[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.