
>> Councelor Harris,
» Councelor Harris,
>> I'm concerned a little bit that we have
» I'm concerned a little bit that we have
other industrial parks nearby that are
that are not full.
Um, so I'm wondering what's going to
happen if those do not attract
um, buyers.
What's your plans for that land? Well,
as you can see by the plan, we are only
proposing a stub uh frontage road onto
our property, enabling us to have one
retail or commercial property under the
2.5 acres and one of the sort of
commercial industrial properties of 5
acres. So if it takes a long time or it
takes a medium amount of time, those
lands will remain in agricultural
production all of the land other than
what is in phase one. We will only sell
those and extend that frontage road as
we see a demand. Uh I did notice this
year uh that the Nuk Business Park there
there was quite a bit of activity
happening over the last year in that
park. So those although that property
has been developed and available over a
number of years, it is start it is
starting to fill up and the property to
the southeast of this that was granted
approval in the last couple of years has
not started development. So, we intend,
we feel that this frontage along Highway
27 is appropriate in the long-term
ultimate use to be industrial, but we
are leaving or we are deliberately
leaving it as an agricultural use until
there is an opportunity to sell the
lots. So we may extend this industrial
property in one phase or possibly two
phases so we can keep the ongoing
production agricultural production as
whole as possible.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Uh councelor LS I had a kind of a series
» Uh councelor LS I had a kind of a series
of water related questions. Um and I'm
not sure if we could speak to the
hydraologists that would be great.
And if I could just get you to state and
spell your name for the record if you
don't mind, please.
>> I'm I'm Ken Hugo, HUGO. I'm a
» I'm I'm Ken Hugo, HUGO. I'm a
professional geologist with APA and we
did the groundwater and the septic field
studies for this project.
>> Thank you, Councelor Lutz. So, um I am
» Thank you, Councelor Lutz. So, um I am
the division uh counselor for the area.
So, I've definitely heard from residents
that water is a big concern and I I like
what you've done on mitigating some of
those concerns. I think that's great. Um
just water quality um does it impact
much when it goes deeper to to the um
beyond the 40 m um work's been done to
make sure that the water quality is
going to be good.
>> We have installed a through the through
» We have installed a through the through
the reef. We have installed a a water
well on the site so we know the aquifer
is there and the water quality is
acceptable. This is actually the same
aquifer that was previously the town of
old's uh water supply a long time ago.
So it's it's uh it might take you know
it depends upon the treatment. There
might be some treatment for like high
iron comes in from various wells but
overall it's it's acceptable for for
drinking water purposes.
>> And is there any um what would the risk
» And is there any um what would the risk
be for co-mingling or communication
between aquifers? Um
>> um for for the commercial wells, Alberta
» um for for the commercial wells, Alberta
environment requires um that you can't
you can't co-mingle aquifers has to be
just a single aquifer source for the
domestic wells that's that's um it is
possible to do that still um their needs
domestic aer or domestic demands are are
are modest enough um you get by on two
or three gallons per minute um so that
uh the aer below the at the 40 meter
depth should be enough to supply uh
domestic needs as well. It's it's
suitably productive for that. So, it's
uh we can't say every we know about
every well in the area, but generally
we're you know we're fairly confident
that that just a single aquifer will be
used and and the drillers um the
drillers have to take uh have to take
efforts to seal off any upper aquifers
uh in the well either through surface
casing or grouting. So there's no
there's no migration down the well boore
and no coming and going should should
happen.
>> So I've heard um in that particular
» So I've heard um in that particular
farmland that there's definitely been
wet spots and um
some people feel that with the town of
olds losing water so much um that that
was a spot that actually water was was
going to from all their pipeline leaks
and and losing so much water. I guess
the big question I've heard from
residents is if water wells are
impacted, who ends up holding the bag?
Um
I I've heard with different residents
that um um their water wells aren't
super strong or super great that there
are times that um the water um uh
quantity isn't there. So in your opinion
and and this could be an administration
question too. If there is an impact of
water, what do we do about it?
>> That's it's a complicated question
» That's it's a complicated question
because frequently when people's wells
aren't producing as much, it's not a
function of the aquifer being damaged.
It's usually their well usually their
well has deteriorated or their pumping
system. So that would be you I can't I
can't say if somebody's well go dry.
It's due the neighbors. we have, you
know, it's more of an investigation to
see is the acquer actually drying up or
is just a well. Um, despite what they
say, wells often do have a life
expectancy. Um, it can vary. It can go
forever, but it that you know the first
step would be is is the well
productivity itself um bad? Um it is
possible to um and then actually the
data is available to do testing of the
well prior to development if somebody
has specific concern and see what their
well productivity is and and then if
they come back later and say uh our well
is not as good we can we can go back and
say well your aer has been drying up or
or no your well is just it's being
plugged with biological or chemical
infrustation. So, so if there's somebody
has specific concern, we can do like
it's called a baseline water well test
which your oil patch does a lot. Uh we
wouldn't do quite as much as the oil
patch wouldn't test for dissolved gases
for instance, but basically the same
thing. It establishes the the
productivity of a well prior to whatever
development is in the area.
>> So maybe just for administration, um we
» So maybe just for administration, um we
don't give out the water licenses. So at
the end of the day, if there is impacts
to water wells, who's on the hook for
it? Is it the individual land owner or
who looks after them?
>> Well, through the chair, I think the the
» Well, through the chair, I think the the
reality in this scenario given the
density that's being proposed is we
required uh a specialist to prove that
there is a water or capable water source
for that amount of lots. Um who's
holding the the responsibility? I mean,
essentially, if if it's proven that
there's water, we trust the system
that's in place. Um, I think like Mr.
Hugo mentioned, there's a variety of
things that could affect the water um,
availability
uh, on site. Um,
the Alberta government gives us the the
amount that could be used residentially
um, and permitted that way. Uh, it's a
hard one to answer because maybe maybe
it isn't the the quantity, maybe it is
something that's, you know, maintenance
related. I I Yeah. So maybe it just as a
process question, who would get that
complaint? So would it come to the
municipality or would it go to Alberta
Environment?
>> It would go to Alberta Environment.
» It would go to Alberta Environment.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Thank you.
Um so while I've got the hydraologist
up, I may as well just ask a few
questions on water as well. So um can
you just explain how the depth of the
well I think you've already alluded to
this but how the depth of the well um
would ensure uh that there was no
drawing from the aquifer above. So we've
put in this this um we're we're
recommending administration is
recommending with the applicant support
uh 12.2 to be included in how how does
that uh how does that limit
>> uh we do have some exhibits that were
» uh we do have some exhibits that were
put together for our open houses and I
wonder if the administration could pull
that up. It was in the uh the 20
graphics that we had submitted after the
last open house and there were um
there were graphics of the
uh aquifers that were sitting below the
>> cross-sections that describe the um the
» cross-sections that describe the um the
nature. There's the aquifers in the area
all the pascapoo formation consists of a
series of sandstones and shells and the
shells are are generally um relatively
almost impermeable u and the upper to
get the graphics I could uh
>> I think we have them in our agenda
» I think we have them in our agenda
package as well. Um so you're look are
you just looking for the cross-sections?
>> That's right.
» That's right.
>> Okay. So, we have cross-sections and
» Okay. So, we have cross-sections and
they're not great, but on page 47 and
50, I think we have um if you go to page
47 of the agenda package or 50 of the
agenda package
>> 1237. Okay.
» 1237. Okay.
>> Yeah, simplified. Carry on.
» Yeah, simplified. Carry on.
>> Yeah, there's a few more detailed ones
» Yeah, there's a few more detailed ones
that uh even Okay, those ones there.
>> Yeah. Mhm.
» Yeah. Mhm.
>> Um if you look at that the cross-section
» Um if you look at that the cross-section
on the right, all the wells on the on
the right side of that show the existing
uh existing wells that have they get
their their um their water from silty
shells or sandstones and then there's a
a thicker more uh uh shell layer uh and
our wells is in the lower sandstone. So
there's a separation of a shell layer um
between the upper units and the lower
units. And if you look at the little
triangles on those those lines there,
they signify the water levels. And you
can see in most cases or almost all
cases, the water levels in the upper
aquifers are much higher than than our
our well in our site is on on the left
side is a lot higher. So most wells are
are um and we can tell from those
different water levels that those are
separate aquifers and separated. Um so
the well that was that we installed it's
it's it's sufficiently productive to
provide uh water for 400 houses for
instance. Um so it's it's quite
productive.
>> Okay. So um we we've moved to a
» Okay. So um we we've moved to a
different question but I'll follow up on
this one then. So you've talked about
that the those two aquifers are not
hydraulically connected. Um but you
looked at static water levels and you've
looked at cross-sections. Did you do any
kind of a um a draw down test? Did you
put anything in the neighboring wells
when you did your pump test on the on
the lower aquifer?
>> Uh no. The uh the test that we did it's
» Uh no. The uh the test that we did it's
um it's we can do I usually recommend
that an observation wall be 50 to 150
meters away to see a response in the in
the time of a test. So So we can um you
know we probably we wouldn't have seen a
response anyways. I think at the
distances of the neighbors. Uh so that
um that I mean we could have done that
but I I I think our results would have
been pretty sure our results would have
been inconclusive with respect to that.
Um it also requires it also the
disadvantage also requires that the
neighboring wells they can't be pumping.
Um so we would had to shut down you know
all like quite a few wells to to have an
effective observation well. the effect
of pumping from the neighbors would have
over would have been over would have
overridden any effect from our our
pumping test. Um when it's uh if when
they're licensed wells there is a
requirement to um more and more of a
requirement to measure water levels in
in the wells or in observation wells uh
to to see whether the the the water
level in the aquifer is changing.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Not a requirement for domestic but but
» Not a requirement for domestic but but
quite often requirement for the
commercial wells. Okay. And maybe I'll
go to administration, then I'll come
back just with my last question. So, um,
the addition of of 12.2H,
uh, can you just tell us what the
purpose of of the addition is meant to
address?
>> So, we're referring to the land use
» So, we're referring to the land use
bylaw change, the
>> the minimum of 40 meters.
» the minimum of 40 meters.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> So, uh, administration went back and
» So, uh, administration went back and
forth, um, as Mr. Brown mentioned to try
to figure out a way to uh best deal with
uh uh lessening the effect um or
limiting the effect of the adjacent land
owners as far as water well depth. Um
and so the intent of that is if there is
a is that if they drill the well at the
the distance specified that it would
have a limited negligible effect the
adjacent land owners. So when we looked
at um and worked with Brandon Associates
and looked at Mr. Hugo's uh technical
study, the recommendation in the
conclusion was to go at the 40 meters um
minimum to lessen the effect on the
adjacent land owners. So the intent is
you cannot build a house until you have
proved that your water is coming from a
specific aquifer.
>> Okay. And then maybe I'll just go back.
» Okay. And then maybe I'll just go back.
So can you explain to us and maybe it's
in the way the well is completed or such
but could you explain to us how the
minimum depth of 40 m actually addresses
the impact of not drawing from the upper
aquifer as versus the lower aquifer
>> between the uh the shells which don't
» between the uh the shells which don't
allow any or don't allow much comm you
know geological terms they do but um uh
they don't allow much communication
between the upper aquifer and the lower
aquifer. Um that's that's one barrier.
So we can draw we can we can draw water
from one aquifer and not affect the the
other aquifer whether it's drawing from
the upper aquifer not affecting the
lower one or vice versa. The well
completion designs um they are required
to have uh to seal off the upper zones
either through either they they put
steel surface casing uh through the
upper zones or else they'll they'll put
down a liner which is they put grout
like clay grout around the outside of
the liner above the perforated zones. So
we don't have any water flowing from
those those upper sandstones down the
well uh and then being pumped out by the
well. So the the design of the dwell is
is is is meant to minimize cross
formational flow they call it.
>> Okay. So just so I just so I'm fully
» Okay. So just so I just so I'm fully
understanding this if you drill the well
to a certain depth you cannot complete
the upper aquifer you have to complete
only the lower aquifer. Am I
understanding that correct? for that is
a in the directive the groundwater
directive for commercial wells that is
you can only have the lower aquifer and
then for and it's also that's part of
the the the bylaw for for this one is
that you cannot complete any any get any
production out of the upper aquifers um
for domestic wells that uh you wouldn't
in this in this practically in this case
because the lower aquifer is so
productive you wouldn't you wouldn't
bother having a multiple multiple
aquifer zone
uh besides uh water flowing down the
well, there's potential for adverse
chemical interactions between two zones.
So, it's not good practice anyways to
have uh they just do it they do it in
domestic wells if if they have a bunch
of zones that are like half gallon a
minute and they'll string together, you
know, four or five zones to get a two or
three gallon a minute well. Uh but it's
like I say, that's only allowable in
domestic situations. uh here if we say
there's there's uh the acquer zone has
to be below 40 meters that means they
have to seal off any any zone they might
encounter that is productive above the
40 meter depth.
>> Okay. So in your opinion uh this
» Okay. So in your opinion uh this
condition of having wells having to be
deeper than 40 mters addresses the issue
of not being able to coingle.
>> Yes. Yes. Okay. and and we've done that.
» Yes. Yes. Okay. and and we've done that.
We recommend that for other projects too
that you know if there's a potential for
uh you know interactions with upper
zones you know especially the oil patch
um if there's a good zone you know for
their frack walls or whatever for the
fracking bondages are enormous we say
it's good to go even way more than 40
meters so it's it's it's a it's a fairly
common uh practice that we we go for we
uh separate aers than other people are
using.
>> Okay. Yes. M just I I just like to add
» Okay. Yes. M just I I just like to add
and and follow up on administration's
comment. We uh the recommendation for
the depth came from the hydraologists
and and their assessment of the
situation that we're facing. But really
the the the requirement to change the
bylaw is because the county is not able
to control when they issue a building
permit or development permit. they can't
control under your bylaw
where people drill their well. So the
the idea came forward that in this
particular area that that there would be
a specification and we we accepted that
even though someone is not you know they
do not have a permit on their own
property that we agreed that a well
should be drilled before they even
approach uh getting the permit and it
must be proven just to make sure someone
doesn't get the county permit. Then
they, you know, we tell them to do it.
They say they're going to do it and
ultimately they drill it and they drill
into this other aquifer. And we said,
"No, let's make sure what's our
ironclad. Make sure and that is drill
the well, get it below 40 m, then come
and talk to us about build building your
house."
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> That ensures that it happens.
» That ensures that it happens.
>> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Lutz.
» Okay. Thank you, Councelor Lutz.
>> Just a a quick followup on the baseline
» Just a a quick followup on the baseline
testing. If a landowner wanted to do
that, um what's the cost for that? And
is it something that the developer would
um
help the land owner do or are they on
their own dollar to do baseline testing?
>> The costs are less than $1,000.
» The costs are less than $1,000.
And I'll leave it up to Greg to say um
whether he'd be
comfortable with
>> and and it's it's usually done it's all
» and and it's it's usually done it's all
it's it'll be done by a local licensed
water well driller. the pumping test and
the groundwater sample collection.
>> And Mr. Brown, I'm just wondering if the
» And Mr. Brown, I'm just wondering if the
land owners would be responsible to
cover those costs on their own or if the
developer would help them basing
the permission, but they would also
greatly bet if they've already had
problems with their wells in the last
few years. It's certainly not our
development. They've got, as was stated,
some likely problem,
>> but perhaps we could assist with half of
» but perhaps we could assist with half of
that testing cost and then let them
decide what to do with their existing.
>> And then just a question for
» And then just a question for
administration. Um, did we check with
law on this bylaw if it's um we'll get
our hands slapped because of provincial
overreach or uh because we don't
regulate water. So, um, we've checked
that out that we are not going to get in
trouble with the province.
>> Yeah. Through the chair, um, this was,
» Yeah. Through the chair, um, this was,
uh, a big discussion as we've mentioned
between us. Um, and yes, we do have the
ability to ask for additional
information to essentially facilitate
um, a development on a site. And so,
this is acceptable as a condition. It's
a, if you read the wording, it's a says
prior to issuance of the development
permit. So, it's a condition of a
development permit, which we are
absolutely allowed to do.
Thank you. Is there any additional
questions? So, I'll go to councelor
Nixon and then councelor Falton. Um,
just as far as that aquifer goes, the
lower aquifer, are we very certain that
every lot will be able to hit that
aquifer or are there some lots that
maybe will not don't have access to that
aquifer? And then what happens uh
planning maybe could answer that part of
the question. What happens with a
building permit?
>> Um,
» Um,
yes, in every every development, we're
not sure until you drill the well.
uh we're fairly confident uh even this
one we've encountered if that's not
there there's likely to be other backers
40 40 mters is not uh is not a terrible
depth they you know typical not typical
but they they can go up to 500 ft 150 m
so if the sacker is not there it' be not
great because it' be more expensive to
go deeper but there is potential uh if
this one's not there to find deeper ones
also
>> so so that the well driller going out on
» so so that the well driller going out on
the site would go down. He must be below
40 m. If he can't find water at 40, I
guess he drills the well to 45 and he
drills the well to 50, you know, looking
for uh that aquafer that ultimately he
must get, but he cannot go above 40
meters.
>> Thank you, councelor Fton.
» Oh, sorry. I thought that I thought that
answered. Go ahead. Part one. Part two.
What happens if they can't find it? um
certainly said through the chair they um
if they can't find water then they do
not have a development on that lot. Uh
that's the reality of of how this is set
up. Uh it is the responsibility of the
land owner to to get that water but as
Mr. Hugo said it's 40 minimum so they
can go deeper. Yes, it's more expensive
but uh that is that minimum threshold.
>> Okay. Thank you councelor Fton.
» Okay. Thank you councelor Fton.
So my my question is have you guys
consulted with the town of Ols uh seeing
and how your property west property is
west property line is only a half a mile
now from the town of prop uh boundary.
So we're aware of the proposed data
center that will be a neighbor to the
northwest of you. So presumably that
there will be
uh deep services provided in somewhere
in that area. So have you consulted with
them on the on the future plans of of
the towns coming out on 27 or on the
quarter to the north or the half to the
north sorry and the potential of when
connections to municipal water and
wastewater may be available.
>> We have not consulted with the town on
» We have not consulted with the town on
that issue. uh we started uh we've been
on these lands for 15 years now and
we've been working with the county
policies and so we're following the
county policy and uh we're interested of
course in what happens although I note
in the news in the last week this data
center was uh refused but doesn't mean
they won't come back but I I think we
feel uh it's not incumbent on the town
to give us access or where it might
come. But with the overall with the
densities that are allowed in the 2 and
27 in the municipal development plan
that pipe servicing would be very uh
financially not feasible and uh so we we
didn't pursue it. We are following the
current policies and feel that this
program of having each lot have their
own well have their own septic field
matches what we see as the objectives of
the county.
>> Thank you. Uh councelor Fulton followup.
» Thank you. Uh councelor Fulton followup.
>> Just one one quick followup. So uh so at
» Just one one quick followup. So uh so at
full buildout you' be 45 domestic wells.
So what what is the cost to drill a well
now per to get to at least 40 meters?
What what's the cost now to drill?
>> I have an upside figure that he uses
» I have an upside figure that he uses
$100 a foot. So it'd be about $12,000
for just the well um upside per lot. Um
that doesn't include the the pump
installation or tie into the house. But
but 10,000 12,000 is is per well. And
just uh on our well that we drilled for
on this quarter to test things. I think
the total well driller bill to us was
about $15,000
>> all in.
» all in.
>> Okay. Yes. Council.
» Okay. Yes. Council.
>> So and then read extensively your the
» So and then read extensively your the
mound idea for the septic. Uh do you
have a base idea baseline idea of what a
septic mound would cost now? because the
cost of septic systems uh is seems to
has increased quite dramatically over
time that we've had in other
applications that people have had to
change from a open discharge to a mound
or a field system and the costs seem to
be quite large in in those reported
instances. So just curious as to what
you would propose or potential would be
to do mounds, you know, 45 mounds at at
buildout um
>> would be how much per moundish?
» would be how much per moundish?
>> I'm not well actually I'm not too
» I'm not well actually I'm not too
familiar with the cost for the septic
field. I people have told me the cost of
mounds versus a conventional uh you know
blow grade system is not much different.
Um, and so some some installers they
they've told me that mounds are, you
know, they they don't they don't mind
doing them. Uh, I mean, in terms of cost
and and effort, it's not it's not much
different, but uh maybe it didn't it
probably would be a bit more, but when
you add factor in all the tanks and the
pumps and the distribution systems, the
the mound system, the extra sand and
stuff is that's
>> what would be 10 to 15,000
» what would be 10 to 15,000
>> more. Um, yeah, I'd think even less than
» more. Um, yeah, I'd think even less than
that. But
>> I was just asking since you asked for a
» I was just asking since you asked for a
number and Ken didn't give you a number
whether it was 10 to 15,000
to do that septic mound and
>> versus a conventional system. Yeah, it
» versus a conventional system. Yeah, it
might be 10,000 more.
>> Okay. Uh, councelor Harris.
» Okay. Uh, councelor Harris.
>> Um, just a procedural one for planning.
» Um, just a procedural one for planning.
Um, under our recommendations,
uh, and the changes to the land use
bylaws, other reg we're only including
phase one. Is there a reason we're not
including the whole project?
>> Yeah, so uh through the chair, we're
» Yeah, so uh through the chair, we're
including phase one at this time because
that's what we're in front of you today
asking for. Uh when and if phase 2,
three, however it gets built out in the
future, uh that will then be a textual
amendment that would be required um
later on. We go through the same process
again.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh councelor Johnson,
» Uh councelor Johnson,
>> back to the water question. Do we know
» back to the water question. Do we know
what the recharge source is for the
recommended aquifer that's 40 meters?
>> Uh yes, it's it's they've done studies
» Uh yes, it's it's they've done studies
using various isotopes and stuff in in
the aquifers in Alberta and the recharge
of these is very very slow like out
hundreds to thousands of years. So, it's
basically like all all of our bedrock
aquifers, not not our maybe our gravel
aquifers next to a river, but basically
um basically it's it's a it's mining uh
the groundwater. We're uh the volumes we
take out of the there's an observation
wall network in uh in Alberta um that
Alberta environment has. We're not
lowering the water table or not
dewatering too many aquifers, you know,
but mostly because our our water demands
for domestic and our our industrial is
uh is is modest or small. It's the
agricultural guys that dewater the
aquifers and we don't due to the we
don't have either the the aers are not
sufficient productivity or quality is
not good enough or or the demand isn't
there. But if we if we had them we would
be have you know acryer dewatering in
Alberta quite a bit if if we use them
for irrigation. But we generally don't.
Um and and I haven't seen, you know,
looking at the changes in water levels
with time with in acreage areas. I see
very little if any decline in water
levels. Um it's it's a slow recharge
process. There's some that goes on and
and since the demand isn't very much,
it's it's quite sustainable.
>> Is the source like the
» Is the source like the
>> No, the source is source is is is
» No, the source is source is is is
probably local area. So, so the
advantage with the water wells is if if
there's a if there's even drought, even
a long-term drought, uh the our
groundwater is more sustainable than
surface water, um like a 10-year
drought, for instance. Uh obviously,
we'll have a lot of other problems and
some acreage wells going dry if we have
a 10-year drought. But, um but it it
does have that resilience against uh
against uh you know, variations in in
surface water precipitation conditions.
There any other councelor look?
>> I'm going back to councelor Nixon and
» I'm going back to councelor Nixon and
obviously all of our concerns seems to
be around water. Have you considered as
a developer to drill these 40 meter
wells ahead of time and sell a water
service lot so that you and we know the
water is available for these purchasers?
Well, I I think that by the even the
nature of the uh application process, if
a homeowner uh was to drill a well,
spend the money up front, um if there is
no water, that person is not going to
buy that lot. And um we would then
likely on another portion of the site, I
mean each of the sites is 2 acres, we
would likely try to drill another well
and see whether we can find another well
on that same lot. Um it we feel it's not
logical to drill 45 wells on the
property right off the bat.
uh we will see through our first phase
exactly
um the proof will be in the pudding I
should say in that first 15 lots whether
the aquifers are as Ken says or not but
if we don't get a well at 40 m based on
what I understand maybe it'll be 50
maybe it'll be 60 m but this particular
area which as Ken has said used to be
the water supply area for the town of
olds the water in this area is very
abundant compared to many other
locations. So, we feel very confident we
are going to find wells. Whether the
well costs $30,000 or $15,000,
we believe we will find water.
>> Hey, is there any other questions?
» Hey, is there any other questions?
So maybe I'll just um go to the roads um
in uh I apologize but I there was a lot
of discussion within the agenda package
of temporary gravel roads and such.
Could you just tell us what the um what
the long-term
um plan is for the internal roads and
what uh what surface you're planning and
such.
>> Could you bring forward the plan? Yes.
» Could you bring forward the plan? Yes.
Uh basically in the in the sorry in the
first phase we just want to extend our
roads four lots deep uh and end that
with a graveled uh culde-sac or bulb for
turnarounds. And the county asked for
emergency purposes could we build uh a
gravel emergency access adjacent to the
west boundary of those lots. So, we
agreed for emergency purposes we would
do that. However, once the lots look
like they're moving and we're selling
them and we concentrate our sales in
these 16 country residential lots, we'll
then start working on the next phase.
And we would extend the crescent in
either one phase or two depending on the
absorption out of the area. Uh we would
then remove that gravel surface and the
bulbs and extend the roads as a fully
paved county standard road and uh either
in in one additional or maybe two
additional roads uh uh phases so that
this crescent which you see on the plan
would be fully paved ditching all of
which is to county standard.
>> Okay. Thank you. And so the plan for the
» Okay. Thank you. And so the plan for the
first phase is that orange line that we
see running north to uh north to south
would be a would be a gravel um road for
emergency purposes.
>> Yeah. It's just the the emergency access
» Yeah. It's just the the emergency access
is just between the upper
>> y
» y
>> uh upper residential and the lower
» uh upper residential and the lower
residential road.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> That's the only gravel component. We'd
» That's the only gravel component. We'd
also on the uh down in the south off the
industrial road, we would also have a
graveled circular area for emergency
access.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh and this is to
» Okay. Thank you. Uh and this is to
administration. So, um the applicant has
stated that they're going to put an
additional ashalt overlay on Range Road
12. I I believe I saw in the package
that the county has already built the
base of that road, but um is there any
additional work on that road that needs
to be done other than just an additional
overlay to make that a non-band service,
a non-bann road?
>> Yeah. No, through the chair. Um so yeah,
» Yeah. No, through the chair. Um so yeah,
that is the requirement. Whatever is
required is the requirement. I mean I I
don't have anything else to add other
than that that that will be verified. It
would be an unrestricted road. The
developer is required to go up to the
quarter line. Anything above that may
affect the turning into the uh uh old
golf club that will be a project through
under operations and the county will
foot that additional uh upgrade.
>> Okay. So the the idea is that it will be
» Okay. So the the idea is that it will be
a non-band standard and whatever is
required to take it to a nonban standard
will be done. Yeah.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Is there something you'd like to add? Uh
» Is there something you'd like to add? Uh
Reeve, this is Bruce Nelligan who uh
Watt Consulting did an analysis on Range
Road 12 and you might ask him in
additional questions, but my
understanding is the county built this
road relatively recently and all of the
foundation work uh and u construction
standards were u at excellent level.
It's just that the the surface was not
built deep enough to get it to the 100%.
And that's what we're pursu perceiving
to go up. So maybe Dave Watt would be
better than Bruce Melligan to answer
that.
>> Madam Reed, my name is David Watt Wat
» Madam Reed, my name is David Watt Wat
and uh I'm now officially retired, but I
was involved in this project from the
get-go. So, uh, just to answer the
question, um, we had a
an assessment done of the condition of
Range Road 12. We brought our geoteex
out to take a look at that and, uh, it's
in pretty good shape. We have a few
concerns about uh some possible uh
deterioration of the subgrade uh gravels
due to the course of time and the fact
that it's basically a cold mix ash fault
on the on the road right now. The plan
is to u uh strip back the uh the surface
ensure that the gravels are have good
integrity. add additional gravels
probably in the order of 8 in uh and
then pave the road to uh to the
municipal standard and and we're just
basically going by the standard that's
provided in your policy 4005
uh for those roadways. So we are aware
that u I mean the road is in actually
very good shape when you consider it but
we are looking at you know do we need to
uh
take care of any abnormalities that we
might find prior to paving it.
>> Thank you very much. Uh, councelor
» Thank you very much. Uh, councelor
Nixon,
>> uh, just a question maybe to
» uh, just a question maybe to
administration. I it said in the agenda
package that we would also pave to 100%
downfree standard. I think it was to the
golf course or just after the golf
course. One, what was the reasoning for
that? Two, what's the price tag?
>> I can't answer the price tag component
» I can't answer the price tag component
to it. I I I'm sorry, but the Yes, it's
from the quarterline north.
>> Yeah. So I I can maybe speak to that
» Yeah. So I I can maybe speak to that
because it was one of my suggestions
that we um ensure that the road is
completed to the same standard to uh
include the access to the golf course,
but the developer would be responsible
to the edge of their property line and
then if there's any additional work, I
think there might already be some long
patching done on that uh entrance to the
golf course, but it would be
investigated and considered as part of
the project and ensure that the the banf
free standard includes the entrance into
the golf course. So, it's a very small
area. Uh from a price point of view, we
wouldn't uh know that until we did some
engineering and the project commenced.
>> Council Nixon,
» Council Nixon,
>> was the reasoning for extending it and
» was the reasoning for extending it and
and covering that extra portion just
because of the volume of traffic or just
why?
>> Yes, it' be the volume of traffic. It's
» Yes, it' be the volume of traffic. It's
probably one of our busiest sections of
road with the traffic going to and from
the golf course and of course turning is
hard on surfaces and so we'd want to
make sure that um you know that aspect
is looked after. Certainly the county's
contribution and and portion would be at
council's discretion and it would be a
budget project. Uh so if council deemed
it was not required down the road that
would be at council's discretion to to
change the funding.
>> Thank you. Is there any additional
» Thank you. Is there any additional
questions?
No. I've got uh councelor Lutz uh just
when we move to operations I want to
make sure we're done roads.
>> No, go ahead. Ask your question please.
» No, go ahead. Ask your question please.
>> Um
» Um
so when in the background information um
with operations, it was mentioned a few
times that the um PLU
questions about that who's going to
maintain pathways, roadways and and the
access was deemed um by the golf course
is unusual. Is that unusual
scary or is that unusual just not
typically done or what do we mean by
unusual? Is that something to be
concerned about?
>> Uh
» Uh
so it is sorry it is unusual because we
don't have um the same kind of agreement
elsewhere in the county. So we don't
know how does it work.
How does it work? Uh I think that what
you're saying is that um uh the
applicants proposed to have this chair
share um storm pond with the with the
old golf course. Yes.
>> So it would be kind of a three-way
» So it would be kind of a three-way
agreement then since we own the land and
um
>> yeah that's what is the applicant is
» yeah that's what is the applicant is
proposing that it will be a threeway
agreement. uh the old school golf
course, the developer and uh the county
but then ultimately we will once uh it
is built usually the county takes
control over that. So that is the reason
why we don't know how this chair
agreement would look like.
So do we know are we responsible for
maintaining pathways and landscaping and
those type of things?
>> Yeah. So, so, so it's unusual because
» Yeah. So, so, so it's unusual because
it's normally us like Dulu said, like we
normally are the ones that would
maintain and and take care of those
PULs. This is part of phase two or three
or whatever future phase comes forward.
Um, and so yes, that is something that
we would take on typically as the county
once everything is constructed and
approved, uh, we would deal with the
Pwells.
>> Okay. And just another one on um
» Okay. And just another one on um
>> Oh, sorry. Uh, Mr. Do you want to add uh
» Oh, sorry. Uh, Mr. Do you want to add uh
to do you want to add something?
>> Well, I I just might uh add to that
» Well, I I just might uh add to that
because in the discussion relative to
the pond and to the golf club and that
that discussion of being unusual, the
pond itself, the PUL will be uh taken
over by the county. We'll build it to a
standard that it's acceptable to you,
both the pond and the access road
adjacent to it. Uh but in this case,
Jason and the golf club would like to uh
and we've agreed to to build the pump,
put a pump in. He would be the one
operating it to to actually turn on the
pump to pump the water back into the
golf club, even though the pond is owned
by the county. So, we need discussions
between the county and the golf club and
build that into the license to make sure
that it's operationally fine and the
county is not paying for the pump uh or
its operation.
So, I think that's the unusual
component.
>> Okay. Councelor Lutz, did you have
» Okay. Councelor Lutz, did you have
another question? Just on that same
thread for um planning like the um
comments that we got back from the
engineer technologist um important
details remain outstanding and then um
on the second circulation it still
sounded like um more information is
going to be needed to be submitted uh
engineering drawings is can you give me
a little bit more on on what's
outstanding?
Yeah. So I think just to reflect back to
the PU that that consideration will be
ironed out uh better uh proposed in a
future phase. Um not something that
we're uh especially concerned with in
today's uh proposal. And then uh
respecting the important details that uh
are still needed. Absolutely. There are
construction full construction drawings
that need to be uh submitted as part of
the subdivision uh side. This is the
reasonzoning uh consideration and so um
some of those more um finite details
will be provided um should the
redesignation be successful and we go
forward for subdivision.
>> So I'll just uh add um I I think that
» So I'll just uh add um I I think that
it's the engineering details of the
road, the access of the pond, the the
pump, all of those are the technical
details that are being asked for by
operations.
perfectly illegitimate and it normally
would come through in the engineering
phase of the development. However, when
we u go through our first phase and
we're now looking, okay, we've got to
develop this and sell these lots. But as
we go forward for the second phase, we
will start to that dialogue between the
county and the golf club and Alberta
environment about the change to the golf
club's license because we can't go
forward with the ultimate design of that
pond until we know that the license
which they we're we're we would need to
change has been accepted by Alberta
Environment. So, we'll be going through
many more of those engineering and
technical details as part of our next
application when that pond is part of
it. And the Alberta Environment
themselves have said, well, we're also
interested in greater details coming
from you. So, we're fully aware of that
and we'll we'll work on that in the next
phase.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there any additional
» Okay. Thank you. Is there any additional
question?
Councelor Lutz,
>> um I don't know if you can speak on
» um I don't know if you can speak on
behalf of Dave Hoggarth, but what are
you seeing or anticipating for the um
uptake of these residential lots? We've
kind of covered the industrial lots, but
we would have been interested to hear
what his perception was.
>> The uptake of which lots? The
» The uptake of which lots? The
>> selling the residential lots.
» selling the residential lots.
>> Um I mean, it seems the market uh we
» Um I mean, it seems the market uh we
have to put these lots onto the market.
We have not done that. We have uh Dave
has been speaking to various builders
and apparently
just in the last period of time uh last
months he seems to be having much
greater interest than he had two years
ago when we started this process. So he
is providing us with an ongoing update.
But it seems that there are now rather
than just one or two, there might be
three or four builders who would be
interested in taking up uh some of these
lots once we get through the uh
subdivision process, the engineering,
the subdivision and the legal plan
process. So if we are granted an
approval and we start working on that
next phase, we'll start to get a much
better feel for what's uh exactly what
the absorption might be for those lots.
>> Okay. And uh councelor Nixon,
» Okay. And uh councelor Nixon,
>> I just had a question in regards to the
» I just had a question in regards to the
turnaround um for the temporary
turnaround for the business portion. Why
is it set so far in?
Well, basically we we don't really want
to build more road than we have to. If
we have to wait, basically the access
points for those two lots will come in
the first half of their property and we
would finish the uh the groundwork, the
foundation and the surface paving as
part of the ultimate extension. Um,
basically it's just it's a timing and a
cost uh a front ending. The industrial
roads are much more expensive because of
the weight requirements than the
residential roads. So we're just trying
to to minimize our frontending cost
without any loss of efficiency for the
users.
» Okay. So I have a question for
administration. Um there there's a
request in the application to reduce the
size of the business park I believe.
>> Uh that is correct. That is the request
» Uh that is correct. That is the request
from from the applicant. So basically
he's requesting that in order to have a
taller burm he would require more land
on that um second strip here that says
SP for parks and recreation to allow
that. And then so that means that these
lots uh uh phase one and the future lots
will be slightly
smaller but um at the subdivision stage
usually municipalities are allowed to um
allowed uh 10% variance. So we have calc
taking that into consideration and there
is no issue with that.
>> Okay thank you for that.
» Okay thank you for that.
Um, and uh
the the last question I have just I'm
curious. So, we're recommend or u the
the council's being asked to look at a
uh parks and wreck district, a PPR
district. Um but there's a lot of
discussion in the application about
passive recreation. I'm just wondering
why we would go PPR and not the parks
and conservation district.
>> Sure. Uh so uh PPR is is typically the
» Sure. Uh so uh PPR is is typically the
the one that we use for this type of
thing. And the reason we don't use PPC,
which is the parks and conservation
district, is because this is typically
used for lands that are sensitive in
nature, something that we need to
preserve, keep in its natural state. And
so yes, recognizing it's still like
passive and the the possibility for
passive recreation that can still be
allowed in parks and uh recreation,
which is typically what we use for these
types of things. So it's the sensitivity
of land that lacks in this regard.
That's why it's PPR. Okay. Thank you for
that. Uh, councelor Fulton.
>> Yes. Just back to the housing question
» Yes. Just back to the housing question
and you said multiple builders
interested. Is there going to be any
architectural controls
implemented in throughout the project?
Because I'm pretty sure you don't want
to have a mobile home on one lot and a
$2 million house on the next one. So,
>> we will be uh looking at a an element of
» we will be uh looking at a an element of
architectural controls on the property.
We have not uh set that up yet, but we
do want to have some level of standard.
Uh we likely will not be uh setting an
architectural control that says all
houses must be tutor style or colonial
style. It's not going to be a level of
architectural control, let's say,
similar to some subdivisions which
developers would do. But for sure we
will be setting conditions when people
purchase the lots for the forms uh of
houses which they're able to put on and
the sort of just a coordinated
appearance of how that is going to be.
We're also going to have to have things
which we will be working on ourselves
and you might have seen from the report
uh controlling surface runoff um water
on their own properties because water
has to run over easements adjacent to
properties. There's going to be a number
of controls which we apply to those
homeowners and that will be done in
addition to the you know the exercising
of the bylaw. But we not we will not be
getting into an excessive number of
controls on the property. But I do hear
your point and we have exactly the same
feeling.
» Hey uh maybe just one last question for
me on the open houses. So you had it
looks like you had a fairly good turnout
at your first open house and you did
hold a second open house. Did you have
good turnout at the second open house?
>> Um
» Um
I guess it's a good news bad news. uh
the the the turnout was disappointing
from our point of view that we only had
um sort of four households that were
there. Uh the couple of a land couple of
land owners from the south who were
mostly concerned about storm water and
spoke to Paul about that and I think
there was two or three I think it was
three households were represented out of
our 21 neighbors. So we were a little
disappointed. However, um all of this
material of our changes had been ex had
been sent to people a couple of times
with the changes over the period of
time. So, I'm assuming people were
generally happy with what they were
seeing which became our amendments. Uh
the first open house we did have about
30 uh people attend. We have about 21 22
neighbors. So, that's a quite a good
representation. And so we were pleased
by that. And as I mentioned in my
presentation,
the the comments that were made by the
public were that they that directly
resulted in our 40 meter minimum depth
because the greatest issue they had was
with the water. So I I feel that between
the county and ourselves, we've been
able to come up with a resolution to
address their biggest concern.
>> Thank you. So, I'll look to council to
» Thank you. So, I'll look to council to
see if there's any additional questions.
Uh, councelor Nixon,
>> sorry, I do just have one clarifying
» sorry, I do just have one clarifying
question. Um, throughout the agenda
package, uh, there's different total
amounts of acreages that are mentioned.
Like one point says 51.23 and another
part says 56 something something and
something else says 62 something. What
what's the actual total volume of the
phase that we're looking at right now?
Right through the chair uh phase one
will be uh 51.23 acres more or less.
Right. This is approximately.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. There any additional if there's no
additional questions I will ask if
planning has any closing comments.
>> No closing comments. Thank you.
» No closing comments. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And does the applicant have
» Thank you. And does the applicant have
any closing comments now that you've
just went and sat? Um I we like to get
steps in as well.
>> Thank you. use of the applicant waves.
» Thank you. use of the applicant waves.
Um, so with that,
uh, I will close the public hearing for
bylaw number LU 0126
and I will close the public hearing for
bylaw number 0126.
And we will take a um, a break until uh,
10:35.
Okay. So, we will resume the special
council meeting of March 12th. We have
closed the public hearing uh for both uh
the bylaw number LU0126
and for bylaw number 0126.
So I will look for a motion uh for
second reading on bylaw number LU0126
and then we can start the debate. Um
councelor Lutz. So I move that council
give second reading to bylaw number
LU126
redesating the lands within Southeast
33315
and plan number 9210118
block A.
>> Thank you. And so not a debate, a
» Thank you. And so not a debate, a
discussion. I'll open the floor for um
for any comments.
Uh, councelor Lutz.
So, because this is my area, I feel I
should speak to it. Um,
I would say there's a certain level of
stakeholder fatigue. This area's been
between the the highway and olds. I
think there is a realization that there
will be development. And I think um you
look back at the background and how long
these discussions have happened. Um I
think we got a ton of feedback in the
2022 when it was the quarter to the
east. Um you've done a lot of open
houses. You've answered a lot of
questions and I I I feel like um
residents in the area have kind of just
accepted the fact that sooner or later
that area is going to close. Um, I hate
losing farmland and you can't really
pick better farmland than that. It's
it's beautiful, but um, you can't stop
growth and um, I I believe that if
county sets policy um, we should follow
our policies and have that
predictability for for business so that
they can um, take the risks and hire the
experts and and do the work. And you've
done really good work. I'm I'm happy to
see um I wasn't allowed to council
wasn't supposed to attend the the public
open house. So um some of this
information was new to me on Friday and
I think you've done your best to address
water well concerns with that special uh
40 meter and I appreciate that. It shows
that you've listened and we definitely
see other developers that um it's more
of a checkbox exercises and they they
don't mitigate concerns. So I do
appreciate that. I think you've
addressed the fire concerns. So, um I am
going to support this.
>> Thank you. Is there any other comments?
» Thank you. Is there any other comments?
Uh councelor Harris?
>> Yeah. Um I'm generally not in favor of
» Yeah. Um I'm generally not in favor of
this type of in this quality of farmland
being absorbed and turned into a
development. Uh however, I agree with
councelor Lutz. um you can't hold
progress up um other than to ensure that
um developers have done due diligence
and that all that can be considered is
considered including engagement with the
with the people in the area. Um, I think
as far as the location of it alongside
27 and next to a very um, popular
amenity makes the most sense. Um, so
I'll support it as well.
>> Thank you. Is there any other additional
» Thank you. Is there any other additional
comments?
>> No. Well, I also commend um,
» No. Well, I also commend um,
administration and the applicant for uh,
for bringing forward possible solutions
or a solution for addressing water
concerns. I think that's uh that's not
something we've seen before and I think
that's a great um I think that's a great
addition uh to this application.
So if there's no uh no other comments
then we have second reading on the
floor. I will call to question. All in
favor
and opposed
and that motion is carried.
So I'll look for third reading for bylaw
number 0 LU0126. Uh councelor Lutz. So I
further move that council give third
reading to bylaw number LU0126
redesating the lands within Southeast
33315
and plan number 921018
block A.
>> Thank you. Is there any discussion?
» Thank you. Is there any discussion?
I will call to question. All in favor
and opposed.
And that motion is carried.
And so now we can move on uh to the
changes to bylaw number 0126. I'll look
for a motion, please. Councelor Harris,
>> I'll move the council give second
» I'll move the council give second
reading to bylaw 01/26
to amend the land use bylaws other
development regulations within the
country residential 1 district by adding
well depth requirements for phase 1
within the southeast of 3331
west of the 5th.
>> Thank you. Any discussion?
Seeing none, I will call to question.
All in favor
and that motion is carried. Councelor
Harris,
>> I'll move the council give third reading
» I'll move the council give third reading
to bylaw 0126
to amend the land use bylaws other
development regulations within the
country residential one district by
adding well-d depth requirements for
phase 1 within the southeast of 3331
west of the 5th. Thank you. Any
discussion?
I'll call to question. All in favor?
And that motion is carried. And we have
one additional motion for the concept
plan.
>> Uh, councelor Nixon.
» Uh, councelor Nixon.
>> I would move that council approve the
» I would move that council approve the
concept plan for the entire quarter
section in the southeast 3331 west of
the 5th and plan 9210118
block 8.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Is there any discussion? Councelor
Lights,
>> I'm just wondering to administration.
» I'm just wondering to administration.
Um, so there could be amendments to the
concept plan in the next, you know,
decade or whatever. How does that work?
>> Yeah. So, uh, so today council's being
» Yeah. So, uh, so today council's being
asked to look at the concept plan that's
presented today in the agenda package.
Uh, if there was some changes to the
concept plan with future phases, that is
something that can be contemplated um at
a future time.
>> Thank you. As long as they meet the
» Thank you. As long as they meet the
densities in the MDP. Okay. Is there any
further discussion on that motion?
No. Okay. I will call to question. All
in favor?
Uh, sorry. All in favor
and opposed. And that motion's carried.
And I will look to Jeff. I believe that
concludes uh all of the uh items on the
agenda for today.
>> Correct, Ree? That is the end of the
» Correct, Ree? That is the end of the
agenda.
>> Thank you. And so with that, I will
» Thank you. And so with that, I will
adjourn the special council meeting of
March 12th. Thank you everyone for
coming.