Good morning, everybody. It is 9 o'clock. We'll call the February 9th, 2021 council meeting to order.
Updates and approval of the agenda.
So, I
have one thing. We do have an in-camera regarding
that's the back pay issue.
I'm kind of wondering if we need to keep this on the agenda and I'll look to Council for some direction on this.
Is Mr. Robinson available?
He said he would like to appeal it.
We had added this to the agenda back last week, we were preparing it because we thought
there may be a council motion coming forward for it.
It's my understanding that there isn't a motion coming, at least that's what I understand
at this point, so I just suggested that we may not need it on the agenda, but I'll leave
that to council to make that decision.
Thank you.
As
Council, as far as the back pay issue goes, we received the sort of part two of the
legal opinion we requested, and we sent
an offer to Councilor Tansen, right, and Kissel
regarding that, and the offer was graciously denied, so at this point I'm wondering if we
need a discussion in camera. Do I have any, do I get any feedback on that?
Councillor Kissel, I see your lights on. Thank you. Through the read, Councillor Kissel,
Kissel, Division 9. Given that, I cannot participate in these, if there's something to be
voted on, I think it needs to be left up to the rest of Council. And I don't know what my
and how my colleagues actually feel about that,
as I didn't know what this was actually pertaining to.
And so I'll leave it at that thought.
Yes, and this does pretty much apply
to the remaining counselors for that discussion again.
As the issue has gone to the appeals court,
Again, that's the question.
Do we still need to have an in-camera discussion,
Councillor Hanson?
There's actually, I believe, three separate small claims actions,
and it's unrelated to the overall whistle at hell versus rock of you,
so just to be clear, and I will have to recuse myself for my new voting
having to deal with the small claims action.
You can read Councilor Wright-Divisionate.
Yeah, I think we'll have to reduce myself.
And just for some clarification,
as the Councilor Hansen just said,
if this was to do with the small funds action,
then your motion would have been set up incorrectly,
because you have a Kissel versus Lockheed County,
and it would be more versus,
maybe probably Wright versus Hansen versus
and Kissel versus,
because it will set the claim.
So just moving forward,
if it's anything to do with our backpair,
let's suggest that that's how Councilor Hansel
format it,
but I will be reducing myself.
the decision made at this time.
Okay I'll ask if anyone from that that isn't
involved in the in the PLC would like to comment Deputy McHller. Thank you
through the chair. I'll actually make a motion to remove that item if I could get
a motion out. Through the chair this is Tyler Andreessen the clerk today give us a
moment and we'll throw up the motion to remove item M3 from the agenda.
Okay. And can we deal with item E5 at the same time? I believe there's been a request
to have that item removed so we can deal with both of those at the same time I think.
I think for this one we'll probably through the chair again this is Tyler and Jason.
We can do the motion separately because of the abstention for M3 so we'll do M3 first
and then we'll put up a motion for E5 after.
makes good sense to me. So I'm going to read that into the record that the February 9th,
2021 Council meeting agenda be amended as follows. Remove item M3, Kessel versus Rocky View,
comma 2020, ABQB 406.
Thank you.
Subtion, call the question. Is anyone opposed to none? That motion carries?
I can go ahead and continue on with the...
I don't know where you wanted to make a motion or, or.
Yes, it was division three. I thought I would remove it from the agenda after talking with the applicant.
So if you get the next motion on the board, please. Sure.
So there's a number of reasons why he wanted this removed and there's a confusion in the dates.
And he had indicated to the residents that the hearing would be happening later.
And so what I was informed so to keep everything above bar, he preferred to keep the original date that
But he was under the impression that they were operating on, which was communicated to
residents in the area.
So I'd like to move that the February 9, 2021 Council meeting agenda be amended as
follows.
Remove item E5, public hearing for by-law C-011-2020 for PL2019-0140 and I might as well
go ahead.
We'll do that.
Yes, we'll deal with this motion.
By exception, is anyone opposed to the motion?
Seeing none, that motion is carried.
Councillor Hansen.
And at the February 9, 2021 council meeting agenda be approved as amended.
Thank you very much.
Also by exception, is anyone opposed?
Seeing none, that motion is carried.
So I did forget to go through my little script here, so I'll do that prior to opening the public hearings.
This meeting is being held under the meeting procedures COVID-19 suppression regulation as set up by the province.
Which means the meeting will is being live streamed to the public via the county's website in lieu of in-person attendance at the county hall.
If for any reason live stream goes down the meeting will be you need to be recessed until the live stream is brought back up.
If the live stream is not able to be brought back up, the meeting will be adjourned to a later date.
I would ask that everybody participating electronically keep your microphones muted
until unless you are requesting to speak.
This will help prevent background noise and unnecessary interruptions.
If you wish to speak, please turn on your microphone so the green light is activated
and I will call on you to speak.
If I miss the queue, please feel free to interrupt and get my attention and I will call
on you to speak.
Once I call on you to speak, I would ask that you state your name and division or
department before speaking so that the public can identify who is speaking.
I will also ask all Councillors participating electronically, please keep your cameras
activated so that the clerks can confirm you are present at the meeting.
If you are staff or one of the applicants today's public hearings, I ask you to please keep your microphone and cameras turned off unless you are presenting or responding to a question.
Finally, I'll ask for everybody's collective patience today as we make our through make our way through this council meeting virtually.
Now we'll go to the approval of minutes.
I get a motion on the board. Please and go to deputy.
I'll make that motion that the January 26th, 2021 Council meeting minutes be approved as presented.
Thank you very much. We'll hope by exception any opposition to the motion.
Any none? Our motion is carried and we will go to item E1, please.
Before we open the public hearing, I would like to remind the public that they may begin
providing email submissions to public hearings at rockiview.ca. Please clearly state the
by-law number in the subject line of your email. I would also like to align the process
that will be followed for this public hearing. After opening the public hearing, we will begin
with a presentation from Administration, followed by questions of Administration from Council.
Next, the applicant will provide a presentation followed by questions of the applicant from council.
We will then play any pre-recorded audio or video presentations in support of the application,
followed by any pre-recorded audio or video presentations in opposition of the application.
I will then call for any final e-mail submissions and allow five minutes for the public to submit
any last e-mail submissions to public hearings at rockiview.ca, both in support or in opposition
before declaring e-mail submissions closed.
If e-mail submissions are received, they will be provided to Council and the applicant by
email as well as uploaded to www.rockivu.ca slash meetings dash hearings or the public. Once the
email submissions have been distributed, we will take a recess to read and consider those submissions
before returning and continuing with public hearing. If no email submissions from the
are received from the public, we will continue with public hearing which will conclude with the
applicants rebuttal, if required and any final questions of administration.
May I have a motion
to open the public hearing? Councillor Kessel.
Through the release, Councillor Kessel Division 9.
Sorry, Councillor Kessel, we didn't get
a motion or didn't hear one anyways. Sorry, can you hear me now?
Yes, we can. Okay, thank you. Councillor Kessel Division 9, I move to open E1.
Thank you very much.
By exception, is anyone opposed to the motion?
Seeing none.
Could we get a report from administration, please?
Good morning, Chair and Council Member.
My name is Cindy Minus for Planner, representing planning department services.
So I apologize I couldn't be there in person because my car couldn't start this morning.
I tried to plug the block into the last night, but still couldn't work so I have to join the
medium through the screen. Give me a second. It looks like the running, right? Did you see anything?
We don't see anything yet. There we go. Okay. Okay. Thank you. This E1 item is about the
road allows closure, road allows closure.
It's located in the north-west of the county in Division 9.
The land is located approximately a one-and-a-half mile north
of a township road to 62, and on the west side
of Glendale Road.
Here's the stop to land.
You can see the land is divided by this Glendale Road,
but still remain under the one title.
So the applicant they want to do is to close this portion
of the road allowance
and that located west of this land
in order to facilitate future land consolidation.
Here is the analysis.
When we assess this application,
we consider what the impact could be
with this road allowance close.
You can see that the adjacent land to the west currently have direct access to the Glundere road through this road allowance.
Should this part be closed, then they will lose this direct access.
So that is one potential impact.
We also realize even though the topographic of this road allowance is steep at some point,
but it's the only location to build a county road to provide access to the adjacent land.
Without this road allows, the land is become a landlocked. So we think should this road allows
it close, the future development on this land would result in a parcel without direct access to the
county road. So that comes to our conclusion, we recommended a refusal in a
calling with option two. That's closed my presentation. Thank you. Thank you.
Do we have any questions for administration?
I have Deputy McChyler and then Councillor Hanson.
Thank you, through the chair.
Just a question regarding, Kim McCyller, Deputy Reef. Just a question regarding the landowner then to the, at least that last west. So, is that the same landowner?
So, to the chair to deputy, my client, this is a different land owner.
Land owner to the left, I'm trying, I try to call him twice and the left message because
I want to expand the potential impact to his land, if this role allows close.
But the thing is, I haven't received any response from this land owner.
Thank you. And this landowner was in the circulation area, but we didn't receive a reply to that either. Did we?
Exactly. That's correct.
Okay. And due to the nature of the topographical concerns, I don't know what the landowner to the west has an access off of.
So I don't know that that road, that they're
entomated. Yeah, would they be able to gain
access to the back, to the north part of
there? Like, would there be an alternative access, I
guess, from from that east west road that they
access their property on? Or is it just topographically
difficult?
So, so the chair through that period of my client, I provide this another map, hopefully
you can see that on the screen.
This is the shows to the north, perhaps another mile, there's a no road, there's a no road
physical road has been built because the top graphic there is even worse.
So I see, now I can share this screen, sorry.
So, see, this map shows this is the South of the land and the land to the west.
See, this is the only access point to get access to the land to the west.
Hoping out to the north, to the west and to the south, there's no other county road.
And even there is a road allowance, but due to the top of graphic constraint, there's
even worse.
It's not feasible to build a road.
So we believe this is only a property location to have a county road, especially to protect
the existing access and to facilitate the future development on this land.
Thank you.
Councillor Hanson.
Through the chair, Councilor Hanson, Division 3, I'm just curious, is it really only the
southern portion of the road allowance for practical purposes that we're protecting?
Is there any discussion by administration on, say, the northern two-thirds of the road
allowance?
Through the chair, to Councilor Hanson, we talk about that.
That could be another option if we just protect this existing access, if the Council
We also wish to close the Norse portion, we can do that, but we suggest that leave at
least 120 meters, because this is still very flight, is part of the location to build
a county road, and not only to protect this existing access, but to leave some possibility
to provide access to the future land, to the South of the land.
Thank
you.
Thank you.
Anybody else wishing to ask questions?
Councilor Belky.
Thank you.
Through the chair, I noticed in the comments,
the circulation comments, Alberta transportation comments,
about starting the closure a little further north,
200 to 250 metres.
Is that possible to do?
Through the Chair to Council, Belki, yes, that is another recommendation.
We agree with the AT's recommendation if we leave about 100 to 100 meters and then close
the rest.
That's a little cheaper to go to facilitate the future development on the GCNAT.
And that would allow access to the parcel to the West?
We provide that portion of a county road, a county open road allows, that means that
possible to build a county road in the future, when the development happened on this
season end.
Then that's owner or developer can make it happen to build a county road.
As long as we preserve this open a county road allows.
So long story short, did lousy access to the parcel to the west?
Yes, that's correct, you saw it on the side.
Thank you.
Councillor Wright.
Really, Councillor Wright, division eight.
Just this thing, the portions of the sections of the North West,
is that owned by the same landowner?
Because if we just close off at $250, how did they get to that portion?
So the chair to council write the union that this portion?
The other one beside it to the left, that one.
Yes, they're all owned by the same person, the same landowner.
Okay, so then he could access those top ones through the BotPerfect.
Okay, thank you very much.
Be very helpful if we had his input, but I understand you've tried.
Thank you for that.
Thank you. Any further questions for administration?
I see none.
Thank you.
We will now have the applicant's presentation,
and you have the applicant has 20 minutes.
I'm Terry Raymond,
landowner of all of section 21, the southwest quarter that title is
actually under Cougar Springs, which I am a shareholder of, and my daughter resides
on that southwest quarter.
The balance of this section is held by Redtail Holdings, which is a corporation owned my wife
and myself.
The presentation there showed that the landowner who is Dana Boothby, Dana owns
all of section 20.
Dana is not opposed to it the reason you couldn't get a hold of them.
I don't think he cared. He does have access to his property. There is wells drilled by two oil
companies along the south boundary of section 20. There is seven wells drilled in LSD1, which is
right up against the undeveloped road allowance, right at the south boundary of that road allowance,
and on the west side of it, they continued west with the lease road, and they've drilled, I believe,
four more wells there and as you get into the next section, section 18 to the
west, also owned by Dana Boothby, another well was drilled there by a different
company. So access to the entire south half of section 20 is feasible and doable
by the landowner.
The idea of closing the road allowance was so that we could try to protect
unwanted access. I have had an issue with road allowance hunters who have the legal right to hunt
on an undeveloped road allowance without permission from either landowner, even if they do not have
permission to hunt the adjacent properties. So it's it's something I've been working with the
Alberta government trying to try to restrict the discharge of a weapon from an undeveloped
rollout since since 2012. It's still ongoing and I think I have a great chance of having that done
but we don't, that's kind of about in my control at this point.
So the idea of limiting access up to the north, up the area that is colored and red,
it's claiming a hill.
If you go up 250 meters, I think you've gone too far.
If you want to hold out the portion on the bottom, I'm not opposed to that at all,
But as I say right now, there is all kinds of ample access.
A rigs move through that.
So there's all kinds of movement through there.
And it goes right to the first lease, which has seven wells, as I say, drilled on the property.
So I don't know if you have any further questions regarding that.
If you do, please let me know.
We certainly will.
Is that the end of your, are you finished with your presentation, Mr?
Yeah, I mean, and there were lots of the North, I mean, on the next quarter to the Northwest
in the Northwest of 21, it goes down into the Bickel Springs, Cooley, it's undeveloped.
There's no access. I can't even fence my own property. I lose about 30 acres of property
because of the topography. I can't fence it. But I would sure like to get rid of unwanted
of the property of the lands.
That concludes my thoughts.
Very good. Thank you. We do have a question from Councillor Kissle.
Thank you. Through the read, Councillor Kissle, Division 9.
Mr. Raymond, I can see on the map that there's one, two, three, I think three or four well leases.
I believe that's what I'm seeing in my map.
So currently, they are accessing all of the east west, heading west towards the Big
Hill Springs Cooley. That's all being accessed from that. There's not really
road allowance, but there is looks like a road in there. So is that that's all private?
It's all private. It's all owned by being a Booster. Correct.
Okay. And if we were, if council were to move this forward, you're looking at, you're
okay with us closing, keeping a portion of that road open.
And we're looking at approximately 200 meters.
You know, is that with that work for you?
I think 200 meters is excessive.
of, I think a maximum of 100 meters, I would take you to the north boundary of the lease
that is presently held by, it was NAL, but just recently purchased by Whitecap, it would
probably take you to the north boundary of their lease, which gets you close to the ridge
where you're climbing a hill.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
That's all I have.
Perhaps.
Through the chair, Councillor Hanson, Division 3, so over the closing, the road allowance
look like in terms of fencing or barricades, to actually achieve the intended purpose in
the south side of your property there.
All right, President, I have a grazing lease on the road allowance.
on the undeveloped road allowance, the fencing is in place for probably the first half a mile,
and then after that I've had to not fence the road allowance and follow topography just because I
can't get machinery anywhere close to the road allowance itself. So to answer your question,
the road allowance is leased by myself and it is on the western side of the of the
undeveloped road allowance.
Okay, so you feel confident with Fencing or
Barricades they just won't be breached and people use the road allowance anyway
allowing you to do that and permanently close the road allowance as your own
proper property would achieve your your ends. That that is correct. At present there is a spruce tree
up on the road allowance. Somebody walked up there years ago and they decided they needed to do a
little target practice. The trees probably about a six inch diameter spruce tree in somebody with a
high-powered rifle. Shot holes through the tree until the tree fell over.
That gives them the legal
right to do that at any time without permission and that's just for target
practice.
All right thank you appreciate the answer. Thank you. You have any
further questions from Mr. Raymond.
I see none. Thank you sir.
I don't think there
is any written submissions in our agenda package.
Did we receive any pre-recorded
audio or video presentations in support? This is Tyler Andreessen. Clark
We did not receive any either in support or in opposition.
and Mr.
And now we received any pre-recorded audio or video presentations in opposition. Through the chair, no. Thank you. So this will be the final call for email submissions, both in support or opposition. Please. We
will have for five minutes. You please be sure the application number is in your email. And.
There's clear, clearly indicate whether you're in support or opposition of this application.
Council, I'll stand at ease for five minutes.
We did not receive any email submissions.
Opposition?
Mr. Bell, please.
Thank you.
Through the chair, just to administration,
as we see on the diagram on page two of five or 24 of 197,
and the entranceway going into the property to the west, would it be possible to, let's
say, start the closure 10 meters north of that entranceway because the applicant seems
to indicate that there's not much value in going any further.
We do have an entranceway going in now, 10 meters would allow in case big equipment is
going in there as you said to testing equipment or what have you. So is that possible in
the
year? Good morning. So Zinnak and I'll tackle this one. Good morning, Council. Good
for your nature on behalf of planning and development services. To chair the Council
of Elk, either the one challenge that closing a portion of the southern portion that role
allowance will cause is if you notice the next item on the agenda is the closure of the
section of a little allowance north of the one that we're talking about today.
And should council proceed to close a portion of this sort of allowance, what issue and
problem it could cause is it would cause access issues to the quarter directly to the north
of this quarter.
It's a disadvantage into this sort of allowance in the sense that all other access configurations
or access considerations for that parcel rely on passing through this sort of allowance
to get to that parcel. So I just wanted to bring that forward to council
attention prior to making a decision.
We heard all of that in the hearing. My question was, is it possible to go 10
meters north of the existing approach? We see by this same picture, this same overhead
photo, there is no, no, not even the resemblance of a road going north there in
that diagram within the red outline, and we heard from the applicant the topographical
area is very steep and rough. The likelihood of entranceways needed, we never heard
from any of the neighbors. So my question is, is it possible to only go 10 meters north just
to allow extra access availability to the property to the West.
To the chair, yes, it is possible to do that.
Thank you.
Do we have any more questions for administration, Deputy McCullough?
No, thank you, through the chair, Kim McCullough, Deputy Reeve.
This question is, is, is probably for Mr. Onesar.
So I know where I'm dealing with E1 right now.
And E2 is the same landowner, same road allowance.
It appears to me, and I understand what you've said is that if we stop this one, we could
affect that parcel to the north.
However, doesn't that parcel to the north have access off of 264, and again, I'm not
trying to confuse the two things we're dealing with one at a time here, but would that not give
them access from the north side off of 264 there?
I can answer this question, so the chair to Deputy Rive, you will hear more when I present
the next item.
You can see how steep slope that is in the north portion because that steep slope will
to be over 30%, which is making it impossible to build a county road within that road
allowance.
Looks like there's a road allowance, but it's not really feasible to build that in the
north.
So that's why we want to keep this south portion.
This is the only way to get access and to service the GZMN to the west.
So I hope that will answer the questions.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Questions for administration?
I see none. Thank you very much.
Now go to
Councillor Kessel for a motion. Move to close, please. Thank you. Motion to close by exception.
Do you have anyone in opposition? Seeing none, the motion carries. Councillor Kessel.
Okay.
Thank you. Um, so. Oh my goodness. Can you hear me now? Yes. Hello.
Okay. I see
everybody's nodding. So I'm going to ask councils to support me on this one. I would like
to see this go to the minister. This is an area that it's very hard to build roads in.
And as for Mr. Raymond's statement about hunting, this is a huge problem on these road
allowances that are not about. And I hear this often in Division 9. And we want to support
our cattle ranchers. And I guess this is maybe one way of doing that. But I actually would
I'd like to hear from the minister on this,
but I also would ask council to support.
I would like to keep that first 100 meters,
or 120 meters as was suggested by administration.
I'd like to keep that open.
And that gives us a little more options,
moving forward 10, 15, 50 years down the road.
I do know this area, I've helped move cattle in this area
And I'll tell you what, you need a good horse to move cattle in this area.
It's steep.
So I sent a message to Tyler asking him to amend my motion if possible.
Tyler, did you get that?
To Councillor Kessel, so I got an email with the original request.
We'd have to probably take a recess or perhaps even table the amendments for this one.
The road closure bylaws are quite finicky, especially when they go to the minister and when they go to land titles for approval.
So I would also look to sin for some advice on whether we can do an amendment quick today or if they should come back in a future meeting.
But just because of that line title issue, these ones do require a little bit more care for the amendments.
Okay, so I'm going to move to table. So we have time to do that if council would support that, please.
Thank you. So we have a motion to table the application waiting
for that along the board.
And then through the chair, this is Tyler Jason the clerk. I look for look to Ms. Dang to see whether or not this is something we could bring back perhaps this afternoon or if we're looking to a future meeting.
I
think this up to no works, we can get something done.
Please have to. On the bring you back.
Quite have the motion on the floor. Do we just yet? Not yet. We're just waiting for it to be finished. Okay. Deputy McChyler. Had something to say.
Thank you to the chair. Can my. Is it a table? Emotion on the table on the floor? Oh, you're not actually. There is no motion on the floor as yet. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. And that's why I was trying to get my hand before the motion was met. I'm just saying again.
Again, I have no issue supporting a tabling motion.
I just suspect we'll be doing something similar with item E2.
And so I think that if we can deal with these collectively.
So again, I don't want to predetermine what's going to happen with E2, but if there's something
we can do holistically for Centidio with that might work well as well.
So I'm glad we're doing it until the just later today.
I guess I was worried that it would be table to some meeting in the future.
there.
Thank you, Councillor Belkey. Thank you, through the chair. I guess I could direct
to Councillor Kissle. I do support you on this. I believe that you're on the right track
here. The only thing we've heard from the owner, we didn't hear from the owners to the west.
And there is no issue here with actually closing it right down to the property line.
Had we known in advance that it was going to have to be tabled and moved to another day,
perhaps we'd have maybe done some second thoughts on tabling it and moving this.
the landowner, you know, maybe if you word, if you are to table, if I could suggest going
to the north boundary of the lease as he suggested, that may be more palatable to everybody
in the community.
Thank you.
Councillor Kessel.
Through the Raid Councillor Kessel Division 9, that's exactly what we're doing by allowing
that 120 meters that that allows that and if you if I understood Mr. Raymond
correctly he thought that was an acceptable condition that would work still
for him and he knows the line better than the rest of us and I do believe he
did support this so I would like to continue and table this and get it done
right as we've had to have other items come back that had any little amendment and have
to be rectified again after the fact. So I think it's important we do it right the
first time and then we're well on our way to getting things complete.
Councillor Kisle, I guess we could have a little debate. What I heard him say is he didn't feel
there needed to be anything set back from the property line other than the to keep the approach.
But if we had to, he preferred to go to the north side of the oil well lease or the lease.
So his preference was to not go any distance at all.
So I understand, but I'm not trying to twist his words, that's what he said.
Thank you.
Is the motion ready?
and
just in my comments to the deputy
Reeve regarding I'm not quite too sure what the common man
other than I felt like the deputy was asking to deal with these both at the
same time but I think they're they're separate public hearings so that's not
possible.
If you're ready Reeve I'll go ahead with that motion. Please do.
Through the brief Councillor Kissle Division 9 I'd like to move that item E1
be tabled until this afternoon. Thank you. I have no debate on the motion. I think we're safe to go
by exception here or okay I've been advised the roll call is better so I'll start with Councillor
in favor in opposition in favor in favor in favor in favor in favor in favor in favor in favor I just hope administration knows what it's being
table 4. Councillor Kessel. In favor?
Reef hand is in favour, so that item is tabled until this afternoon. We'll now move
to agenda item E2.
And again, we will go to Councillor Kessel.
So
if Councillor Kessel, division 9, move to open E2.
Do you want to open item E2 by exception? Is there any opposition?
Any none? The motion is carried.
Go to administration for their report.
Good morning. This is a scene again representing planning a
development of services.
Give me your moments. I'm trying to open this.
Okay. Can you see it now?
My screen.
We
can.
Tyler can we try again to do the screen sharing?
Can
you send me that the message?
I can click the accept the screen share.
This is Trial Endration Clerk.
We're trying to resend it to you.
Thank you.
Carter.
Thank you.
And this is a e2 item.
It's another row that allows a closer application.
Located at just the north of the one parcel we talk about.
The land is still located approximately two miles north of the Township Road 262 and
the west of this Glendale Road.
The subdued land is divided by the Glendale Road and still remained under one high
height.
The applicant proposed to close this portion of the road allowance and to foresee the future
land consolidation.
We do the analysis again, we realize that the decision to land to the west has no
development right now.
Future access that we rely on the county road to be able to rethink the existing road
announce.
Then we think about the results three options for the future access to prevent access to
the land to the west.
Access option 1, which is current over the road allowance, but the issue is it's very steep slope.
Some point is here is even over 30%, which makes the road construction very difficult.
So this option 1 is not really possible, possible.
Then we have a think about the option 2, access option 2.
But the thing is, the load allowance of this BQ Spring Trail has been closed in 1982 due
to the slip slope and the proximity to the BQ Creek and its repair area.
That means those two options are now feasible to build a road.
Then, we come down to this option 3.
It appears that the future acts as to the adjacent and wooden rely on this sub-dead road
announced. And the slope in some point is only about 15%, which is possible to build a county
road. So we think should this road allows is close that the Jisenland would become a landlocked.
So they come down to our recommendation. We recommend the refusal in according with option two.
as close to my presentation. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have any questions for registration? I have councilor Wright.
The lead councilor Wright division eight, so just some clarification. So if this piece
gets closed off then the land is landlocked, but how does it currently access right now?
Sorry. Ms. Gange, keep it closed.
So the chair to counsel, right, there's no development on this land.
So there's no demand to get access.
So basically this is undivided, yeah, the owner of this land doesn't expect desire to
request it to have access.
So therefore there's no development and no access currently.
Okay.
So the question is that if the future development, if we claim that we can't close this part
because we wouldn't be able to access that particular land piece of land, then closing off the southern portion from the previous application would really not provide any access unless you're saying it would have to go through that option one that you provided, is that correct?
That's part of correct. That's why we bring these two applications together today. So we
can have this make a comprehensive decision to consider the corresponding impact and
the related impact. If there's two road allowance close, what would bring to the factor to the
and that. So that's why we bring the two
applications together so we can think,
make a better decision.
So right now we think to close this portion,
if the council decided to close the sales portion,
it's really make it difficult to open this one,
because that is connected.
But as I said, if we think of other options,
This one is not feasible because that was closed in 1982, so it's harder to reopen because
also the repair area. So now if the council choose to close this one, we have to go back to this option one.
With this slope, slope about 30%, we don't know if that's feasible to be on a road.
So is very challenging to close this one and a source portion?
So according to option one, though, it looks like it ends at the, if you follow the red line
to the top corner, it looks like it would have to have a bridge that would go over that
water.
If that road was going to be the axis going all the way to the end, what, how would that even
access that portion?
It would just access the very top, so I guess you could just drive around, but that slope
looks incredibly steep.
Okay, there's a question I have. There's a comment by LaFarge Canada that says we've
not made an application to close the road allowance. No, we're looking for an official closure.
Sorry, I can't read today. We do, however, have an agreement with Alberta Transportation
to mine the sanding gravel within the road right of way. So they already have that land,
I guess they've got the setbacks from the riparian area and stuff like that, but they already
have approval to Myanmar? Is this particular land already zoned in R.I.? How does that work?
So the Chair of Councilor Wright, they currently, this is LaFarge,
leasing this property to do this gravel pit. They said that they have this lease agreement with the
airport transportation to leasing this unused road allowance for this gravel purpose, but the thing is
So that is a temporary. So once their operation complete, everything went back to normal.
So they don't really close or using anything, they just do this temporary operation.
Okay, so this is where I guess I'm not understanding. So they have a greener of our transportation
to mind the standing level in the road right away to the north or the one that runs east
west or the one that runs north south, the one that we're talking to the north.
So they were not using anything because right now they have this access through the here.
They know he's not able to build a router to do anything here because it's so steep.
So they can get around and do something here.
But they do have the access, the ability to mine the land, not within this portion.
You're saying just the stuff to the north in which case, why is that even identified as a comment?
I'm a little confused.
It
must be these, they're saying they have the ability to mind the road at what's currently
on the screen as the red line is how I'm reading that, but you're saying it's to the north.
Yes, because the large is operating here, nothing has passed this subject and they were doing
their operation on the north's land and north portion of this land.
Right, but what's back up to do with their comments about being able to mind the very
the way of the parcel we're talking about?
I said neighbor did just say, they're saying they will continue doing that.
They will not factor the by whether the road analysis opened or closed, they still have
a right to do this operation.
That's the purpose.
Okay.
I'll accept that.
Thank you.
Thank you. Do you have any further questions for the registration?
Through the chair, Councilor Hanson, there's in three.
We look to the lands to the west.
I see sort of two developable parcels, ones in the Cooley bottom of Big Hill Springs Creek.
There's two blue areas which are identified as wetlands. Is the access not through the
the roundish color, almost where the word access is on the map. Is that correct? And was
that the access I was holding?
There's no access to this portion if you refer to this area. There's no access
to this land. So is that even available that area on the flat?
But
in theory, it's not really available because it's close to the repair area and is
identified as a wild land, so it's not available in theory.
Okay.
So the access we're talking of protecting really is on the southern border there.
And that's one thing you have this landowner right now, that's not subdivided, correct?
Yes, it's correct.
So, it wouldn't private internal roads provide access to that parcel?
That's one of the options.
So, was that access option three?
You mentioned there were three options, but...
Options three is with Encourage to protect open, keep this road allowance open.
So, the future development on this land could have direct access to the future county road.
So that's why we encourage to open this and keep the suck that road allowance open.
Okay, but I believe the southern portion of the southern E1 road was steeper than the
north side here.
So for practical purposes, it's not really navigable to get up and over the hill.
Would there be another alternate way to link into this road allowance if it was just starting
where it's shown as the red box on the map here, I don't think so.
Through the Chair to Council Hanson, actually the slip slope here is only about
less than 15 percent. Is the way is a standard to then compare to the other
steps, so I think that's why we think keep this open and the build a county road is feasible.
Right.
Can you maybe bring up the full map of the Southern road allowance that we looked
at last public hearing? Okay. Just to refresh our memories, please.
And with the contact
airlines? This is the sub-delano where we're here. Talk about at the E2 icon. This is the E1
land we talked about just so here this portion is more gentle flat compared to the to the to the
slope here or here so we think the curve this or keep this open is able to build a county road
we think this road is right can you bring up the top graphical map with the country lines though
So I thought the southern portion of that hill was steeper.
Do you have an idea of the percentage slope?
We can do that.
It's about 10% to 12%.
This portion.
Okay.
Thank you.
Do we have any further questions?
Thank you.
We will now have the applicant's presentation and you have 20 minutes.
Hi, Kerry.
Raymond again.
Redtail Holdings, in this case, on the Northwest Order of Section 21, I disagree with comments
on the presentation there, access to the Northeast Quarter of Section 20 isn't a feasible
Well, really, in my opinion, off the undeveloped road allowance in any manner, if you were
to come off that road allowance where the option three was shown, you would drive down
westward and into a coolee.
It's not feasible, and I know both me never even, he never goes that way, it's not feasible.
Well, feasible practical.
The quarter section to the north with a gravel pit is, that's also owned by Dean of Boothby.
The road allowance on the north-south is presently under part of the permit that allows for
extraction of gravel, so portion of that is the road allowance that's running east-west.
The minable area years ago was mined by the county, that's the county pit, and it's been
reclaimed for the most part, there's some still gravel piles there that the county utilizes,
but access along that undeveloped road allowance is not feasible in any manner.
So you could, I mean, you could, you could access the property possibly down below if the mining of gravel was to continue and get deeper and deeper down to cut away the bank, but I don't think that's ever going to happen because the county didn't want to go that way.
So the person on the undeveloped road along is going north south.
I just believe that there's no way in any manner that it's ever going to be developed.
I don't believe Dana Booth, the other would want to access that north quarter coming off
the undeveloped road along.
It's just not feasible.
You're driving down too much of a hill and in regards to coming off the South boundary
along Glendale Road where we talked about utilizing so many meters of the undeveloped road
allowance.
I mean, you're climbing a hill to build a road up there.
I don't know if County would ever approve a development of lands further to the west utilizing
that hill.
It's like going down woodland road down to the river.
it's steep, it's not really practical and then you'd be turning off a hill to get in behind the
the lease that is currently operated by white gap so and it all goes back to
it's not a developed road allowance access along the south boundary to the property is there it's utilized
by the oil companies, so I just don't see the proctor go side of it, Dana Boothby did not oppose it,
Dana Boothby is the type of person that if you can reach him on the phone great but he's not
going to return a phone call, he doesn't return people's phone calls unless it's the his benefit, so
trying to contact him, I could phone him right now and probably get him on the phone and he'd
But I don't know if you want me to try to interrupt your meeting and do that.
Anyways, those are my comments. I don't know if I've answered all your questions.
If you've got further questions, please let me know.
Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Raymond?
I don't have any questions, but I just like to thank Mr. Raymond for the clarification. It was very helpful.
Thank you.
I see no questions for Mr. Raymond.
So thank you, sir.
We have no written submissions in our agenda package in either support or opposition.
Mr. Andreessen, do we have any audio or video presentations in support?
Through the chair, we do not.
Do we have any pre-recorded audio or video presentations in opposition?
Through the chair, we also do not.
Thank you.
I will now give five minutes for final e-mail submissions either in support or
opposition of this application. You
will now stand at ease for five minutes.
You receive an e-mail submissions.
Chair,
we may want to
I think we have quorum, I believe everybody except Council would come back. So I'll ask again, Mr. Andreessen. Through the chair, we did not receive any e-mail submissions.
Thank you. So seeing as there was no presentations or letters in opposition to the application, the applicant doesn't require rebuttal. Do we have any final questions for administration?
Thank you.
Just like to see question here,
has the administration ever done this
with an application where a land gets,
piece of property gets landlocked
or you know,
we haven't heard from the actual neighbor yet.
So what kind of problem does this present?
Yeah, so the chair to counsel
on Kamachi,
this is the big concern we have
because when we think about the planning application,
We think about the access services and access is the major concern for this one if we
Allow this road allows close
Then we would take a ride from this direct access to the GCN
That is the thing we want to prevent we want to protect everyone have a legal access and the legal access coming from this county road
else. If this is a close, this will be very difficult whenever the access will be considered
private access, not the county public legal access. So that's why we try to preserve this right
for the future landowner, whoever who owned the land to the land to the north, we have to make sure
they have the right to access to the county public legal access. I hope that answered your questions.
Yeah, thank you very much.
Councillor Belkey.
Thank you. Through the Chair to the Administration, in your report, it says future access to the
adjacent lands would be, would rely solely on the subject road allowance. And I believe Councillor
Hansen brought in to the conversation earlier on in the hearing that you could build a private
road on private land. And you can build that road to whatever standard you would like,
Is that true?
As soon as you're to Council Belki, that's true, but it's now to the idea situation.
We always prefer to go to legal public access if it's possible.
But if it's now to do to prevent a reason.
Again, if I can, the first part of the executive summary says the application is consistent with the requirements of the road alone closure and disposable or disposal policy.
CC443. So it fits policy and if a future landowner chooses to build a road down a very
steep cooleas we've heard, that is their prerogative. So thank you. We
have any further questions
for administration?
I see none. Thank you very much. Councillor Kessel.
Thank you.
Through the REVE, Councillor Kissle, Division 9, I'm going to move to close.
Motion to close public hearing by exception, is there anyone in opposition?
Seeing none, the motion carries, Councillor Kissle.
Through the REVE, Councillor Kissle, Division 9, I'm actually going to look for support on
this one.
I do not believe that it's even probable that there will be a road built in this area.
And why is, because it's a wildlife corridor,
steep slopes, it backs on to a provincial park
when you get far enough down into the valley.
It's a wetlands.
And I believe most of this area is basically grazing for cattle.
And I think that is its best use.
And when you have cattle grazing and gentlemen shooting trees
down in your same area, we've got a problem.
and I believe Rocky View County needs to make sure that our agriculture areas are protected
and the wetland areas are already protected. So with that I'm going to move option one,
motion one that by law see 8096-2020 be given first reading.
Thank you. Motion on the floor. Is there any debate or discussion? Councilor Wright and then Councilor
Gutro. Through the read, Councilor Wright of Internet, I'll support that motion. If the room could have
been built along there, it would have been built along there. It said we have Blumbo, or Blumdo,
Robe brother, that does this bizarre little jig as it stands. I do believe it's protected. We've heard
it's repairing, we've heard there's wetlands, we've heard there's steep slopes, it's basically
four mile falls within every single policy we have to protect those lands.
And so ever putting a load in there, I can almost see as time goes on, that's a rule will
become more protective.
And as Councillor Kissle alluded to, I do think we owe it to our residents to provide them
a safe place to live and a safe place to ranch.
And we did hear about the shooting and I know that this is a problem in this area.
And so for those reasons, I will be supporting this.
Thank you, Councillor Goetheural.
I will not be supporting the motion.
It's going to be landlocking property, lands, and people's lands rights.
You know, we've heard from administration, and their best result was that we need this access
for future land development possibly.
Could be 40 years down the road, 30 years down the road.
We can build private roads absolutely to whatever standards we want, however, what happens
if it becomes two different land owners or are subdivided, and they have no legal access.
So I'm not in support of cutting people's access off, so I will not be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Deputy McIner.
Thank you.
Through to the chair, Kim McIner, Deputy Reid, and I quite frankly gone back and forth with
with this one.
And I certainly understand what the landlord is trying to do, and I certainly
understand the topographical challenges of this. And I certainly question that about whether or not
we need this as a road allowance given that it will never likely be developed. All that said,
I have to agree with Councillor Gattro, is that we are using the closure of a road allowance to solve
legislative problem that's how the government of Alberta level and the applicant is already
working with the government of Alberta to sort of change the rules.
So I feel like this might be a slippery slope for closure of road allowances to solve
a hunting problem which I have empathy for when it should be fixed at the legislative level
with the G.O.A. I'm also concerned that while Dana Booth may not have any issues and in fact hence why he's not here today, but he may not always own that land and then we've created a problem downstream for a future land owner that may want to do something.
And so for that reason I can't support this either.
I will support this. I don't believe the road is practically feasible and because it's
a meticulous landowner there are other options and part of the condition of civil division
is that you do not create a landlocked parcel so that's a problem for a different day that
there is potentially private access that makes far more sense given the topology than a grid work
laid out in 1904 with no regard for rivers or topographical features. So my common sense approach
would say because of this one continuous landowner currently we're not causing any problems at this
point in time and the best solution in the future, I believe, is much like Glendale Road
rooting it around these topographical features. So I'm in support of the motion.
Thank you. Are you sure, Councillor Belkey?
Do we have any other comments or debate before
I call the question? Councillor Kessel to close.
Actually, I think it's all been said, there's no point in reiterating what I've already
said.
I do believe this closure will not affect anyone in the future based on just the slope
and the fact that most of the areas protected in the bottom, you're not building houses there.
So, I would just ask council for this support.
Thank you.
All the question in favor or opposed, Councillor Kamachi.
Support.
Deputy Reeve MacKyler.
Paulish.
Mr. Hanson.
In favor.
President, Councillor Guttro.
In favor.
Councilor Wright.
In favor.
Councilor Kisel.
In favor.
I can get motion number two on the board, please.
I'd like to move that by, I'll see 8096-2020 be forwarded to the Minister of Transportation.
Thank you.
Is there any discussion or debate on the motion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question.
in, Councillor Camacho, in favor or opposed?
In favor.
Deputy Regent McIlar.
In favor.
Councillor Hanson.
In favor?
Councillor Goutrault.
Opposed?
In favor.
Councillor Wright.
In favor.
Councillor Kissle.
In favor.
In favor and the motion carries.
Thank you.
So if it's okay with everybody, I would like to go to E3 and then we'll have a short recess after that,
Councillor Belkey.
Thank you. Moved to open the hearing. Motion to
open the public hearing.
By exception, is there anyone opposed?
Being none, the motion is carried. The administration presented that.
Good morning, council. Looks on the Newman representing planning and development services.
The item for your consideration is PL 2020-0140, a proposed road allowance closure.
We'll just wait for the presentation to queue.
All right, about that, technical difficulties.
Next slide, please.
The lands are located approximately 1.6 kilometers east of Highway 9 on the south side of
Township Road 274.
The area under consideration is adjacent to the eastern portion of the subject parcel and
includes approximately 1.15 acres of road allowance.
The purpose of the request is to provide access to the southern portion of the lands which
are effectively divided as a result of the canal.
Administration notes that the unsubdivided quarter-section to the east is bisected by the
same canal, while there is no pending application for subdivision and no comments were received
from any landowners, there is the potential that the southern portion of this parcel would
have to install 800 meters of road versus the 275 meters should access be along the existing
remote allowing.
Administration that
Therefore, has limited concerns about the closure of this road, allowance affecting adjacent parcels.
Administration recommend approval and accordance with option one, and that concludes my presentation.
Thank you, Councillor Belkey. Thank you, through the chair. Your, I think the diagram you have up here, the access from the south would be 800 meters, is that correct? Through the chair, that's correct. Okay, and the north one is 275. So is it possible to come
off of the township road on private land and build the
275 meter road that you wouldn't
need the should there ever be any desire for subdivision through the chair. I mean the
canal would be somewhat of an impediment but certainly if that could be overcome then
the access could be created that way.
Yep.
Okay.
Thank you.
Do we have any further questions, Councillor Wright, and then Councillor Hanson?
So I'm just looking at the map on page two of seven if you're a good reader.
So is it that the process totally in essence land like it doesn't have access at all unless
that right-of-way is opened up?
The borderline's kind of hard to figure out on this map because
I see there's a couple of
buildings down there.
How are they currently accessing those?
So through the chair they would be using the road allowance to access it because the canal
is so close to the road allowance that the ability to access.
On that property is quite small and so I would imagine that they're using the road access.
You can kind of see the road track on the aerial photo if you look closely where they're looping
around the canal to access the rear portion of the property.
My lines are a little thick and then when I look at it on your picture I can see that
well.
So, okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Hanson.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Hanson, Division 3.
So, just a little confused.
Sorry.
So, the picture we're currently looking at, we see the farm access, I guess,
off to 74 township road.
How would closing this road allowance impact lands to the north of the canal?
Through
the chair, currently there is no impact.
The only consideration was because the canal continues eastward onto the adjacent parcel.
Should a future subdivision occur, perhaps subdividing the north half from the south half and
the canal, being the bisecting line between those proposed parcels.
There is the potential that now that that southern portion of the adjacent parcel may not be able to
to use that access to Township Road 274
that they would need to go south.
So you see the southern portion of the adjacent parcel.
Can you show me that on the map just to be clear?
So you can see the red line is the proposed closure
of the road allowance and to the east,
you can see the canal zigzagging through the adjacent parcel
to the east.
So our only consideration there was,
you know, we don't have any subdivision applications in.
We're not aware of any plans to subdivide
But should the, you know, the southern portion south of the canal be subdivided, then there may be reduced ability to use the allowance to go north to town to put 274.
Okay. And through the chair, then that was the area with the yellow star on it on a previous map through
the chair. That's correct.
All right. So it's actually 800 meters versus 275 plus a bridge.
That's correct.
Okay.
Was there any rough idea on cost-wise bridge plus 275?
How that equates to 800 meters?
Is there a financial hardship with this decision today?
Through the chair, accessing across water bodies, particularly canals and named water bodies tends to be more difficult.
and I presume it's more expensive.
I don't have any cost estimates at this time.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Any further questions for the administration?
I see none.
Thank you very much.
Now have the applicant make their presentation?
Go ahead, Mr. Larson.
Yep, we hear you well now.
Sorry about that, some technical errors on my side.
My name is Paul Larson.
I am the owner of the property and the question
with my wife, Cerula. We want the property a few years ago, not realizing that there was a road
allowance there. We are under the impression that we own that part of the property. But apparently,
we just found out from the idea that we do not. So we would like to be able to combine it with our
property so that we use the bags as to the south portion of our property. And if we were to be
The road open security for our property would be hampered, I believe, because there
would be two easy access into the area.
We presently do not have any development on the property other than our campings, weekends
and summertime, but we do, in the future, plan to build on the property and also to build on
property need to have just the most things of properties that's allowed.
Thank you. Do we have any
questions for the applicant Councillor Belkey? Through the Chair, it's Councillor Belkey
Division 6. Mr. Larson has talked to your neighbors to the south and has there ever been access issues
We've spoken to our neighbors to the west and east and none of them have any issues
with the property that I know.
Thank you.
Further questions for the applicant?
The none.
Thank you very much.
I see no written submissions in our agenda package.
Mr. Andreessen, do we have any audio or video presentations in support?
Through the chair we did not receive any in support.
Thank you.
Do we have any prerecorded audio or video presentations in opposition?
Through the chair we did not receive any in opposition either.
Thank you.
I will now make a final call for e-mail submissions, either in support or opposition,
for five minutes.
Yes, and those submissions can be sent to public hearings at rockiview.ca.
We did not receive any email submissions.
Thank you.
Through the chair, I move to close the hearing.
To close the public hearing.
Is there any opposition being none?
Motion carries.
Thank you.
I see staff has recommended the approval.
I agree with that.
But this is a mainly, completely agriculture area, the access issues over the last hundred
or 150 years have not been an issue.
And I don't foresee anything that isn't solvable coming up in the future even on a private
access.
So I'm going to move for option one, motion one, that by-law C-8100-2020, be given first
reading. Thank you. Do we have any debate or discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, I will call the question
in favor or oppose Councillor Kamachi.
In favor? In favor? In favor.
Calls for Hanson.
In favor?
Calls for Goutro.
Councilor Guterl, good
to assume that's an in favor. Thank you, sir. Councilor Belky. In favor. Councilor Wright.
In favor. Councilor Kissle.
In favor. And we've had this in favor. That motion carries.
Councilor Belky. Thank you. Motion to that by law C8100-2020 be forwarded to the Minister of Transportation for approval.
Thank you.
Councillor Kamaachi.
In favor?
Dreeb Makayar.
In favor.
Councillor Hansom.
In favor?
Councillor Gritroll.
In favor?
Councillor Belkick.
In favor?
Councillor Wright.
In favor.
Councillor Kisle.
In favor.
Your hand is in favor.
Not motion carries.
Thank you.
We'll now recess for 10 minutes and we will go to
I forget the number business item L1
We'll see you in 10 minutes.
Emergency management
Introduce their
annual presentation every
year and
The county is a long history of supporting stars in the county and
And we've even have our decal on the side of the helicopter their new helicopters as we've seen
when we did our grand opening.
Yeah, my report in front of you.
The one thing I did want to highlight this morning
in the report it talks about 16 missions
in the Rocky View County in 2020.
And I just, I always try to mention
that the whole Star's Air Amulance System
is really a well-oiled machine.
Not only did they fly 16 missions into the county
and generally in support of fire
and ambulance services when we have a serious medical or a traumatic event that happens in
our county. I often hear when the guys are going out and based on dispatch information
that the the stars is already schooling up and sometimes it gets stood down which is
good thing but they are part of our emergency response system. We're also very fortunate
that they do provide training to our crews out there in the field and we have radio communications
directly with the helicopter, often giving vital patient information to the paramedics,
as well as landing information for the star's helicopter.
This morning I'm very pleased to introduce Glanda Fardin. She's been here a number of times
and she has a presentation for you.
Thank you very much.
This is Fardin, please proceed. Thank you so much. Can everyone hear me all right?
it sounds good here. Thank you, thank you. Okay, perfect. I am so pleased to be able to bring you
an annual update. I wish that I could be there in person with you, but it gives us something to
look forward to in the future. I'll just share my screen here.
Is Tyler able to have, I'm not able to
have screen sharing? Is Tyler able to share? Through the chair, this is Tyler and
Jason. Clerk, we will recent the screen share. Through
the chair to Glenda, you
should have the screen sharing by now. Okay.
Are you able to see that?
Yes, we have it
on our screens now. Thank you very much. Council also has this in their in their
packages as well so we can follow along that way as well.
Okay, perfect. So let's start it. So thank you and once again, RocketU County for continuing to be partners that state lives.
COVID-19 has changed all our lives. Stars is a position-driven organization and our number one priority is to protect and maintain unimpacted operations.
Stars transport physicians are regarded as experts in critical care and the reasons
why stars was asked to participate in an international consortium to share learnings
about COVID-19.
We developed rigorous PPE and decontamination procedures and created an online portal system
to assist healthcare professionals with airway management, ventilation, and resuscitation protocols.
These are stressful times, and we see a rise in stress-related types of missions, like heart
attack, stroke, drug overdose and COVID-related.
13 and as high as 18% of star's missions are suspected and or confirmed COVID cases.
During these challenging times we recognize that our municipalities are facing countless
hardships, and this is magnified by the fact that there are many who rely upon you for help.
including stars. Like all organizations, the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted our revenues in all funding areas including government.
Last year's lottery did not sell out. The calendar campaign is down by more than half.
Distration revenue is considerably less with the uncertainty of the energy sector. With COVID-19 still looming around us, most of Starr's fundraising events have all been canceled for the unforeseeable future. Let's look at the positives. Although 2020 has posed challenges for us all, the Starr's lottery is our single largest funding source, so we have moved forward with the 2021 Starr's lottery. We mobilized and worked diligently
to identify operational and fundraising efficiencies.
We pivoted our fundraising programs to online events
and we're truly grateful to the communities that have reached out to us
to host 50-50s and online raffles in place of their annual community fundraisers
that could not be held.
We are humbled that Albertans continue to stand by our side.
In its first month, the lottery is outperforming predictions
and we also see an increase in individual contributions coming from our
direct mail campaign. The increasing request for stars is reflected in the
aviation expenditures. Administration costs reflect a decrease that we too
suffered the heartache of having to downsize staff members across all six of our
bases. We're truly grateful to municipal partners like Waukeview County who
represent an area of support for stars that remain steadfast and unwavering.
When people hear about stars, the red helicopter comes to mind, yet stars offer so much more
to the communities that we serve.
From behind the scenes, the Stars Emergency Link Center provides an immediate safety network
24-7, through coordination and access to all available resources.
Stores transport physicians provide critical care oversight and guidance on all calls deemed
critical regardless of the method of transport and they also support all pre-hospital practitioners
providing physician to physician consultation, orchestrate the complex logistics and facilitate
with receiving hospitals for coordination of very time-sensitive requirements.
The emergency link center handles over 31,000 emergency requests per year.
That's an average of 86 per day, and much of the behind-the-scenes requirements
involves transport positions.
Let's have a look at the six-year overview of missions.
Overall, 2020 reflects increasing missions across the province.
Although this may not be the case for your area for last year, we must keep in mind that
we all travel and commute, so rest assured that your continued support of stars ensures
that your residents and neighbors have access to stars, not only in Alberta, but across
Western Canada.
In some areas, seen call occurrences have been affected by the pandemic due to much less
travel.
The majority of stars missions occurred during the months of September to March, so we
are still now in a busier season.
The BK-117 legacy fleet has served stars well for 35 years, yet the new unified fleet
will increase safety and significantly reduce cost.
The H-145 is breakthrough technology, and with its increased fuel efficiency speed and
range, it will offer as much as 30 minutes additional flight time. Currently we have three
operational from Calgary and Saskatoon and the third provides BACA. We just received
delivery of number four and five. And a new five-bladed system has been announced with increased
lift and load capacities. So number six and seven will be the new five-bladed system.
On expected ride, sometime late spring now due to another COVID delay.
All helicopters will be identically equipped, and we look forward to the completion of
an entire fleet sometime in 2022.
This is the most newest and technologically advanced intensive care unit environment within
the new H-145 that is currently operational in your area.
In combination with the exceptional critical care expertise provided by Stars Crew, having
blood on board, and the Stars transport positions working behind the scenes.
Together, this results in Stars providing the highest level of emergency critical care available.
Ultrasound is one of the most vital diagnostic tools.
Previously, we have had ultrasound, but it was a bulky device and not easily transportable.
This new handheld ultrasound is a game-canger for trauma and heart patients.
And with early detection, this valuable tool will avoid fatal outcomes.
Preventual and federal governments embrace the vision of a fleet of H-145s and provided funding for
seven of the nine helicopters in total. Then COVID-19 hit right in the middle of our
capital campaign, but we must not lose sight of the vision. New updates since this presentation
was submitted to date and additional 18.5 million dollars has been raised. From corporate,
individual and municipalities, there is still a market for the BK-117 legacy fleet, but it is
going to depend on market value and the rate of the U.S. dollar later this year. We anticipate
the sale of the previous fleet could generate possibly $15 million. And very recently,
we just confirmed another municipal fleet gift now bringing us to $10 million remaining.
Together, we have saved countless lives. We thank you for continuing to stand by our side
the fight for life. Thank you for recognizing stars as a vital part of the emergency protective
services which you provide for your residents. Thank you for your commitment to stars through
a standing motion of $79,000 per year. The bottom line is stars is being called to assist communities
with the pandemic in addition to the regular daily demands. The most important time is now
But we as our burdens do have failed to do it will be amplified in the future and the stakes are undeniably high.
You are star's reason for being and we thank you very much Rocky View County.
Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for Miss Farner?
Thank you. Through the chair. Well, it's nice seeing you again and it's always a pleasure to be able to
contribute to this outstanding service for our province and our region and
our province. So I would be more than happy to make it. Do we have a motion to
make? Or is it a standing motion that we don't need to make? We do have a
motion. It's in your package and I believe I think probably we'll get it on the
here right away. There you go.
One thing I would comment on is good to see that we're on a down trend for calls into
Rocky View where we're quite happy with that. So maybe the COVID has kept people either
at home or driving safer or and healthier. I will make the motion that the stars air ambulance
presentation be received for information and that administration be directed to provide stars
with a $79,000 donation for 2021.
Thank you.
I have a motion on the floor to have any discussion.
None, Eric.
Councilor Goethrough.
We're going to chair.
I'm definitely going to support this motion,
and I'd like to thank stars for their service.
Stars is for all of us, actually, for all travelers
and for anybody within our region.
So I want to thank everybody at stars for their service
and for helping when in time of crisis needs.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Sir Hanson.
A question for administration through the Reve.
This is Councillor Hanson, Division 3.
The standing motion.
One was it put in place?
I missed that in the past.
Chief Smith?
Sir Hanson, yes.
This has been, we started this, I see 1991, but I'm curious about the amount of $79,000.
and when was that decision made on that specific amount?
2015 or 16, I don't have the numbers in front of me,
and it's now part of our operational budget
in Council for Council each year as part of grants.
Okay, and is it been a fixed amount
or has it been scaled with a cost of living or inflation?
It's been a fixed, through the reef to Councilhenson.
It's been a fixed amount.
Okay so what's the process at actually looking at the level of donation? Is it something council
initiates or is it part of that standing motion the historical motion that it be looked at again in
a certain number of years?
That's true the chair council Hanson that would be part of our operational
budget deliberations and it would be addressed at that time. All right you have my take away thank you
I'll be supporting this.
Well, how did Lee?
Thank you.
Do we have anyone else who would like to comment or debate on the motion?
Seeing none, I'd just like to say thank you to Ms. Farndon for a great presentation.
And I think this is money well spent on behalf of our residents.
So I too will be supporting the motion.
Seeing no further debate, I will call the question.
Thank you, I'm in favor. I just wonder if there's any money in the pig that we could be handed over as well.
Well, if you'd like to contribute, I believe Ms. Farndon mentioned something about a lottery. I'll go buy a ticket.
Councillor Hanson.
in favor.
Councillor Goethrough.
I know there's $20 a mine in the pig.
Very good.
Sir Belky, in favor?
Councillor Wright.
In favor, thank you, sirs.
Councillor Kissel.
In favor?
We're
in Miss Farrndon while we have you on the line.
I don't know if you know.
We have a thing around here we call a pig.
And it's kind of like a swear jar.
I don't, it's not here today, but the way it works is if someone on council's
Device goes off during a meeting they owe the pig $20 and as long as I've been on council that money has gone to
Stars or ambulance. I see councilor Belkie's
Could a comment or a contribution? I'm not sure. Well, I have a contribution to make unfortunately my phone went off here
and I didn't realize so I don't know if anybody else heard it.
I know Tyler did, he's given me the eyeball so he just got another 20 bucks a
smoothing. So you're on a good day, 79,000 and 20 dollars.
Thank you so much. Thank you. There was really lovely to see all of you again.
Sorry that had to be virtually but that just gives us something to look forward to
when we can all be together again. In the meantime we thank you so much for your
continued support. Absolutely, thank you.
I'll move to agenda item F1, or
waiting. I think
I have the behest of Councillor McIlar. Is she suggesting we perhaps turn the pig into a
swear jar, as opposed to a sound jar? We make a lot more revenue, especially off Deputy Reeve McIlar.
Go ahead Ms. Bateman, thank you.
Good morning, Reeve and Council. My name is Brenda Bateman.
I'm a
the 2020 year-end audit service plan. This plan is provided to Council on an
annual basis as part of the provincially mandated audit process and sets out how
MMP LLC will conduct the 2020 year-end audit. MMP intends to present their audit
fighting the Council on April 27th 2021. MMP has provided the attached year-end
audit service plan, discuss their overall strategy and general arrangements for the
audit of Rockview County's 2020 financial state. MMP's mandate includes
completing an audit of the following areas, the county's annual financial
statements and supporting information, the family and community support services
program and the look.
Local authority suspension plan contribution. MMP is present today and available to discuss various topics, including materiality, fraud, the county specific needs and expectations, or any other issues or concerns. Council has the opportunity to contact the auditor at any time or to direct the undertakings of the auditor. For the purposes of this discussion, council may choose to move to close session. In accordance with the following, municipal government section 197 sub two and freedom
of Information Protection and Privacy Act, Section 24 and 25.
Thank you.
And I'd say sorry about that.
The administration recommends that the 2020 Year
and Audit Service Plan be received as information
in accordance with option number one.
This concludes my presentation.
I'd like to introduce Julie Oliver from MNP LLP,
present the 2020 Year and Audit Service Plan,
where she'll be able to answer any questions in regards
to the audit.
I'd be happy to answer any questions directed to the administration.
So, we'll start off with that. Do we have any questions of administration before we move on to Ms. Oliver?
I see none. So, Ms. Oliver, please proceed.
Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Oliver. We can't hear you.
We have your microphone on, but we can't hear you.
Can you hear me now? There we go. Perfect. Thank you.
Okay. Good morning. My name is Julie Oliver with MNP. I'm a partner there. As mentioned,
we complete the audit of Rocky View County for their regular financial statements as well
as the financial information return. The specified procedures on your LAPP and the SCSS audit
as well. So in your agenda package you do have the full audit service plan they're for sure.
Just in terms of highlights, I'd like to highlight on page six of attachment A there,
page six of 38. The materiality is 3.5 million dollars, which is the same materiality that was used
in the prior year and is based on an approximate 3% of revenue.
Other highlights from the audit service plan that may be different from past years are
on page 9 of 38 where we talk about other matters.
Just the impact that COVID-19 might have on completion of the audit, we're anticipating
being able to complete it on time this year. COVID-19 is no longer new, it's not an emerging issue
and we've come a long way in terms of processes and being able to complete the engagement virtually.
There is indications in there some different guidance that we've received on areas to watch for
that could have changes in them as a result of COVID-19.
So it will definitely have an impact on the procedures that we do
in our audits and to cover things off.
Moving backwards, just for a minute, that's all of the highlights
that I wanted to go over.
You do have all of the information there and welcome any questions
that you might have.
But on page 4 of 38 and in the attachment A of F1, there's the topics for discussion and I really do appreciate the chance before we do our audit procedures to, you know, have a discussion with council about any specific needs they have or any of the other items that are mentioned in the topics for discussion, including any concerns you might have about fraud, although I would say that you might want to move into a court.
meeting before you discuss anything of that order or just contact me directly so that
we can address any issues appropriately. So at this time I'd like to ask if there are
any specific needs or questions that council would like to let me know about as an auditor
before we get started.
Thank you, and before that, I will ask if there is any desire to move in camera and
I see none.
So we will proceed with the topics for discussion.
Do we have anybody who would like to raise any topics for discussion or concerns?
Councillor Hanson.
So Hanson Division III, I guess falling under business plans and strategies, but in the
past I don't think I really ever asked this question, so it's not clear in my mind, but
when you are auditing for us, are we checking into budget buckets and whether expenses are
landing in appropriate buckets or not?
is that part of the oversight or I know 3.5 million in terms of materiality is a is a very large
number for that but it's only assurance that the reporting we're getting from administration
in terms of how the budget's aligning whether that actually reflects reality. Is that provided for
in the audit?
To the review if I may answer Councillor Hanson. Yes, we don't do a lot of information,
for me, a lot of work on how the budget was derived,
but certainly we do make sure that the budget that's presented
in the final year end financial statements
is properly shown in represents what was approved by Council.
And then the accounts that would make up
where different items get slotted into, as you say,
we do compare that to what accounts are actually
reflected in those line items on the financial statements. So on a global basis the answer is yes.
Okay, so you're still spot checking x percent of transactions or something like that, standard
auditing techniques for that, right?
Through the Reven answer to Councillor Hansen's question,
And absolutely, we do a testing approach where using materiality and risk factors, we calculate sample sizes and then calculate random samples in order to cover off the risks in each financial statement area.
Okay, and my last question was you picked my interest around the COVID, the impact of COVID,
and you mentioned something. I forget your exact words, but as you're looking specifically
for the impact of COVID on our organization, I think is what I heard, but maybe just clarify that
a little bit for me.
Through the read to Councillor Hanson, with COVID, there are additional disclosures
that are expected in financial statements.
And there's been guidance given to us
by public sector accounting standards bodies
on impacts on public sector accounting.
For example, specific issues that we might be looking for,
or which I don't think will impact you,
but when a municipality has an arena that they had to shut down
for several months during COVID due to public health
measures that was not in use and the amortization may need to be modified to reflect that the
asset wasn't in use. So that would fall under estimates and whether there's any considerations
on your estimates. There's a number of other ones listed on page 9 of 38 in the package,
including valuation of receivables in the impairment of assets assets that are no longer going
to be used as a result of change in plans due to COVID, the control environment, so that's
one of the key areas that we need to be cognizant of, you know, there is a very real change
during 2020 where staff went from working almost fully, you know, at the county to a combination
of virtual and in-person functions so understanding the impact that had on your control systems
is very important to us.
So a number of different considerations.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Do we have any other questions from us all over?
Thank you very much.
Do you have another question from Councillor Hanson?
There's no more questions.
I'll go ahead and make motion for option one.
that 2020 year-end audit service plan be received as information.
Thank
you very much. Do we have any debate or discussion regarding the motion?
I see none. So I'll call a question.
In favor or oppose Councillor Comache?
In favor.
Deputy Reeve McCarter.
In favor.
Councillor Hanson.
In favor.
Councillor Belkey.
In favour?
Councillor Wright?
In favour?
Councillor Kessel.
In favour?
In the motion carries.
Thank you very much for your time and a great presentation.
Thank you.
So I'd like to go to item G1 just because we have half an hour.
We just need to make sure that our representative from administration is available.
Yes, I'm available.
No.
Very good.
Good.
We get administration's report on item G1.
We can't hear you, Ms. Deng.
Oh, sorry about that.
Okay.
No, I can hear you.
Let's just start.
Yeah.
Let's just start again.
This item is by law item to the purpose about this one is to resend the previously given
second reading.
The land is located about a half mile south of a highway 567 and on the west side of
a big hill spring road.
The original proposal is to read as the portion of the land from the ranch and farm to residential
2D trade, interversal decretion of five acres in the south, leaving this 50 acre remainder.
So, as the slope of this 30% or greater existing on the entire law one, it's not sure whether
law one has sufficient available area.
So, on July 21st, last year, council table the third reading pending more technical study.
So, after that meeting, the applicant provided the technical studies and the new public hearing
will be held in order to accept this new information from the study.
However, a section 230 of the Municipal Government Act
required that the public hearings to be held
prior to second reading of the dialogue. So therefore, the primary second reading
that's given in July 21st need to be rescinded
in order to allow a new public hearing to offer.
And the new public hearing is scheduled on March 23rd.
So we recommend option one that the second reading to file all C-799-2019 be resented.
So that's the purpose for this presentation.
Thank you.
Do we have any questions for Ms. Deng, Councillor Kessel?
Actually, I'll let questions go forward first and then I'll bring forward a motion.
Very good.
Councillor Hansen.
Councillor Hansen, division three, through the chair.
Just curious, I know the MGA says that you have to have a public hearing before the second
reading.
Is there anything that says that you can't have more than one public hearing, and just have another public hearing prior to third?
Is it just a point of clarification?
I guess that we consider that you could have more than one public hearing because in effect I think it opens up anything that was discussed at the first hearing over again.
And what is that? I will go to Mr. Andres and for that answer. Through the chair to Councillor
Hanson, I guess, to Council as a whole. So that Section 231 of the MGA does sort of
contemplate holding a single public hearing. But there's nothing really in the act that talks
about holding multiple public hearings. So on the side of caution, we would recommend that
just to make sure we're on side. And there's no questions about it that we do rescind that
Second reading before we hold the additional public hearing.
All right, appreciate the education.
Thank you.
One
more questions for Ms. Deng with
two Councillor Kessel.
Thank you.
I'd like to move that option number one,
that second reading to by law, C7989-2019 be rescinded.
Thank you.
Do we have any conversation or debate on the motion?
Seeing none, I call the question Councillor Kamaci.
in favor.
In favor.
House, the right.
In favor.
House, the right.
In favor.
We've handed in favor.
And the motion carries.
Through the, through the chair to council.
So I believe.
I believe G2 and G3 can be omnibus.
Yes, unless there's any questions we want to separate us.
Deputy Chief Makatter.
Yeah, no questions.
I could just make that omnibus motion if I could get it on the screen.
Thank you.
I'd like to move that the following by-laws receive first reading, by-law C-8114-2020 and
by-law C-8116-2020.
Thank you.
A question, Councillor Camacho.
In favor?
Sorry, Deputy McIlar.
In favor.
Councillor Hansen.
In favor?
Councillor Guttro.
In favor.
In favor?
Councillor Wright.
Opposed?
Councillor Kessel.
In favor?
Councillor Wright.
Repen is in favor, motion carries.
I
think we will recess now until 1 o'clock, unless we have anything else we could do.
I think we're down to public hearings, and then in cameras after public hearings, so
we'll recess till 1 o'clock.
Thank you.
Wait.
It's Councilor Wright.
Can we not do 1 o'clock in cameras at least?
It's got 25 minutes or more, while we're in the go-over bit, so we have to, I guess you guys
have to go for lunch.
but if you could use 25 minutes for at least one of them.
It is easier on folks around here to log in just once,
but I will, you know what?
I will ask council if they want to come in and out
because, again, involving motions to come in and out
and things like that.
So would council like to proceed?
Or would you like to break for an hour and a half?
A deputy of MacKyler.
Thank you.
Through the chair.
I'm all for just breaking now.
I think we've worked the staff well.
We've given them shorter lunch breaks for the past several council meetings.
So we'll give them because you guys do have to eat.
And I would just say that we should do them all at one time.
Councillor Belkey.
Thank you.
I'll go the other way.
I think we're here.
We've got half an hour.
We should probably keep working.
Maybe less questions.
and we'd get right through it and get back here.
I see Ms. Deng is on the got her hand up.
Yeah, thank you chair.
Since the revised the bylaw and the schedule for E1 item
are ready, can we bring in the back to council for consideration?
I know the motion was a table that I should have to know.
Since the document is ready, if you are available
We're all ready to consider that.
Maybe we can do this quick one before the lunch.
That is an excellent idea.
Thank you.
We will go to item E1.
Through the chair, we do need a motion
to lift this one from the table.
If a counselor does want to make that motion.
Very good, Councillor Kessel.
I shall have a question.
We have told the applicant that we will be hearing this
in the afternoon while it make a difference for him
to not be here at this time?
Dr. Andreessen. Through the chair.
So the applicant would have the right to present at the public hearing, but given that
the public hearing is closed, this business is
council now at this point with the by-law.
Excellent. I'd like to move to lift E1 from the table, please.
Thank you.
By exception, then you want to pose to lifting from the table,
being done, that motion is carried, this is ding.
As for the chair, I send and revise the document to Tyler, maybe you can Tyler can bring that on the screen for you review.
Through the chair, give us a moment to bring that up.
We weren't prepared to go yet, but give this one second to bring that up.
Through the chair, we could also screen chair over to Miss Deng to,
if you have it on your computer, to bring it up.
Let me bring it on the screen.
The highlight part is the revised part.
We include a portion of the original road allowance,
adjacent to the South West section 21,
Township 26,
Render 3, West at the 5th Meridian.
Containing this partial size has been reduced
because the length of the road allowance has been reduced.
So the parcel size is reduced to 1.33 hectares, equal to 3.4 acres.
So that's the major change for the bylaw.
That's the bylaw. I'm trying to open the schedule A.
So this is revised the schedule A to reflect what is showing on the bylaw.
It's a highlight this portion.
So basically, this is a wording, it's exactly same as a certain in the by-law, and there
was a, we add this in measurement to show you this is about 120 as requested by a council
or a piece of council piece.
Any questions
for Kisal?
If we have no questions, I'd like to put the motions on the board, please.
Okay.
I saw a council for Hanson with his hand up.
Do you still have a question, sir?
Thank you, Reeve. I do not. I had it. She knows.
Okay. Very good. Councillor Kessel.
If we could put the motions on the board, please.
Through the chair, if I could just request a couple of minutes to prepare those motions,
and we'll have them in a couple minutes, but we do have to prepare those quick.
Thank you. For a couple of minutes.
I'd like to move the E1 option one that by-law C 8097-2020 be amended in accordance with
the revised version distributed at the February 9th 2021 council meeting.
Thank you.
I'm going to support this simply because I don't want to see it fail but I really think
I think we got into this too deep, the applicant did ask for it to stay down by the road, that was his preference.
When you look at that map, I don't see what we gained by going up to the end of the oil well lease when there is access at the south end, but I'm going to support it simply because I don't want to drag this into a three day hearing.
Thank you. Any further debate being done. I will call the question.
Councillor McKay or Councillor Kamachi.
In favor. Deputy Regent McKaylor.
In favor.
Councillor Hansen.
In favor.
Councillor Guttro.
Opposed?
Councillor Belkey.
In favor.
I would like to
move the by-law C80972020 be given first reading as amended.
Thank you.
In favor?
In favor? In favor? In favor? In favor? In favor?
020 be followed to the minister of transportation as amended.
Thank you. Do we have any debate?
Any none? I'll call the question. Councillor Kamachi.
In favor.
Deputy Chief McCudder.
In favor.
Councillor Hanson.
In favor.
Councillor Gocho.
Post.
In favor.
Councillor Wright.
In favor.
Councillor Kessel.
In favor.
My hand is in favor of motion carries.
Thank you.
Now I'm going to recess for sure.
See you all at one o'clock.
Good choice.
All right, e-mail submission
process that will be followed with this public hearing. After opening the public hearing, we will begin with a presentation from administration followed by questions. Administration from the applicant will provide a presentation followed by questions of the applicant play any prerecorded audio or video presentations in support of the application followed by any prerecorded audio or video presentations in opposition of the application.
I will then call for any final e-mail submissions and allow five minutes for the public to submit
any last minutes.
Any last e-mail submissions to public hearings at rockivie.ca, both in support or in opposition
before declaring e-mail submissions closed.
If e-mail submissions were received, they will be provided to Council and the applicant
by email as well as upload it to www.rockivu.ca
flash meetings dash hearings for the public.
Once the email submissions have been distributed,
we will take a recess to read and consider those submissions
before returning and continuing with public hearing.
If no email submissions are received from the public,
we will continue with the public hearing,
which will conclude with the applicant's rebuttal period and any final questions of administration.
May I have a motion for E4 please, Councillor Belkey.
Move to open the hearing please.
Motion to open the public hearing by exception to have any opposition.
Being none of motions carried, you get administrations report please.
Good afternoon, Reven Townsall looks on the Newman representing planning and development
services, the item before you is PL 2020-006-9, a re-designation application from Agricultural
General District to Industrial Heavy and rural residential districts.
The parcel is located on the north side of Township Road 290 adjacent to the town of Crossfield
and the west side of Highway 2A, parcels in the area consists of primarily large parcel
agricultural operation, with the direct control district to the east and proposed residential
to the south in the town of Crossfield.
The area limit shows only a well site on the
parcel with no other development,
and this image shows the proposed redesignation areas,
the purple to 10.43 acres of industrial heavy, and the yellow to 6.64 acres of rural residential.
The first parcel out is located in between these areas and a previous additional residential
parcel to the west of the proposed industrial parcel.
In terms of policy evaluation, the Rocky View Crossfield Interminisple Development Plan,
County Plan, and Land Use By-law were considered.
The application was referred to the town of Crossfield, who noted that the industrial portion
would be directly adjacent to feature residential development along the Crossfield Rocky View
Northern boundary line, and as such, screening measures should be considered in order to minimize
impact.
For the land use bylaw, the proposed parcel sizes are in keeping with the respective district.
In regards to the county plan, county plan mapped one detailed areas identified for residential
and business development, and the subject lands are not identified in an area for either
purpose, though it is near a highway business area.
The applicants are seeking to create a third residential site on this quarter section,
Policy 5.11 in Section 5, managing residential growth, supports first parcel at residential
subdivision, which the applicant accomplished in 1990, a second residential parcel was
created in 2009. The applicant stated that they have a buyer interested in the land for
residential use, and have not provided any supporting documentation regarding this action
being supported by the county plan. Section 5 notes that the majority of residential
growth areas as identified on map 1. Section 8 pertaining to agriculture supports agriculture
operators within minimum with minimum adverse impacts from non-agricultural land use and
section 10 supports residential development and fragmented quarter sections. The proposed
application is therefore inconsistent with these sections of the county plan. Regarding the proposed
industrial redesignation the applicants are also seeking to create an additional heavy industrial
partial as they have been approached by a buyer seeking to develop an aggregate and construction
storage yard. No further details regarding the size and scope of the operation were provided.
Section 14 of the county plan directs the majority of new commercial and industrial businesses
to locate in business areas as identified and not one. Failing this, a rationale as to why the
development cannot be located in the business area. No such justification has been identified. Finally,
In fact, improperly cited and designed industrial storage facilities may adversely impact land values and agricultural operations, potentially creating traffic problems in an area by increasing traffic volume and summary.
The application is not consistent with several sections of the county plan.
In terms of land owner circulation, no comments were received.
Based on administration's evaluation of the proposal, it's recommended council refuse
the application and accordance with option 4.
This includes my presentation.
Thank you.
Do we have questions for administration?
That was for Belky.
Thank you.
Through the chair, is there an area structure plan in this area that is part of the county's
area structure plan?
Through the chair, the county does not have an ASP in this area.
Sorry?
No.
There is no county ASP in this area.
None whatsoever in this area.
I'm in a hearing, so I have to ask the question.
Sure.
No.
There is no ASP in this area.
So in the vicinity, then, is there one?
The nearest?
I'm trying to think what the nearest area is, Mr. Plants, just to see.
Would there be such a thing as a joint area in the area?
Through the chair to Councillor Belkey to my knowledge there is no area structure plan for these lands or within the immediate area
On the other side of the municipal boundary perhaps
Crossfields has an air search plan. We have to double check theirs, but they wouldn't be applicable to these lands
Sorry, I can't hear you. Sorry. There is no area structure plan for the county within on these lands or within this vicinity
There may perhaps be one within Crossfield, but that would still one apply within our county boundaries if council want a joint area structure plan
That is something that so you're not aware of an area structure plan to the southeast of this property
If I may if I may it's good in the germ behalf of planning and development services to the chair to council bill
Okay, I believe you're referring to the
Tana cross-load of you county joined area structure plan along how you to is that the one that you're speaking about?
That is an area structure plan in the vicinity, is it not?
Correct, yeah. So the closest area structure plan active in the area would be the one would be that one.
That's a joint DSP by the town and Rock and U County.
So does that area structure plan contemplate any commercial industrial development?
I can look further as to the details on the land use identified, I believe it is a non-residential ASP.
The second question I have is right to the west on the west side of the railway tracks there.
What is the designation of that property?
Through the chair, do you mean the smaller residential portion, the triangular piece?
Yes, I believe it's to the west.
That is a rural resident.
Thank you.
I have Councillor Wright.
Thank you.
Councillor Wright.
I did the comments from the town of Crossfield that says the town of Crossfield provided
contact information for adjacent owners and the developer who was circulated.
Did we hear anything back from any of those people?
Through the chair, we did circulate those parties, but we did not get any responses.
Nothing at all.
Thank you.
I'm
looking for more hands or green lights being done.
Thank you very much, Ms. Newman.
We'll now have the applicant give their presentation
and you have 20 minutes.
Good afternoon.
My name is Graham Ireland.
I'm here with my mother-in-law Donna Hertz.
My father-in-law Ron Hertz.
He's just just got a medical call at the moment.
He'll be right back.
We just wanted to do address a few of the concerns raised by administration.
From our understanding, as I think was alluded to, there is a joint Rocketview County town
of Crossfield area plan for this area.
Our understanding is that this type of development is supported by that joint plan.
I mean, I'm just looking at the letter that we submitted to understanding the economic
developments of this kind of minor nature is supported in the area, to the extent that
there was any comments from surrounding landowners or the town, understanding is that there
was no negative comments.
Let's talk to them on the model.
There is a developer that owns the land directly
south of the proposed predesination.
I did speak with him.
They had just a few questions about the application
and the nature of it, but had no opposition.
We currently farmed that land from them.
So it's an ongoing relationship.
And you know, we received no opposition to the application.
So I think that speaks in favor of the application.
There are other developments in the area.
There is a large RV storage location directly east
of the proposed read designation.
The acreage in between.
Yeah.
There's a number of acreages in the area.
So our understanding is that this read designation
is in mind with existing lead uses in the area.
Do they have those in the area?
Was there any questions from Council?
I just also wanted to clarify that the letter that were submitted by Ron and Donna was
received by Council.
Is that correct?
I don't see any letters in our package.
Did we get a letter in our package from Mr. Orr and Orr?
Mrs. Hertz?
Yeah, it was sent.
It was submitted by a email on the 26th of January.
We did receive confirmation from county staff that it was received.
I do not see the letter in our package.
Okay, so can we read it to them?
We can certainly resubmit it.
Sorry.
Question there.
Councilor Ray.
I'm sorry.
I didn't catch your last name, sir.
I'm very sorry.
My name is Graham Ireland.
I'm just helping them with some of the technical aspects of the application.
No, absolutely.
So I will ask, I'm getting a lot of blank looks regarding this letter.
If you could resubmit that letter to public hearings at rockview.ca.
Absolutely.
We'll get it and we'll consider it.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
If you're .ca, what was the address of them?
Yes, so the public hearings are plural at rockiview.ca.
Public hearings at rockiview.ca.
Understood.
Thank you.
You bet.
Okay.
Could you continue with your presentation, please?
Question.
Of course.
Okay, welcome.
If we finish the presentation, please, council rate, and then we'll ask questions. Well, sorry, I thought he asked the questions. I apologize. We don't have a formal presentation. We are understanding that the letter that was that we understood had been submitted has explained most of our concerns and where we believe that there's support and existing legislation for this application.
I'm happy to read over it, but probably having it read for yourself is probably easier.
So if Councilor Wright has some questions, please proceed.
Okay.
We will move to questions.
Councilor Wright.
Through the read, thank you, Councilor Wright, Division 8.
First question.
You said the letter is from Ronald and Donna Hurt.
That's right.
Are they not the applicants?
Yes.
Okay.
You're providing specifications to what your application is.
Is that what your letter is just basically stating?
Yes.
That's what it's stating.
I can read it to you if you'd like.
This is on a hurt talking right now.
No.
That's okay.
Thank you.
I was just trying to clarify if it was a letter of support or a letter of opposition, but
it's just basically a letter just stating what's your intences.
Yes.
We were approached by some people too that they were interested in this land.
And one is a small, he has his own gravel truck and back hole and he would like to build
a shop for it and put it on that 14 or no, that 10 acre parcel.
And then the individual that's in between these two parcels of subdivision that we've applied
for, he has a small home business and he was the one that approached us for the six point
six acre person. Thank you for that. So then I'm just going to, based on that, administration
is there no way this could operate as a home-based business or is it outside the scope and I'm
going to guess it's not in the area where home-based is. Sorry, yeah, just look at that. So can
it be a home-based business?
No, for administration, not for yourself. So I just want some
clarification just based on what you just stated.
through the chair. We would have to have a closer look as to what the nature of the development
would be to make that determination. Okay, because I notice that it's asking for an eye
heavy, which is a big change. Okay, the other question I have is, is this in the area of
live work? And that's why I think it's probably not, but it's getting my live work in these business
factors. I'm sorry, could you repeat your question? I missed the first part.
Is it in the area where the work would occur or could occur?
Through the chair, I believe it may fall into.
I'd have to review the map to confirm that, but it's possible it's closed by.
I'd have to review that map to confirm.
Okay.
Well, that's not really for this application.
I think it would probably be something that comes down the line, but I just want to have
some options open here.
Thank you very much.
Do you have a claim? I see your lights on you.
Just with regards to the home based business, an application would be needed to be submitted
for if this were to be fallen at home based business, which would go before municipal
planning commission is not existing home based business.
So if that application were to be made, it would be determined at that point.
Thank you. I had deputy even MacKyler than Councillor Hanson.
Thank you, through the chair, Kimi-Kallard, if you read, just I need a clarity question.
I don't really think this is for the applicant, but are these made this for administration
based on the questions that Councillor Valkyrie was raising?
Is this lands or are these lands out of the ASP, the Joint ASP in Crossfield?
Through the chair, we did review them up and these lands are not located within that
The ASP area, they are to the northeast.
The ASP is along the eastern boundary of the town of Crossfield.
Thank you.
Mr. Heston.
So I had some division three through the chair to administration.
Does not a home-based business require a home?
Through the chair, that's correct.
Does not live work require a home?
Through the chair, correct.
So, was there anything in the package indicating there would be a house on this re-designation?
Which parcel are you talking about the one that's on the 6.6 acres?
The eye-heavy re-designation.
No, there's no house.
We're just putting it into commercial.
He just wants to build a shop with, to start his equipment in it.
Okay, and is it the same or a different person that wants the resident, or the 6.6 residential?
It's a different person.
It's the person that is in between these two parcels that has shown interest.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Do we have any other questions for the presenter,
Councillor Belkey?
Thank you.
Through the chair to one of the Hertz, whoever would like to answer the configuration on the
industrial parcel.
I look at that and we've kind of moved the angles up and for farm equipment to go around
all of these corners.
Your one to the east seems to have alleviated that and we're just moving the one to the west
up? Is there any possibility of bringing it down so that they all are even?
Oh, yes.
Yeah, there was a possibility of that. We didn't know if that would give the party that's
interested enough room to work in there, so without being so little bigger.
The way it currently is, the west parcel, there's a fence line that kind of goes straight north on that quarter and divides it into.
The west half has been in pasture because there's more clearly and stuff involved on the north end that's been in pasture for years.
The east side of that field has been cultivated for long as I can remember.
So there is a fence line. So where that job is, it actually meets an existing fence line that's been there for years.
So for recruitment purposes, it looks like it would be a problem with that fence in the middle.
It really doesn't affect us that badly. So
you say that the fence is kind of following the property line you're requesting?
Yes, the offense goes north south from where the jog is on the west, the west proposal,
the east side of that west parcel. There's a fan's line run straight north. It doesn't
show up on the map very good, but there is a fan's line. So basically that corridor is split
into two pieces already. It's the way it's been farmed for years.
Yeah, you can kind of see there's differences in the left side looks green and the other side
looks a little darker.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, once the west side is pastured, the east side is cropland.
Exactly.
Thank you.
Any other questions for the...
Thank you, through the RAID Division 9, Councillor Pissell.
So this land is currently being found and it's considered viable farmland.
Yes, it's all been farmed, the west side, let's say it is pasture, it has some lower areas in it,
it has coolie to the north, it has a creek that runs through under the railway track, through
there, splits it up. So it's a smaller parcel that was not really worth having it into green. So
we've always left it in pasture, we run 300 cows, so we need pasture anyhow.
We have along the two-way highway there, we had originally four corners when the power line
came through out the link bottles out of our own place, we moved, but were since rented
it back.
So we did run a lot of cattle on that, those four quarters down in that old farm.
So yeah, pasture on the west side and then the other east field was big enough to be worthwhile
the board and it rains. That's what we've done then. Thank you.
See no more lights or hands.
I saw we've had no written submissions in the agenda package.
Mr. and Grayson do we have any pre-recorded audio or video presentations in support?
Through the chair we did not receive any pre-recorded audio or visual presentation in support.
We received any pre-recorded audio or video presentations in opposition.
Through the chair, we did not receive any in opposition either.
Thank you.
So a little off script, but have we received the letter from the Hertz's kind of explaining their proposal?
I'm going to call out a letter of support.
Through the chair, we've received that letter as well as additional email and opposition as well.
So at this point we do have two.
subject to any further, when you make your final call?
All right, so I'll make the final call for email submissions, either in support or opposition.
So it is now 127 and we'll give another five minutes for email submissions.
last council to stand at these four or five minutes.
Can you just confirm that you've received our letter?
We haven't sent it yet, but the gentleman said that we have received an email from us.
Through the chair, we do have a copy of the original email sent in, letter sent in.
Data January 27th?
Through the chair, yes.
Thank you.
And was that not circulated to counsel that through the chair?
It was not provided in the agenda package, but it will be when we finish the
Okay.
Okay. Thank you.
Chair, so as I mentioned prior to the stand of these, we did receive one in support and one in opposition, so we will package those up, distribute them to the public, the applicant and council, and we can pick a recess to
rebut what they read.
Did you have a chance to review the letter in opposition, Mr. Ireland?
We haven't received the letter of opposition on our emails or anything, so we have another chance to review it.
Getting information
that the you guys
Sorry, we missed that.
Gmail was sent to Donna Hertz with the link to the letter.
No, I haven't received anything at potmail.com.
The
chair, we will forward the emails again to the applicant,
to the correct email this time, and perhaps we can take another.
And we can suggest that the scene is ready to be
You have heard or read in opposition with
respect to the email that
the submission offers no support for its concern that their property value would be decreased. On our reading, it looks more like a, more like a critical pro trying to ask for a re designation of their property, just to come along with ours. In our view, their property is being used for similar uses already. There's large trucks parked on that property.
as it is. So don't see really how Ron and Don's application would affect their property value.
We also know that that property is currently listed as for sale for what's that's worth. So
to object to Ron and Don's application, well at the same time, trying to sell their property,
we wouldn't say that they have a long-term vested interest in the redesignation of the adjacent property.
I mean, he's basically trying to do the same thing, small home-based businesses, what
are the parties that's interested in the subdivision we're asking for, very similar type
operation, storage of trucks and equipment, and a place to operate out of, I guess in the
ND, but still late close to the town across fields, where they do the business, and so
on.
So, to me, he's trying to do the same thing that we're trying to do, so we see why he should
to be objecting as to ours as we didn't object to what he was proposing to do there either.
And if I may add, I guess my understanding, although it's pretty confusing,
we're not in the area, a structured plant, just north to Crossfield,
but it's not hard to see described down the two way.
There's two RV parks right adjacent.
There's a church we put in there, there's a fancy business just to the north and at the
properties.
Mr. Hertz?
Yes.
Yeah.
This is your opportunity for rebuttals so you can really only speak to what you heard
in opposition.
Okay.
The time for your presentation and your fax is gone so if you could just speak to the letter
of opposition that would be great.
Thank you.
Yeah. So I'm just basically as I say to Darren Graham as well. Thank you.
Very good.
Do we have any final questions for the applicant or administration? I have
Councillor Wright and then Councillor Hanson.
Can you hear me? My microphone is doing
wonky things. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Can you hear me? Okay, sorry.
It seems to be, to the applicant, I'm just about one of the interested parties in purchasing
the property is the existing man donor whose parcel is currently called, that is that correct?
Correct.
Yes.
Yes it is.
Yes?
Okay.
And so was there any consideration of a boundary adjustment?
or is it because the heavy industrial proposed to go on that it won't fit within the current
existing one-based business?
It's a different person.
It's a different person that's going on to the 14-acre parcel than what's to the east
of that 14-acre parcel, for 10-acre, sorry.
Okay, so who's going to, where's the eye heavy then?
I thought that was going to the west.
I obviously have this backwards somehow.
No, it's going to the west right against the tracks.
Okay, and that's not the same person who wants to expand out for their home-based business.
No.
Okay, so that's completely separate, so it's the parcel to the east that wants the home-based
business.
Correct.
Was there any consideration for just doing a boundary adjustment?
I guess if we can agree on a price and whatnot that they would like to do it, then I guess
we could probably do in a boundary adjustment, I guess.
Now, this is for the administration.
There is a home-based business there.
Has there been any enforcement actions just based
on the comments from the letter and opposition?
We'll remind council this is land use
and not development permit or subdivision stage,
so we could stick to land use, please.
Yeah, I just wanted because of the comment by the applicant
that there was a home-based business or something.
So I just wanted to understand if there was any
Okay.
For
Hanson.
Just for my clarity, the letter on opposition was from the neighbors across the truck.
Yes.
Thank you.
You
have any more questions for the applicant or administration?
I see none.
Councillor Belkey.
I will move to close the hearing.
Motion to close the public hearing by exception.
Do we have any opposition?
The motion is carried.
Thank you.
Through the chair, well, this is a very odd little corner here with it's been broke up since way back.
I think in the 90s, according to the history.
And I'm surprised that we didn't get some kind of resistance from this town across field.
There was none.
They supported it. They basically said they were fine with it with some screening on the industrial part and they had no problem with the residential.
I think this will to a certain instance clean up a little bit of this quarter as to the opposition.
If the folks on the west side of the track would like a redesignation, they are free to apply.
So I would say that the opposition is kind of unwarranted at this point as far as being
given an automatic re-designation.
So I'm going to make a motion for option one, motion one, that by law C, C8069-2020, be
amended in accordance with the attachment C.
Thank
you. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have any debate?
Councilor Hansen.
I would support
Expansion of the home-based business and perhaps the easiest way to do that
would be in the guise of the boundary but really can't support I heavy here
and just
being close to future residential but it's more that we've designated an ASP
area to have exactly these kinds of businesses
is running. So, more we approve these little one-offs outside of the ASPs. Those are designated
growth areas and we're not really doing those designated growth areas. Any favors,
there's no critical mass being generated in those ASP areas to have the businesses help
themselves, et cetera, et cetera. So, like Councillor Belkey, I too was surprised. Crossfield
didn't push back a little bit on this but I don't think I'll be supporting the full option one
because there's too many policies in our county plan that are being
being violated and it's a really a joint effort with cost fields so I think we have to do our
support, they do our part to support our municipal neighbors and move tax paying businesses
into ASPs where we can share the gains and the costs in the ASPs.
So, unfortunately, I can partially support this, but not fully.
Councillor Kisle.
And then, Councillor Kisle.
Thank you through the read, Councillor Kisle, Division 9.
So, my one question to the applicant was, is this good farmland and he verified that
they are farming this and they have 300 head of cattle and that this is usable land.
So to take usable agricultural land and transferred over to industrial, I have a problem
with that.
I can't support the motion on the table as it is today, but I definitely would have a
a good look at option two, that would be, you know, still a residential type property.
But industrial heavy is a long ways from residential.
So for that reason, I can't support this.
Thank you.
Councillor Wright.
Through the read, Councillor, I'd give you an eight.
Yeah, I won't be supporting this either.
When I ask the question, if this could be accomplished through a boundary adjustment, I do think
that that would be the best thing for the part.
So to the east RV storage is being cited as a reason that's not I heavy that's we'll keep
hearing that that's a transitional use it is under a DC by-law that I'm looking at the
back correctly and so to put I heavy in this particular area I just don't think it it
meets the criteria and I don't think it's it's following up all C so I'm going to stick
I'm going to be there for now. I'm going to support it. It's right along the road. We track. Why would we not put an industrial on the road? We track. It doesn't make a sense for residential obviously. So I will support it.
Do we have any other debate on the motion?
Can I just close?
Councillor Belkie to close.
Thank you. Just to close.
I hear what the Councillors are saying to Councillor Hanson.
We had a response from Crossfield and we are not their guardians.
We may be a part.
So, I kind of think that we don't need to play like we are big brother to our neighbors. So, I appreciate the conversations but hope for the
Thank
you. How's that was to close? I'll call the question on the motion. Councillor
Camachi.
David. Deputy Chief MacKeylor. In favor. Councillor Hanson.
Councillor Belki, almost swayed me, but I think I'm going to stay no opposed. Thank you,
Councillor Schoole.
In favor.
Councillor Goutrault.
In favor.
Councillor Belki.
In favor.
Councillor Wright.
Opposed?
Councillor Kessel.
Revehann is in favor.
The motion carries.
Councillor Belki.
Thank you.
We'll go to motion two that by law C8069-2020 be given
second reading as amended.
Thank you.
Is there any debate on the motion?
Seeing none, call the question.
Councillor Kammache.
In favor?
Deputy Chief McCudder.
In favor.
Councillor Hansen.
Opposed?
Councillor Schuyl.
In favor.
Councillor Guttroll.
In favor.
Councillor Belkey.
In favor.
Councillor Wright.
Opposed.
Councillor Kessel.
In favor.
You've handed in favor.
The motion carries.
Councillor Belkey.
And thank you.
Motion 3 that by law see 8069-2020,
be given third and final reading as amended.
Thank you.
Do we have any debate on the motion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question.
Councillor Camacho.
In favor.
Deputy McIller.
In favor.
Councilor Hansen.
Opposed?
Councilor Schuyl.
Any favour?
Councilor Gochrel.
Any favour?
Councilor Belky.
Any favour?
Councilor Wright.
Opposed?
Councilor Kessel.
Any favour?
Your hand is in favour, the motion carries.
And that application has been
itemed.
Oh, before we begin the public hearing,
I would like to remind the public
that they may begin providing email submissions to public hearings at
rockview.ca. Please clearly state the by-law number in the subject line of
your email. I would also like to outline the process that will be followed in
the public hearing. After opening the public hearing, we'll begin with a
presentation from administration followed by questions of administration from
council. Next, the applicant will provide a presentation followed by questions of
the applicant from council. We will then play any pre-recorded audio or video
presentations in support of the application followed by any pre-recorded audio or
video presentations in opposition of the application. I will then call for any
email. Finally, email submissions and allow five minutes where the public to
submit any last email submissions to public hearings at rockiv.ca, either in
support or an opposition, be for declaring email submissions closed. If email submissions
are received, they will be provided to Council and the applicant by email as well as uploaded
to www.ca slash meetings dash hearings for the public. Once the email submissions have been
distributed, we will take a recess to read and consider those submissions before returning
and continuing with the public hearing.
If no email submissions are received from the public,
we will continue with the public hearing,
which will conclude with the applicants for battle period,
if required, and any final questions of administration.
May I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Oh, you're not opening E6?
Thank you.
by exception, is anyone opposed to opening the public hearing?
Seeing none, the motion is carried.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Reef.
Good afternoon, Reef and Council.
I'm Logan Cox on behalf of Planning and Development Services.
So the subject property is located in Division 4.
Approximately one eighth mile north of Township Road 230
and on the west side of Range Road 248A.
The city of Calgary is located adjacently west of the subject quarter section.
The
application today is to redesign the subject land from residential rural district to country residential district to facilitate the creation of one lot.
The parcel is developed with a dwelling and accessory dwelling unit and accessory buildings.
The proposed subdivision would split the dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit. Both are serviced by individual water and septic system.
The
subject land is located within the city of Calgary and Rocky View County
intermeownessful development plan. The subject land is located outside of the
boundary of an area structure plan and therefore was assessed under the
fragmented quarter-section policies of the plan. Redesignation applications
less than 24.7 acres in size can be supported if a lot and road plan has been
provided. The conditions of subdivision approval would implement the required
road acquisition and restrictive covenants identified along with southern
and boundary of the subject parcel. The law and road plan demonstrates the transportation
network that would support further re-designation and subdivision within this fragmented quarter
section.
The proposal was circulated to 66 adjacent landowners and one letter of concern
was received after the completion of staff's report. This letter will be forwarded to council
as part of the public hearing email submission. The letter of concern relates to the shared
use of driveway on the property adjacent to the web as shown here with the do not enter
sign.
Administration recommends approval with accordance with option one with today's
proposal.
Thank you. And just to know if the council that was Mr. Cox's first presentation
to council, well done. Do we have any questions for administration?
Councillor Belkin?
I actually just have a point of clarity under the motion set, motion one, option one, motion one, is it actually attachment B or C?
I'm just pointing out what I think is possible misprint.
Through the chair, this is Tyler Andreessen Clark.
Yeah, that should be attachment C, which is the red line of the by-law.
Great catch.
So, I see no questions for administration so we'll now have the applicant to make their
presentation.
Mr. Reeves, sorry if I may, is one quick thing.
It's Gavir Nijir here from Planning and Development.
And thank you for catching Mr. Cox's first presentation to Council today.
I was meaning to introduce somebody the eager to present.
So, Mr. Cox joins us from Foothills County and today was his first presentation in front of Council.
Council.
Thank you for recognizing that.
Thank you.
Okay.
We will now go to the applicant to give us their presentation and they have 20 minutes.
Oh, Mr. Reven Council.
My name is Rod Poetry.
I'm from Planning Protocol and I represent the landowner's Megan and Jason Snaco.
And yeah, I'll just thank you very much, Mr. Cox, covered a lot of the information.
I'll just kind of summarize my presentation.
I did have a PowerPoint presentation, but because we're actually on the internet here
makes it a little more difficult, but anyhow, what I will say is that this is a 1.9 acre
a proposal proposed out, which essentially will take out a front lot and an access to
the rear of a lot as per the site plan submitted.
The adjacent land use is very similar, it's R-R-U-R, and it's very fragmented.
You can see from the site plan that we've submitted there's some complications on this particular quarter section with the advent of the WID canal going through it in a north-south direction.
We've done the best we can and worked with staff to identify a road pattern that would identify access to future subdivision of equivalent size and merit.
on other lots adjacent. And we feel that that adequately addresses the access needs for the entire quarter section.
We'll note also that there's some natural and domestic tree cover all around the development on this site that naturally and domestically protects it, screams it from adjacent development.
The geography and the geography of this site is relatively flat with very little relief,
but swapping off to the west, but adequate for drainage purposes.
The access currently is, as was mentioned, through an easement on the north side, but will
will be replaced with an access on the south side of the site as per the site plan, right
off of Range Road 284A.
Services to the site, currently because there's no piped potable
water system in the area, is via well and septic tank and field. There's recently been
And a new PSTS study done on the site and a new septic field installed on the rear of
the property near the secondary suite that's already approved on the site.
And storm water, there won't be much change to the existing development.
This essentially just formalizes the division between, it was an existing residence and
existing mother-and-law, father-and-law suite.
The well, the existing well in the property is 15 gallons and a minute at 120 feet.
And in doing research for the quarter-section, the wells average in the range of 7, 8.5,
and right up to 20 gallons a minute of similar depth.
So we don't anticipate there'd be a problem with respect to well and water supply in the
area.
there are no abandoned wells like oil and gas wells in the area that would
conflict with this development. So in conclusion I think it meets with all the
criteria of the bylaw and the county plan and we've provided a concept road
would access plan for the entire quarter for future development.
And we feel it meets
with all the by-law requirements. So with that we'd like to complete our submission
and open for questions if there's any. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Do we have some questions for Mr. Porter?
Councilor Hanson division three through the chair to Mr. Poitry maybe it may not, but
So the access to both lots would be on the self-boundary of the new lot line or the new lots
That is correct
So I was just curious about what's considered a front-end
Third setback, then. At least what I think I'm looking at is the additional dwelling unit. Looks
like it would be pretty much right on top of that road allowance.
Hard to tell from my photos.
But is it feasible that we come up with this?
Lot layout. And then we're in violation
of some setbacks as a result of this re-designation?
Through the chair to Councillor Hanson, so should this re-designation be approved,
they still have to go through the subdivision process.
Assuming the subdivision process happens as presented today through the initial high level look.
The front yard setback within the new destination rule residential,
sorry,
45 meters, that existing building there if it's within that setback would be legally
not conforming and would be a permit to stay as is.
Okay, legally I'm thinking more practically is there even room to build a road there.
Through the chair that would be a review as part of the subdivision application process.
Okay, add
something here?
Absolutely.
Oh yes, through the Chair to Councillor Hanson are you referring to the building on this
itself property line. Yes, I am. Yeah, it's intended that that building will be it's a garage and will be picked up and removed.
You're correct. It would actually encroach on that that access right away. So it's it's intention is to have it to picked up and removed.
Okay. So is the ADU then the building further to the west with the 10 color proof as opposed to dark roof?
That's an appendage to the garage. I believe there's some shadowing there that kind of
complicates the image, but that whole building is intention for that building is to be
removed as well as the adjacent appendage to it.
Okay, sorry for my confusion. I know it's the air photos are a little fuzzy, but the main
House is in the northeast of the three. I'm hearing as the southeast bottom is going
to be removed. It's currently a garage. There's another building to the northwest.
I'm
assuming that's the ADU then.
That is correct.
I'm going to remind council this is land use, not development or permanent subdivision.
Go
Councilor Hanson. Yes, that is the additional suite. It was a former garage, but it's been
converted into a humanitarian suite for the mother and father-in-law, and that one will
stay in existence. All right, thank you.
Do we have any more questions? Councilor Wright.
Through the read, Councilor, I division eight. Sorry, I lost a bit of internet connection there,
and I just tried to scroll through and read. What's the reason for not being able to access from
on the north side of through using the existing driveway,
that goes to the very, is the panhandle,
I guess, to the back parcel as well,
what was the reason behind that?
Yes, through the chair to Councillor.
Actually, that was a adjacent landowner,
letter of can, not objection, but letter of concern.
They were the former owners of this entire site
and they created that easement on that panhandle.
to the rear of the site and allowed the easement of this parcel and this landowner to create
an easement across that panhandle for this landowner's use.
He's sent in the letter, and if I could speak to that, wanting to essentially terminate
that, in 12 months or something like that, after registration of this new parcel, it's
news to us, but we have independent access and are prepared to develop that independent
access, independent of the former easement that used to service and access this site.
Thank you, Mr. Paltry.
I'm just to administration.
I'm not that...
Is this an area I know in the Bersperios Structure Fund that we're trying to minimize
pad handles and there's already one here.
Is this one of those areas or does it not really matter?
Does I'm just thinking for...
For use, the pad handle seems to be...
It's there and it seems to put another pad handle in just...
I don't know if I could hear administration.
Through the chair to Councillor Wright, I...
don't believe that this parcel falls within an area structure plan, but the minimum
panel size as per our engineering servicing standards is 12 and a half
meters, so if it were to be a panel not a county road, it would have to be a
minimum of that that way. Okay, do you want to do this currently?
I believe the existing
panel to the north on the separate property is 12 and a half as well.
Okay, thanks.
I
have any more questions for the applicant.
Seeing none,
we did not receive any
letters in our packages that I'm aware of.
Mr. Andreas and did receive any
pre-recorded audio or video presentations in support. To the chair we did not
receive any pre-recorded presentations in support. We received any pre-recorded audio or
video presentations in opposition. Through the chair we do not receive any
in opposition either. All right we will now make the final call for email
submissions both in support or opposition and we'll give five minutes from 22
minutes after two or
these submissions to come in and again you can send those
to public hearings at rockiview.ca.
We will stand at ease for five minutes.
We
receive any email submissions.
To the chair, we do have one in support and one in opposition.
So like last time, we will package those, distribute them,
and take a recess.
Okay, and do poetry are you online?
Yes, sir.
Yes, so you can expect to see an email regarding
these letters that were received,
and you will be given an opportunity to rebut anything you read in opposition or will you look for
that please. That will come as informed of an email. I believe an email with a link. Is that correct?
Yes and you click on the link and it should take you to a county web page that you can all click again and get the letters.
Thank you.
We'll recess for another five minutes.
No, just joking. Not received them. They do very much. And I had a chance to review them. We
thank the bells for their letter of support. And commenting regarding the God's keys.
And
essentially, they're talking about and speaking to the issue of the existing panhandle and access
a ceasement across that panhandle on the north. This was created by them and for them during
the creation of this lot that we're speaking to today. As a result of their application
when their subdivision was created, I believe it was in 2018. I'm correct me if I'm wrong,
but I think it was around then, it decommodated the subdivision then, in our opinion, it makes
sense to continue with that access to provide access to the existing residents. Of course,
new residents would be accessed on the one that we're proposing to the south. It would just make
more sense and I think accommodate everybody better in general if that were to be the case.
But we understand their concerns and have made provision for legal access to the South
if we're forced into that situation. But of course we'd like to maintain the existing access
for a bunch of reasons. For convenience, for cost, for all kinds of things to get to the existing
residents there, the primary residents. So that essentially, looking at their letter, they're
not opposed to this subdivision. They just have an issue with respect to the access. And those are my
comments with respect to his letter. If you have any questions, I'm happy to see if we can answer them.
Thank you.
That was the time for questions for the applicant or administration, final questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry.
I'm kind of off in Disneyland today, and I'm not seeing the separation here.
It looks to me like we're redesignated the entire property, and then it'll come in the subdivision
down the road to show a different law configuration, or is that what we're doing?
I wonder, and I'm going by the letter of opposition said the proposed lot to and I don't
see anything that even in the bylaw that regards any definition of lot one or lot two.
I must be missing something, sorry.
Through the review to Councillor Belkey, the application today is to redesign the entirety
of the subject parcel which is the six acres.
Subdivision would be haunted in the future should the applicant wish to make that application
to the Planning Commission.
So, yeah, just to build on Mr. Cox's statement, so where the confusion may have come is
that concurrent to this application, the applicant has also submitted, I believe, a subdivision
application, so we would have circulated that so the applicant, so the neighbor may have
been getting this item confused with the subdivision that's still in process, which would
only be brought to a planning commission should re-designation be approved today.
Thank you.
I still have an understanding of is there going to be a separation here and wouldn't it
show up on a re-designation?
Sorry, I'm kind of thick today.
Sorry.
Through the chair, the proposed re-designation, yes, is for the whole parcel.
There have been instances where we've shown the potential subdivision on the by-law,
but we're still working through that exact alignment with the applicant through the subdivision
process.
Got it.
Thank you.
Councillor Kissel.
Thank you, through the read Division 9, Councillor Kissel.
To the applicant, if the letter of opposition is very clear, it's based on use of their
world. And if this is approved today
and you know they're on this
sold are you prepared at that time to immediately change over access, build
a new access into this property because that itself lends a problem if you
have no access.
Through the chair to Councillor Kessel. Yeah, I mean, obviously we've
provided legal and future physical access to both parcels.
We've made adequate provision for that.
And as stated before, we prefer to keep
the existing easement on the north.
But for the reasons already mentioned and clarified,
but if push comes to shove, of course,
we would accommodate our entire self-access options, right? Internal access
options entirely on this health.
Thank you. Councilor Wright.
I think I'm with Councilor Belky on this one. It is rather confusing.
The whole
lot is the one, if you go on where the circulation map is, it's 1-8-1-1-6-3. It's that whole
parcel and we're just asking to take out the six acres. Is that correct?
Because I got
confused with the lot in road map where the yellow line isn't in the middle. I thought we
were dividing it there. So, I think we'll admit that I've been very thick on this one.
No,
okay. I've not got that wrong entirely because then if that showing is those being the
the opposition at the very back, then what are we, what are we, yeah, what's happening?
Thank you, Mr. Reeve. Through the Reeve to, sorry, Councillor Wright. This is Logan Cox with Planning and Development Services.
So the map that you see here is the adjacent landowner circulation map. This, if they highlighted black area,
here is the entire six acres that Councillors asked to redesign by the applicant with today's application.
As part of the fragmented quarter policy, the policy requires that future subdivision and
road networks be shown as part of an application so that this administration can ensure that
this application won't impact other landowners in the area and it doesn't create a worse
road network planning situation.
So what the applicant has shown here is a possible configuration of their lot with it cut in
virtual half. It doesn't show sizing here. So this is a possible application for
subdivision in the future. The applicant does have an existing application with
administration or subdivision of this law, but it has not been finalized. They're
brought to the Municipal Planning Commission. So today council is just looking at
redesignating everything in the red box, which is the entire six acres, which is the
entirety of today's subject parcel. And so just for clarification we're just all
are asking for is an RRERR, we are a little bit district to an R Country Residential District,
correct?
Through the Reef to Councillor Wright that is correct.
Okay, so I was looking for it to be divided in half, and that's why I thought I was going
to say, and how I'll have the same lot number so it was very confusing, thank you.
Yeah, and so if I could help Councillor Wright, what Mr. Cox says is exactly right, they're
just going for a redesignation today, but what Mr. McClain alluded to previous, there's
In the picture you can see in your screen, there's the yellow line and that subdivision or split is proposed for the future.
Right, that's the Lawton Road Plan. Yeah, but I was thinking if that was they were dividing it up.
It's almost like going from an R2 to an R1 but getting my head around that for some reason wasn't working so much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Do you have any more questions?
I will entertain a motion.
Um, uh, motion to close the hearing.
Post the hearing by
exception.
Anyone opposed?
Seeing none?
Motion carries.
Counselor Schuyl.
I could see the motion on the board.
It's not it can read it off the screen here.
Here we go.
Yeah.
I'll move that by last C68044, 2020 be amended in accordance with the
attachment C, and I just want to remind everybody not to confuse the sub-Asian
and disillusionary designation. Thank you.
Thanks for that, Councillor Hansen, and then the deputy.
I think point of clarification, I'd
I believe you read the number wrong. I heard a six.
Well, repeated, if you like. I didn't think I did this. Yeah, I think I'll agree with Councillor Hanson. I heard a kind of something different than what was on the board as well.
Although with that balance, see 8044, 2020 be amended in accordance with the test and see. Thank you. So we have a motion on the floor. Do we have any debate or discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call the
question. I'm going to go backwards this time so that all the pressure is not on.
Councillor Kammache. Councillor Kessel.
And favor. Councillor Wright.
In favor. Councillor Belki. In favor.
Councillor Goetheau.
In favor.
Councillor Hanson. I agree with the hockey draft methodology as best practice going forward.
in favor. Thank you.
Deputy Chief McIlar.
In favor.
Councillor Camacho.
In favor.
And Revan is in favor of the motion carries.
Councillor Schule.
By the C-8-044-2020, be given second reading as amended and I'm in favor.
Thank you.
Councillor Kissle.
Did you hear that? No.
in favor. Thank you. I heard that. Counselor right.
I'm having technical issues to it to come
back to
Councillor Wright, Councillor Belkey.
In favor.
Councillor Goetheau.
In favor.
Councillor Hansen.
In favor.
Deputy Chief McCoyler.
In favor.
Councillor Camacho.
In favor.
Councillor Wright, could we maybe get your vote one more time?
Thumbs up.
I'll call out an in favor.
and revended in favor of that motion carries.
Councillor Schule.
I could get it back in the board.
That by last C-8044-2020 be given third
in final reading as amended.
Thank you.
Councillor Kessel.
In favor of our opposed.
In favor.
Councillor Wright.
Councillor Belkey.
In favor.
Councillor Goetro.
In favor.
Councillor Schule.
in favor in favor in favor in favor in favor in favor in favor in favor
apologies I'm having to sign in and out constantly but hopefully I'll give you a thumbs up in case you can't hear me
thank you that motion carries and that application has been
So I missed a reaver you in favor. I didn't hear you
Good catch. Yeah, I'm the only one without a check mark. Yes, I am in favor.
Thank you counsel. Good trove
All right, we will now go to
Camera items if
we get
We need separate motions for each or do them all at once
Through the chair Tyla and Jason Clark. I believe we can do all three of these all at once and go in camera
Thank you. I'd like to move that Council, let Council move into closed session to consider
the following confidential items under the following sections of the Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, and one across our mills meter update section 16 disclosure
closure harmful to business interests of a third party, section 24 advised from officials.
M2, spring bank land acquisition, section 24 advised from officials, section 25,
disclosure harmful to economic or other interests of a third party, M4, spring bank community
association funding request for expert third party analysis of the SR1 project for risk, section
21 disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations, section 24 advised from officials.
Thank you.
The motion on the floor, councilor Goetheau.
Thank you.
This is more, I support the motion.
However, I'm having a hard time finding any reports where they sent out to us in a different
cover because I can't find them anywhere.
They were not.
I don't believe we, do we send out in camera stuff ahead of time?
Through the chair to council.
So if we recall back to pre-COVID when we were doing closed sessions in person,
We would bring the reports to the closed session, paper copies, retrieve them, shred them.
Now that we moved into closed sessions, we haven't been distributing those ahead of time because the presentations are given in closed session by the report writers.
That answer your question, Councillor Grotrault.
Thank you, Mr. Rebius.
Okay, by exception, anyone opposed to the motion being none, we are in camera.
Would you like to make a motion to come out of in-camera?
That administration be authorized to execute the settlement agreements with Ivan Hope Cambridge as discussed in the closed session. Can we do them all through the chair? We could, unless there's an objection in the councilor could ask to separate. That administration be directed to prepare a policy adjustment for policy C-406 and that administration provide cross iron mills, mall, a credit per by-law C.
We have a complete motion on the floor,
non-question
-kissle, in favor or opposed?
In favor.
Is there right?
In favor.
Is there gocho?
In favor?
Councillor Schule.
In favor.
In favor?
In favor.
Camachi in favor and revenge into
item M2 land acquisition will
have to direct
administration on which motion they'd you'd like to see put up you
have them both
there.
Go ahead, Councilor Hanson. And just to, I'm in general agreement of the direction I had it, but I think it's just slightly premature and we need to do a little better due diligence. So I just like to table the whole motion and have us revisit again within two regular council meetings as
soon as possible. But okay. There's a motion on the board, Councilor Hanson. Is that satisfactory?
Yeah, I'd like to move that this item be tabled and the administration be directed to arrange a workshop with council by mid-March 2021.
Thank you. Do we have any debate?
Table in motion.
I'm sorry. You're right. Yep. It's a table in motion. No debate. I'll call the question.
Councilor Kessel.
And favour?
Councilor Wright.
In favour?
Revelky.
Sorry, Councilor Belky.
I'm getting tired.
I'm opposed.
Councilor Gocho?
I'm opposed.
Councilor Schuyl.
Opposed?
We're Hansen.
In favour?
Deputy MacArthur.
Opposed?
I
know there was a request to see some documentation or some studies from previous work that was done on this, so could we look at a motion to
to provide those documents or whatever information to the counselors that desire them and follow
up say within a two week period and have this item brought back to council. Is that reasonable
or?
So when you say documents, do you mean the business plan?
Yes.
Well, it was the business plan, it was also some previous reports that were done on the subject matter before, by other councils and so and those studies are available through administration and they be forwarded to council and so if we can maybe just take a second here and we can.
Councillor McCullough, do you have a motion ready?
I'm sorry, I might have overstepped you.
Deputy McCullough, so you see, Councillor Belk is getting tired too.
Thank you.
I don't have a motion ready.
I would be prepared to move forward with option one.
I think that that's the preliminary step and I think everything else will come to us as a result of that first step.
Again, nothing is done. It's just a step forward and everything else after this is supposed subject to council approval.
So I'm not too certain here why I would go ahead with motion one.
So if I can read that in, I guess we can debate it to the best of our ability.
If you wouldn't mind, that would be great.
Thank you.
That the Springbank Land Acquisition Confidential Business Plan be approved and that administration
be directed to follow the mandate outlined in Confidential Report, RVC-2021-05.
Thank you.
Just
a quick question, does this motion address the document going into public at this time?
Chair to council.
Through the Chair to council, so as those documents were distributed in closed session and
you council held closed session, they would be considered confidential unless
Council would pass the resolution to authorize that they be released publicly.
Okay, thank you.
Councilor Wright.
Councilor Wright, Division 8, that's not what we were advised in the back room, so now I'm really confused.
So my understanding is yes, because the motion says confidential that the document should stay confidential.
I guess it being released to Mr. Hogan, so is Mr. Hogan online?
Yes, he is.
He's probably way better at this than I am Mr. Hogan.
Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Remember, the Council.
If the new motion indicates that it's confidential document, then that will protect its confidentiality.
The original motion that we looked at in closed session did not necessarily protect the confidentiality.
But if the new motion has confidential written into the motion, then that will protect that document.
Councillor Kessel.
Councillor Belkis, eluded to the fact that we could have more information that would be sent out.
And this motion would not get us that.
And the fact that there's people that still would like more information before we make this
decision, I think that's what the tabling motion was for.
but at the same time as written I can't support it because it doesn't give
direction to administration to give us any information. We're just simply
saying yep go ahead and I can't support that. I do not believe we'll have done
our due diligence at this point.
For Hanson but to Councillor Kessel, could we find some happy ground through an
amendment to the motion on the floor?
Absolutely, can you put the motion up?
We could, the administration be directed to provide counsel with the information as
asked in
the in-calibre.
Oops, Mr. Andreessen, just maybe like to see sort of it as a separate, separate motion
to the first part, through the chair to counsel.
So, on this one, we may need to do a withdrawal and do a different motion, because I'm judging
from the wording now, this motion is being, in my opinion, changed quite significantly,
but that's a ruling of the chair.
That's fine with me.
So that would go back to Deputy Reeve McCutter.
Would you be interested in withdrawing your motion?
No?
Okay, that's a sound to do because pretty definite answer to me.
So basically we're out of stand still here because part of council would like more information
before we make any decision and the motion on the table will not allow for that.
So I guess we rely on council to make the right decision and you need to oppose it so we
can actually get the information we need.
Yes, so there's a motion on the floor, Councillor Belkey.
Could I make a request to sever the motions and then we can add a motion through
the chair?
Yes, we could sever these two.
I think we still have to consider these two before we would consider an additional one.
Okay, so we could make a motion after this to just get the request to the information to
council.
Okay, thank you.
Okay.
We have a motion on the floor.
I see no further lights or hands to debate. So I
will call a question. Can we get the motion up, please?
So through the Chair, I have Andreessen Clark. As requested by Councillor Belkey, these two
were read in command, but we'll just be voting on the highlighted motion.
Okay. So I will call a question on the first.
I should withdraw that because if I can add
motion arising after I will. Sorry.
Okay, we have a motion on, so we have the full motion on the
floor, is that right? Through the chair, unless a different Councillor wishes to sever the motion,
we could go back to voting on these combined. Okay. I don't see anybody putting their hands up
to sever these. So we'll I'll call the question.
Kiss on opposed. Councilor Raid.
With no information opposed.
Councilor Belkey. In favor. Councilor Goodtrow. In favor because we received the information.
Councillor Schuill.
I didn't hear a vote from Councillor Schuill.
Any favor?
There you go.
Any comments on?
Okay, there you go.
And with other studies and engineering information, not other finger tips here, I'm opposed.
Could Deputy McIner?
Any favor?
Councillor Kamachi.
I just think that it has always been their part in terms of due diligence, so I'm in
favor.
I
am in favour of that motion carries.
And then regarding we missed
Councillor Belkey.
Thank you.
I'll make a motion arising that the information requested by Council on previous studies to
lands discussed in camera be distributed to Council.
I would try to Council Belkey if you would mind carrying on with what's on the board there
for us.
that the information requested by Council of previous studies on the land's discussed
in-camera,
in close session, OK?
Be distributed
councillors or two councillors,
there we go.
Thanks.
OK, very good.
So we have a motion on the floor.
any discussion or debate, calls for Hanson.
That's a little bit like the horse is out of the barn and now you want to close the door.
So it'll be nice to have the information, but basically the administration has their mandate.
And I'm not sure what the point of this was really, but I'm hungry for information.
So I would like to see these previous reports.
and I think that'll help evaluate whether the extensive business plan when we
were reviewed in 20 minutes is a good piece of work or not. Thank you Councilor
Bellke. Thank you well a little explanation then is the motions that were
passed previously authorized administration to go out and investigate and they
come back and council is bound to nothing.
So, here you'll get your information before that comes back, and we'll be able to make knowledgeable decisions.
Councillor Kessel. Thank you, through the reef. I'd like to thank Councillor Belki for bringing this forward. I think this is important information. I hope I'll
actually read it. We can make a variance.
Very good. Any further discussion? I'll call the question on the motion.
the motion.
House clerk Kessel.
In favor.
Councillor Wright.
In favor.
Councillor Belkey.
In favor.
Councillor Goutro.
Councillor Schuyl.
Councillor Hanson.
In favor.
Deputy Chief MacKeyler.
In favor.
House clerk Kamachi.
In favor.
The event is in favor.
And that motion carries.
Excellent.
We want to
consider that item closed.
Now we move to our last-in-camera item,
and I think the term is we will rise without reporting.
There's no motion.
We now move on to going
to go to a counselor report section.
And I don't know if I should put this in
counselor reports or unfinished business,
but considering I made a bit of a mistake yesterday,
We went through the CMRB presentation from the consultant, and I really didn't get any
feedback from Council on sort of how we feel collectively, and I'd like some of Council's
input on sort of if you're happy with the approach we've taken so far,
any direction
on a different approach, and I'll just leave it at that, so do we have any discussion?
And it's not really on our approach, just what you heard yesterday and some input on
what we've heard, your concerns, how you'd like stuff dealt with.
I see Councillor Wright.
I found it quite enlightening, I think it shed a whole different light on things, it gave
a different perspective. I know that I had some concerns with the rules not being properly
referenced and I can understand a couple of our neighbors. But for us, I found that it
was, I don't know, it allows us to do what we've been trying to do all along unless of course
we're trying to change all of our ASPs. But it allows for development to occur within
existing ASPs, I like to move about the joint planning areas and the potential for the
densification and the air in ways that we've never even looked at, and I just thought by
a large, it was really informative and it answered a lot of questions for me.
So my question is other than I think with the answers that I received from Mr. Caldwell,
can just the answers from the other technical experts in Mr. Caldwell.
Thank you.
Councillor Belkey.
Thank you, through the chair.
Well, thank you for bringing this up because I think contrary to what we just heard, I think
the whole document is completely lacking on any forethought.
But there's a lot of scope creep in what the CMRB is doing, and the idea is being that
some of these policies don't work for Rocky View County.
And I believe that we should probably have a workshop scheduled in the near future before
this thing goes to Edmonton, and like who knows whether they're going to get an extension
or not, but and get administration to bring us the parts that are really, really anti-Rocky
view and will handcuff our growth and handcuff our autonomy and have a amendment set ready
to go.
I believe, quite frankly, the amendments, no matter what we do, are going to get beat, but
But at least then we can go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs without having to say
well, we supported it, and now we've got some problems with it.
I think now is the time to bring out the problems, and so I think we've got an opportunity
here to express the needs of our county, and the whole lack of a servicing policy, the governance
policy that they talk about as far as appeal mechanism, it's a Sasquatch, it's everybody
talks about them but nobody's seen it yet and the capital region is 11 I think going
on 12 years old and they still don't have an appeal mechanism there and if you read
the regulations over one of the and I think at 708.23 he says it should have been done
right at the start. So, this whole outfit isn't about good planning in the region, it's
not about sustainability, it's about controlling Calgary, or controlling the Rocky View by Calgary,
sorry. And the idea that we don't negotiate and that it opens up and it'll get people talking,
We talked now. We got over a hundred meter of municipal agreements with our neighbors.
We are a poster child of agreement. And if you come to us instead of sitting on the sidelines chewing on our heels come to us and tell us what
issues are we work on them. So
we get painted with a bad brush and
this is probably one of the, this is worse than the Calgary Regional Partnership Plan because they're at least there
they had some semblance of a plan. Here they have an outline and you're supposed to go away
with these GPAs, for example, and joint planning areas and do a concept plan up with two of our
urban brothers that want to control us. So I don't know how that's going to work out. The only
benefit to the whole plan right now is the fact that the ASPs are grandfathered. So if all else fails,
At least we have a decent amount of non-residential land, some residential land that we can move forward on.
I think we saw things where instead of calling you the cap on populations in our hamlets, we saw 7,000 units.
So, you know, that's a cap.
And so they moved the cap from one sense to another and our administration has been working hard to try to get some of these things done.
and they get ignored.
And just like some of the questions that got asked yesterday,
they didn't get answered.
And they have no intentions of answering them.
I think Mr. Calthorpe, he recognized this region
in one of the workshops as a region
that has a very good planning done.
He did add that yes, things can be done better.
And then all of a sudden, we end up with a plan
that isn't a plan.
Yeah, it looks to me like this gentleman wants to get out of Dodge and get out of here
because it is a solution running around the country looking for a problem.
And our neighbors are ganging up on us and who knows what it means, but it's to me a
children disappointment.
Thank you.
I'll go to Councillor Schule and then I have Councillor Kessler.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more to what the council about he said, but nothing I want to just add to it.
This is definitely shackling rock review is what it's doing. This is everything.
This is an anti-rock review document. One thing that I would do want to say that
if I was in council, we were. Rock review was always being accused of not a long range planning or not planning it up.
Really funny, now that we are creating more ESP's and trying to plan, now we're being
accused of over planning.
Another thing that I want to mention, this is definitely against the mandate of the provincial
government.
They're not trying to create employment, they're going to, they're, this is creating another
level of government.
I know yesterday he said no, but it definitely is, and secondly, this isn't going to create
don't implement. There's a lot of people who want to move to Rocky View a lot of businesses
for a very good reason because we've got to wear what I'll set up. We've got good tax
fees. So of course, why wouldn't they come here? Just because the cities have an issue that
they can control it. We are doing a gig of a job of controlling it. So that's why you're
really trying to sell us or stop us. Thank you.
So I actually took a lot of notes yesterday and I'm very sad to hear that that both council
and councilor Schuyl and councilor Belki actually didn't hear any of the good stuff.
So I think this is a way to the future.
I think this has been done for a long time and whether we like it or not, I wish we would
come to the table and have a conversation instead of just saying no.
My biggest fear is we're going to end up with nothing because we have always said
it's no. And so, you know, I heard lots of good things. Yes, the appeal process
is coming. They haven't got it ironed out. Yes, but there's still time. But if you are not
part of a conversation, you're going to end up with what you end up with because
is that's what happens.
So I enjoyed the presentation.
I thought there was a lot of good questions.
I thought there was good answers.
And so I'm a very different mind.
And I believe this is how the future's going to work.
We're going to all have to figure out
how to share a servicing and work together.
And they're not asking to control all of Rocky B County.
That's the one part that I really have a hard time with.
But we're talking about some very distinct areas that we're going to have to work together.
So I have a very different point of view and I very much enjoyed our presentation yesterday.
Deputy Chief MacCarter.
Thank you.
Through the chair, there were some good things yesterday and I don't want to take that away.
But to say that we haven't been at the table would be a very sad commentary.
I don't think there's been a CMRB meeting that somebody from Rocky View County hasn't
been at that table representing.
To say that they don't want to control the county, that's exactly what they are doing.
They've given the county two areas that says this is your sandbox and you can play here
and every other part of the county is under pretty strict rules and this isn't about supporting
developers.
I got a I got a landowner that called me that owns five acres of land that is now sandwiched
up between some commercial and and really he's paralyzed now. He's got really no residential
value and now he's got no commercial value either and this is this is this is a legacy of the
CMRB because it's not in an area that they say you can play in and so you know the test is in the
details. And to come to the table and say, oh yeah, we're working on a dispute mechanism,
but not have any details about that, show me what that is. And then maybe we can have
a more honest conversation. To say that we're allowed to, I ask the question specifically
about our already identified goal theory is in the MDP. And Mr. Calthurt said, well those
are okay, but they're not in the ordinary that the CMORB will allow us to actually pursue.
To say that we have our ASPs, and I agree with Councillor Belkey that at least our ASPs
are grandfathered, the test will be when we try to do a new ASP. And the board may absolutely
recommend approval from an administrative point of view, but the elected officials around the table
could actually stop that, and so there's no assuredly that raw
to view can continue to plan. And so, you know, the three
boxes they gave us to play in, you know, 27 acres, 80 units,
well, that sounds great, except no one can afford to do a
municipal servicing strategy on 80 lots, it's just not doable.
And so really, functionally, it just doesn't happen.
So unless you're developing a new hamlet and good luck with that, you're not developing
anything.
And so much of the main focus was about walkable transportation networks.
Broadkeeping view doesn't really benefit from any of that.
And so I agree with Councillor Belkey that there's not a lot of benefit from that focus.
And that's a big focus on this plan, and this is public.
Transportation. And that's great for AirDream, it's great for Cochland and Strathmore and all those people that are moving people into Calgary. The comment you met was made yesterday. And I'm going to try to quote Mr. Calthort, when it might not be exact. He said, Calgary had a problem with urban sprawl. And this is what we have to do now. And so it was Calgary's problem.
And it was like, Calgary had this problem that it was growing, and so therefore we all better
come together to stop them. What? So, you know what? This plan isn't, it doesn't do a lot for
rocky view. I think it does well for the Urbans. I do think that ultimately if we're not allowed
to grow at the same percentage as Calgary and the other Urbans are tax, and I think Jerry or
or Councillor Cotrol mentioned this. One of his questions was that the tax base starts
to shift to our residentials, and Rocky, he's been really good at trying to keep that balance.
And as a result, we do have one of the lowest taxes in the region, but if we're not allowed
to grow that, and it will probably find for the short term, I'm not here, doom and gloom,
or probably find for the short term, we've got lands that we can develop still. But over
time as we build out residential, which is the most expensive thing to build out. And we can't
consummate that with commercial, that tax dollar will shift to our residents. And I think
that's the long lens. I look found like this. That's just my opinion.
Thank you. I've got Councillor Belkey back on the line.
Well, and then Councillor Hanson. Thank you. You know, I maybe come on a little too passionate
about this and the thing that I'm afraid because and I'll do respect Councillor Kissle
you have an opinion and I value it. I can't give it a whole lot of credit when you've
never been to a meeting you don't understand the processes here and I will tell you that
I can I absolutely support working with our neighbors and I advocate for built up IDPs
and inter-municipal relationships that work.
The trouble with the planning that they're doing here
is it's central planning that you have no choice
but being in it and it's all or nothing.
And right now, there's less in this for Rocky View County
of any value over and above sitting down
and redoing an inter-municipal development plan.
That would do us more advantage
than being a member of this plan.
And a good example of it, and I named it yesterday,
and it's just the toss to the side.
But the fact that we got a grant for $400,000,
and five municipalities in North of Trans Canada,
how we got together came up with a priority system.
And they prioritized 10 big infrastructure projects,
the top 10, and all five municipalities endorsed it.
We didn't need a growth management board to do that.
You need to collaborate, you need to work with your neighbors on all aspects of servicing,
whether it's water or wastewater, but a good example of the waste and what will happen.
We had Cal Green New and I announced it at the board meetings, at a couple of board meetings,
that Rocky View was presently going to spend a lot of money to take servicing water and
wastewater across the highway at Balzac to go over and under existing
servicing that's there and the long story short, it was designed originally to
be a regional trunk line on the wastewater. Not one mentioned was Calgary saying
well why don't you hold that off and let's negotiate something and we'll hook you
up as a customer to our servicing but that never came in. So here we are with
redundant. Now, there was a statement made the most viable or extension of servicing.
They Calgary got that taken out. Anyway, the whole plan is it's foolhardy to think
that high river wants a 200, one in 200 year flood mapping and that's great for them.
They suffered huge damage as we did in Bragg Creek and other areas, Elbow Valley, in the 2013 flood.
But why would we try to pretend that we're going to have an environmental bylaw or law that supersedes the province?
And maybe the province will go to one in 200.
But if the province is one in one hundred and the CMRB puts in thing and says well, we're going to be one in two hundred
That affects everybody in the county and it also
puts us liable for
Or very likely to be sued or to be challenged by developers. So yeah, there is value
I've never said there isn't value. I've advocated for value at the board level of
working together
You shouldn't be forced into it, and you shouldn't be ganged up on a bunch of urban municipalities that are on the hook for servicing, and I've heard them say, and the experience that I've had at this between the Calgary Regional Partnership and this deal, if you don't behave and don't get the densities to what the plan is, you don't get any more water.
And that's simple, you're using the servicing to control your neighbors.
And that is not good customer relations, it's not good regional relations.
It holds them back and all you got to do is look around the communities.
Airdrie's 86% residential, Chestermeer's 97% residential.
Rocky View County is probably out of this group, one of the most sustainable.
If not the most sustainable, the second most sustainable municipality in this region and the province.
So we've got a lot to fight for, we've done a lot of work here, we've got a great municipality,
and we don't need somebody that believes in Unicity, and we stuck a wrench in their gear works by coming up with our own servicing.
So that's the reason they're after us.
So do I believe in regional servicing or regional cooperation?
Absolutely.
I don't think you should be forced into it.
You can do a better job doing it as a free enterprise.
Thanks for that.
And if it's OK with everybody, I wouldn't mind weighing in on this a little bit too.
So this whole deal, CMRB, the growth plan and the CMRB, it's completely flawed on both fronts.
You know, the plan, definitely, what was presented to us yesterday was, again, I have a tough
time calling it a plan.
It's a guideline and every time a question was asked that maybe the answer was a little
bit hard, it's oh well, well, we can change this and we can change that.
But everybody knows if it's not documented in a plan that things can change or there's
flexibility, it doesn't happen.
And what I'd like to touch on firstly is just the fact that the CMRB period is fundamentally
wrong.
There's no appeal process.
There's a veto vote for the largest municipality involved in it that ultimately holds a hammer
over everybody.
It creates a fourth level of government.
And I know the Chief Administrator of ZMRB said it didn't,
but obviously our consultant told us it right to our faces yesterday
that it creates a fourth level of government and it removes,
you know, just not rock you view.
This affects more than just rock you view.
Every rural municipality involved in this.
So, a rocky view, foothills, and a portion of Wheatland County removes any autonomy for any type of future planning, and the very bottom line is a complete waste of money and staff time that could be put forward to a lot more positive work.
to just very quickly address Councillor Kissle's comments about, you know, just wanting to fight all the time and not being at the table.
I understand what Councillor Means, but I can speak very firmly to that, that our administration goes to these technical advisory group meetings with ideas, edits,
This positive thoughts on the way certain aspects of the plan is going.
And not only are they disregarded multiple times, the plan has turned almost 180 degrees
away from the way we suggested or asked it to go, like completely turns around.
So that tells me that there's very little desire on the part of the consultant to accommodate
the Roman municipalities.
And I've heard the same things talking to the reaves and alternates from other the
other Roman municipalities as well.
When their administration goes to these tag me technical advisory group meetings they call
tag, I'll use that. The ideas that are just completely disregarded. So, you know, just
for everybody's confidence, I can assure you that our administration is trying extremely
hard to at least make this semi-palatable for the counties, but it's just nothing's being
heated or taken seriously. And again, that's something we talked about a few weeks ago.
We know that everything, if the CMR-B stays around, which, again, I'm not in favor of
just, just because of the idea of the CMR-B is wrong, but if it does stay around, all the
rules, and RockyVue included, and to be honest, RockyVue is the second biggest player at
this table.
If it stays around, we know we're not going to get everything we want, but
we at least want to be heard, we at least want to have a seat at the table. And currently,
we are way down the list, way down the list. They don't even blink when we talk. So there's
a lot of work and I can just tell you on our end working
very hard to lobby some MLAs
and other folks that may have some influence that the province will have a serious look
at this and see and just come to the realization that this is a completely healthy concept for
the province, not to mention the plan that the plan that looks like coming forward is flawed
beyond belief in my opinion.
So with that said, oh, we have Councillor Goetrow.
Thank you. I was going to hopefully weigh in before you did. Sitting as the alternate
for almost three years, I can tell you that there's been many conversations and it always
hasn't been no matter factors and sometimes that we've agreed. And I think Councillor
Bellty can contest or can confirm that as well, but the whole plan is about Unicity.
And I'm going to just go back a little bit when Mr. Calford decided to come to the region
and check us out to really find out what the region was all about.
And on that trip, I was with him.
We decided that I was showing him around Rockingham County.
I can tell you he was too tired.
He wanted to sleep.
He wasn't even interested in arm and municipality.
mentality. He didn't even care about bearers, but I didn't care about Elville Valley. He didn't even care about Bragg Creek.
All he wanted to do was he couldn't wait to get to Cochran to see the little town of Cochran and how it was going to be developed in their downtown
corner. And all of a sudden, he got off that bus and it was like he drank 16 cups of coffee because he had all the energy in the
world to talk about Cochran, but zero respect for Rocky County. And you can tell that even in his conversation where he always
referred as to foothills County and never really recognized Rocky View County and I try to correct
that. The thing that really got me through the whole process is when we started talking about
and this plans and again I'll go back to Council Belky, the JPAs were never even considered until
almost the last minute of putting in the plan and even when the JPAs came forward I said there's
already, like I talked about on me. So they didn't even recognize on the our
coverage in the JPAs where the the the ASP is already existed. And those we got
as well, if it exists, it's okay. No, you put it in a joint planning area. So
therefore, what is it? Is it an area structure plan or is it in a joint planning
area? So there's lots of things wrong with this. And we go back to, you know, even
the process right from the very beginning you know anyway it's just it's just a
bad plan it's a unit city we've got we've got a person here just wants
transportation buses and things like that I don't want to speak for my
counterparts just to the east but I'm really at their back on their doorstep as
well as Wheatland County Wheatland County only has a tiny little piece in here and
I can tell you they don't think this is just a waste of money but they've got an
area structure plan and part of their area, but they see zero as well as us, a zero piece
to this growth management board.
So I can kind of go on, Mr. Ri, but I think you got my point.
Thank you.
For
Hansen.
A lot of negativity in the room, and maybe I take a slightly different approach to listening
and interpreting and my understanding, but that was quite a good meeting in Calthar. I thought
I'd opened up a bit over previous occasions, and it was a little bit more frank and corrected
us when some of our planning assumptions are maybe not best practicing.
But there's nothing stopping our growth that I heard and any current DSPs just continue
to trundle on and they do believe that the GPA's taking him at face value and he actually
listened to Rocky View and said Greg went on and on and on at multiple meetings about sub-regional
all working groups and the transportation studies as an example, et cetera.
So basically the JPAs, we got exactly what we wish for, and three or four municipalities
are involved in those, and that is where the regional growth is seen to be focused.
It doesn't mean it's the only place, but it's a focus place, and Rocky View is participating
and two of them, and foothills, and one of them.
And analogy might be for working on transit,
and the green line is going to go to air-dry.
They can put a train stop in covering, a train stop in air-dry,
and the frock you use on at the table, everyone on the train will wave
to our level of whatever we choose to build there,
using whatever servicing we can get ourselves with the resulting
tax base. Or we can sit at the table and talk in a JPA and say, well, maybe we should
put a train station in and have that area service by transit. And then that opens up additional
employees to come into the kinds of businesses we like to have to quickly lower and warehousing
jobs, etc. Or perhaps becomes a residential area that has access to transit. In fact,
out the table. We don't have to, or we don't get an opportunity to have that discussion.
A mature discussion. And you have to sit there and you go, well, in my world, it's either
look at a local optimization, or you look at the global optimum. And you may think because
your piece of the pie is slightly bigger that you're going to end up with more revenue at
the end of the day, but if you could grow that pie with a smaller slice, you're probably
better off in many cases and having the ability to have good conversations and by being part
of the regional partnership, I know there's a lot of history and we had a chance for a fresh
start, I think, and from watching from an early date, every meeting, we came out swinging
and throwing sand and where we sit today is okay they're not going away we didn't believe
them out of the sandbox so how do we recover actually get to the point where our opinions
are a little more respected and considered but I don't think it's too late and I know we
keep bringing up a peel and in the past in our closed sessions and that's always been my
My heart playing with this is there was no reasonable appeal and when they say they're
two-thirds done I take them at face value.
They're two-thirds done the project of having an appeal mechanism and see they're going
to be through the municipal government board is going to be through a third party tribunal
perfect because these will be people from outside the province or something not outside the
province but from other areas of province and really have no vested interest in the area.
and they'll make a good arbitration decision.
Yes, Calgary has a veto but they also have
over a million people living in their borders.
And what we do impacts them, but they do impacts us.
What is never discussed is the fact that
in order for Calgary to move forward on anything they need six votes.
So if they must behave, they don't get to do what they want to do either.
So there's a bit of a check-and-balance already, and we haven't really exploited that from,
from what I've seen all that much. But if there's enough support to push back on Calgary,
the regions can do it. So they push the big elephant back in the box and say,
listen, we need a piece of the action too, we all have to be sustainable.
So I don't buy at all that they're to put us out of business or put us in a box and make sure
We have zero growth.
We consistently have about 3% of the population.
We've had that for 20 years.
We have enough ASPs to grow.
We keep health up came in and said there's enough growth
plan in this area last just like 300 years.
We don't need another ASP.
I mean, we can have one give people more choices,
but there's plenty of growth.
And what I heard was given the JPAs plus existing infills
on existing ASPs, both in the urban and the rurals,
We could easily absorb another million people.
I think it's a dribble, absolute dribble that this is a driving business away from the
region.
We think a well put together regional plan will actually attract business on a global
scale.
So we're not just thinking about stealing business from Calgary, we want to attract business to
the region.
And that takes a nice diversified economy.
You have excellent logistics and rock review.
We're not taking the best advantage of.
I don't think we're not really focused on it.
It just needs a little more care and attention
in our economic development.
There's lots of little things we can do,
and there's nothing the board is doing to stay
or stand in our way from what I see.
And I mean, I can rant on a little bit more,
not nearly as long as Miss Council Belky, but I think maybe look at it for what it is.
I don't think it's going to go away, and I'd like to see us work a little more cooperatively
and try to get the best out of this that we possibly can, and I think you might be surprised
at what you can achieve when everyone's pulling together. Yes, we can go our own way.
Yes,
But at the end of the day, it's not the best for the taxpayers.
Sure, you can provide servicing, but it doubled the cost.
What's the point?
Okay.
That's a real-life time, Councillor Hanson.
You have gone on longer than Councillor Belkey.
Yay!
That was my goal.
Thank you.
If you'd like to wrap it up, that'd be good.
I've got a feeling this is going to warrant some more conversation.
But I'm getting a general consensus actually from one side and I see we have some concerns
from the other side as well.
So if you want to wrap it up, can you do that in 30 seconds?
That would be wonderful.
Is Rick Mercer would say I'm done?
Okay, very good.
So if we have nothing else, again, I certainly got a feeling for
for how people feel in the room.
I think, again, between Ms. Luskey,
Mr. Monshandon and Mr. Kismirchak,
we've got very good representation
on our technical advisory groups
that do understand sort of the limitations
that I believe the majority of us feel
is getting put on the county
and they're going to deal with it going forward. And again, I'll look forward to input from
everybody on how things go or how we want to look at things going forward.
Councillor Schuyl.
Motion to adjourn. Could I do have to leave?
You had Councillor Kamachi there first at this point in order.
Okay, I apologize. Councillor Kamachi and then we may entertain that motion.
and Councillor Schule.
All right, through the chair.
Thank you very much.
Just one point on the whole CMRB thing,
is that at the end of the day,
I don't think anyone disagrees that we want to work collaboratively
to do things that benefits everyone,
but when we have no power at the table,
that's, you know, we don't control our own destiny.
Anyways, and today Danielle Smith had mayor from Airdrie
and Cochran, Chinefka Nung, and Peter Brown on.
to get us a chance to go home tonight and listen to that because it's very interesting
just seeing how the two mayors answered her questions and I think she was basically
the interview on what Bruce McAlister said last week so go out and listen to that tonight
for yourself something nice and stiff and have a good evening.
Very good so I believe we do have a motion on the floor by exception.
Do you have any opposition to adjourning?
Seeing none, I didn't think I'd see any.
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.