February 28, 2023, Mike Test Council Chambers, February 28, 2023, Mike Test Council Chambers.
May 31, 2023, Mike Test Council Chambers, February 28, 2023, Mike Test Council Chambers.
May 31, 2023, Mike Test Council Chambers.
Local government meeting.
Good morning and welcome to Tuesday, February 28, surgeon county council, regular meeting.
Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that surgeon county is meeting on 26th territory, the
traditional home lands of Alexander and Michelle First Nations, as well as the meeting nation
Albert is region 4. We are all treaty people and we love and cherish this place we call home
and the land that provides for us. A place where our families, friends, and other relations live and grow.
And we commit ourselves to continually becoming better treaty people so that this place and those
we love continue to thrive as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.
First, I would like to open with a proclamation for international women's day, which is March 8, 2023.
We're as international women's day is celebrated around the world by those who believe in gender equity and who seek
to improve the lives of women and girls to spirit, trans, non-binary, and gender diverse peoples through cultural, legal, economic, and social change.
We're as the 112th international women's day we celebrate and encourage everyone to understand the difference between equity and equality.
Where equality means everyone has the same opportunities and the goal of equity is to change
systematic, instructional barriers that get in the way of people's ability to thrive.
Whereas international women's day is a time to work toward a world where each woman and girl can exercise
for choice such as participating in politics, getting an education, having an income, and living in society's
free from violence and discrimination. And whereas women and people of marginalized
genders make a valuable contribution to sturgeon county as workers, artists, entrepreneurs,
caregivers, educators, volunteers, and leaders. Therefore, I let a national mayor of sturgeon county
do hereby for claim Wednesday, March 8, 2023. It's international women's day in sturgeon county. And on this day
and beyond, I encourage everyone to embrace equity by challenging gender stereotypes, drawing
attention to bias, and calling out discrimination. Moving on to the adoption of the agenda.
But I do have one item to add to the agenda. I would like to add a notice of motion or
guiding the process for appointing the deputy chief elected official. So, if there are no
additions or other additions or deletions to the agenda, if I could have a mover for the agenda as
amended. Deputy Mayor Tom's. Thank you. I'll call the question. That was in favor.
And that motion is carried unanimously. So, the notice of motion will come in at 9.1.
Next item of business. Is the deputy mayor appointment and swearing in?
So, Mr. Sopco, I'll have you. Sorry. Oh, the minutes of the meeting. Sorry apologies. I don't
show the minutes of the February 14th, 2023 meeting. Are there any corrections? Seeing none.
Move the motion or contribute the motion to Council Como, and I'll call the question that was in favor.
And that motion is carried unanimously. Thank you. And now, Mr. Sopco will present the
request for decision. So, Council can pass the motion and we can move on to the process.
Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, two members of Council on the public for the record. My name is
Jesse Sopco and I'm the General Manager of Corporate Services. This morning presenting a request for
decision with respect to the appointment of the deputy mayor. And I'll provide some brief background on the
item. Section 152 sub one of the Municipal Government Act or the MGA requires that Council appoint one or more
Councilors as Deputy Mayor, said only one Councilor holds the office at any one time,
and so that the office is filled at all times. Section 61.3 of Sturgeon Counties Procedure by Law
states that Council shall establish by Resolution the roster for Deputy Mayor on a rotating basis
and by Convention Surgeon County has adopted a rotating schedule so that each Councilor serves as
Deputy Mayor for an equal amount of time over the four-year Council term. Council approved the
revised Deputy Mayor's schedule at the December 17, 2021 Council meeting, and Councilor when is next
on the schedule to be appointed as Deputy Mayor. Section 156 of the MGA requires that the official
oath be taken prior to a person carrying out any power duty or function assigned to the position of
Deputy Mayor. A further section 6.3 of the Governance and...
Council services committee by law states that the mayor, deputy mayor and the councilor who is next scheduled to be deputy mayor, are voting members of that committee.
And councilor McLean and is next scheduled to be deputy mayor, and therefore council in accordance with the by law is required to appoint him as a voting member of the committee.
There are two proposed motions in the request for decision, and if passed by council, thereafter the CAO will
s where the oath of office to the deputy mayor does. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Supko. Any questions?
Seeing none, if I could have a mover for the motion.
We have two in front of us. Go ahead, council, come on.
Through the chair of the council, appoint councilor Dan Derwin as deputy mayor for the
first 2023 to October 31st 2023.
Thank you, any debate?
I'm seeing no debate, although there's a lot of material we could go through.
But I would just like to take a moment to thank councilor Tom's for her major contribution and support over the past few months.
And certainly look forward to having the deputy mayor, Durwin, support me going forward.
So, seeing no further debate, I'll call the question.
That was in favor.
And that motion is carried unanimously. Second motion please.
Through the chair of the council, appoint councilor Matthew McLennan as a voting member of the
Governance and Council Services Committee.
Thank you, any debate?
Seeing none, those in favor?
And that motion is carried unanimously?
Thank you.
And now, councilor Durwin will be a sworn in as deputy mayor for the
period of March 1st to October 31st.
If Mr. McLennan, if you could please administer the oath of office.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
It is my duty to solemnly swear, Councillor Durwin, in as deputy mayor.
Councillor Durwin, raise your right hand and repeat after me.
I, Dan Durwin, swear that I will diligently.
Faithfully and to the best of my ability.
Faithfully and the best of my ability.
Execute according to law.
The office of deputy mayor for Sturgeon County.
So help me, God.
So help me, God?
This is sworn before me in the town of mournville in the province of Alberta.
This 28th day of February 2023.
Please go ahead and sign the oath.
Congratulations deputy mayor, Mr. McLennan.
Thank you.
Next, I don't want the agenda is 6.2 by law 605-22 amendments.
Ms. McGinnis, pass it over to you in your team.
Good morning, Council for the record.
I am Bonnie McGinnis.
I'm a manager at Planning and Development Services.
Item 6.2 on the agenda is a motion to give second and third reading to by law 605-22.
A request to redistrict a portion of an agricultural parcel from AG agriculture district to R1 country residential district.
The purpose of this redistricting is to redistricting request is to enable the applicant to subdivide and develop two residential parcels.
We're back to Shippansky, Planning and Subdivision Officer.
We'll walk you through the redistricting application after which we are happy to answer any of your questions.
Good morning.
Thank you, Bonnie, and Council, colleagues and administration members of the public.
For the record, again, my name is Rebecca Shippansky, Planning and Subdivision Officer.
Today, I will be speaking to propose by last 1605-22.
A rezoning application from agricultural district to country residential.
A rezoning application has been received to redistrict a portion of the southwest, 36-54-25 west of the fourth.
The parcel is located just outside the Sturgeon Valley Corps area structure plan,
coal mine road being the northern boundary of the plan area.
The size and configuration of the parcel is not conducive to viable agricultural operations.
Additionally, there is a drainage course that traverses the parcel.
The subject property, which is 5.13 acres in size, is located between the multilots subdivisions of rich field of states and green acres,
and is bordered by other R1-country residential parcels to the northeast and south.
The property currently has one dwelling and garage.
If the application to redistrict the parcel is successful, the applicant tends to subdivide the parcel into two approximately equal lots,
one of which will be located directly north of the existing dwelling.
The proposed parcel already has access off of range road to 51 being Sturkey Road, which was approved by administration in 2022.
The minimum parcel size for an R1 parcel not connected to a municipal sanitary line is 2.47 acres or one hectare,
as such a subsequent subdivision application can meet the subdivision regulations of the R1 district.
Any subdivision proposal to split the lot would be unlikely to impact existing municipal infrastructure as the lots would have private servicing.
The following information may be required at the subdivision stage, which includes a lot creating plan to be prepared by a qualified professional to establish the grading relationship between the proposed lot and all adjacent properties.
A slope stability analysis as the subject parcel is bisected by a natural drainage course.
A hydrological analysis determine the one in 100 year flood inundation elevation for the parcel,
access management to both the existing and proposed lots.
The rezoning application was circulated to excuse me adjacent landowners and published within the search and county news on January 11th and January 18th.
One submission was received that noted historical concerns related to the drainage course on the property.
Other comments were received related to a fence being wrongly located and historical coal mining within the area.
At the public hearing, a relative of the applicant spoke in support of the application.
During the public hearing, council asked questions of administration pertaining to the drainage course and enforcement action undertaken to date.
Additionally, council requested information about the development activity on the parcel.
With regards to historical development activity on this parcel, building permits were issued for the house and garage in March of 1990.
At building permit was issued for a shop in September 2009.
A home-based business was approved for a two-custom, guantsmithing sales, ammunition sales and firearm sales in August 2014.
In October 2014, a concern neighbor called the county regarding the filling of a ravine which may result in potential flooding.
The county issued a stop work order for unauthorized grading and stockpiling of fill on October 31, 2014.
Administration indicated to the landowner that a development permit would be required for grading and stockpiling,
and that a geotechnical study would be required to support the application.
Additionally, administration noted that Alberta environment approval would be required as they have jurisdiction in relation to drainage course.
Since then, ownership of the parcel has changed.
As part of the redistricting application, administration reached out to a burdened environment in parks for an update, but have not received a response.
If the bylaws passed, concerns relating to drainage would be addressed at the subdivision stage.
To summarize, the applicants are seeking subdivision and a successful redistricting would enable a subdivision application to be submitted.
The applicants have acknowledged their willingness to meet conditions pertaining to the subdivision application.
Any further subdivision would be a benefit to the county as it would allow for drainage concerns to be addressed through subdivision conditions,
and without compromising the existing character of the surrounding area.
With regards to relevant policy and legislation, again, no local planning document being an area structure plan exists for the area.
Therefore, the county's municipal development plan provides the overarching land use policies for this application.
And the relevant policies are with regards to neighborhood G, the role of which is to deliver a sustainable, complete community where placemaking principles and local distinctiveness are embedded into the fabric of the neighborhood.
Policy 2.3.14 allows the county to consider additional residential development within the established Hamlet area administrative boundary, when the existing municipal infrastructure can accommodate the proposal.
And while the parcel is currently regarded as agricultural, its size and location among other properties distributed as R1 provides strong rationale for the proposed redistricting.
Any subsequent subdivision proposal to split the lot would unlikely cause any impact to existing municipal infrastructure as the lots would have private servicing.
Administration recommends that Council gives second and third readings to by last 1605-22.
Amendment to the land use by a lot 1387-17 portion of the self-west 3654-25 west of the fourth from agricultural to country residential.
That concludes my presentation and I'll be happy to answer quite a few questions you may have.
Thank you very much. Any questions?
Go ahead, Councillor Williams.
Dept. Mayor.
Thank you to the chair.
Just one question.
When this came before Council on the 14th of February, I just just historical information wasn't there.
So is there any reason why that wasn't what it made a difference if a guy knew there were some history and what we're looking at.
But this came up on the second part. You would think that would be one of those things that would be in the report. Thank you.
You met a mayor to Councillor Durwin.
The information wouldn't have probably changed our opinion with regards to redistricting this land.
It makes sense to redistrict it to our two given that it is surrounded by other residential developments and is not particularly viable for agriculture.
The issues were more related to issuing of development permits and drainage, et cetera, and those were things that could be addressed at the subdivision stage.
And now that they are part of the record, we have an intent to address those at the subdivision stage.
So in answer to your question, it likely would not have changed our opinion with regards to this particular zoning application.
I have a question because of the delay in hearing back from the environment of parks.
I survived before the feeling of the ravine has been resolved or what are the next steps going forward because that's an important part of jurisdiction being and certainly some undoing and potentially some past wrongs.
But it seems like that could be quite a delay and I just want to make sure that the landowners are aware of what the limitations are.
I can start and I'll let Rebecca answer in more awesome, thank you, Madam Mayor.
The issue with regards to Alberta environment ideally, yes, we would like to have that resolved prior to subdivision approval but if not prior to subdivision approval, it would certainly be a condition of subdivision so prior to endorsement of the subdivision at land titles.
So that will be addressed as a condition of subdivision.
That whatever Alberta environment in parts asks of them would be done before the endorsement.
Correct, absolutely. And just to add to that as part of our conditions of subdivision we're looking at taking the drainage course working with the landowner for an easement agreement or for taking the drainage course as of as a public utility lot.
So either way it will be within a administration's court to work alongside with Alberta environment and we're no longer relying on the landowner to work through that process if that makes sense.
Thank you.
And then the fence would have to be adjusted or moved that they're aware of that as well.
Okay, thank you.
I'll go ahead.
Thanks for your matter. Just curious, where would the approach have to be for if this got subdivided out, just looking at the
starky road, which is a rather quick road, and there's a blind corner basically by coal mine and starky,
just curious where that would have to be if we're developing another blood?
Yes, through the chair to Councillor Tom's actually, they did construction approach with administration approval in 2022, so it is located off of starky road,
just north of the existing dwelling.
Yeah, so the approach is already there for a new subdivision.
Seeing no further questions, if I could have a mover for the motion, definitely may I go ahead.
Through you, Madam Mayor, that council gives second reading up by last 1605 slash 22.
Any debate?
Go ahead, Councillor Durran, and then the council.
Through the chair. You know something coming into this meeting, I wasn't going to support this,
but additional information, I mean from the information in the past history, you know, you fill a
ravine, that's definitely good a divert, drainage, a huge problem, as we all know in the county.
And you know, it was left in the owner, didn't take responsibility, because he never did anything
from 2014 to a change of ownership, but from what I can understand here.
But now, last minute, we can compel through the subdivision approval section to fix.
We can actually repair and, you know, repair a drainage issue, so I will support this.
Now, thank you.
Yeah, I'm going to support this as well.
This is the rare case where we can say that in fill is being done in the valley,
and what limited ability we can, so I definitely will support this.
Seeing now for the debate, I'll call the question, those in favour?
And that motion is carried unanimously.
Second motion please.
Through you, that council give third reading of by last 1605 slash 22.
And seeing no debate, I'll call the question, those in favour?
And that motion is carried unanimously as well.
Thank you.
Moving on to 6.3 by last 16 and 16 slash 23 civic address by law.
Just to confirm Madam Merrick, can you see the PowerPoint on your spot?
Yes.
All right.
Again, for the record, I am Bonnie McGinnis, manager of Planning and Development Services.
And joining me virtually is Ari and a clerk program lead land management who oversaw
preparation of this proposed civic addressing by law that is before you for consideration.
Sturgeon County does not have or does currently have a municipal addressing by law.
The existing by law is 26 years old and is outdated.
It references the MD of Sturgeon number 90.
It does not contemplate or allow for assigning any kind of urban addresses, which will be necessary in the Sturgeon Valley south.
The current by law has no mechanism to address secondary dwellings.
And this is needed particularly for emergency services purposes.
And it does not even provide accountability by identifying who the addressing authority is.
The new civic addressing by law names the CAO or designate as the addressing authority.
It provides the system that accommodates and maintains the existing rural addressing system.
Well, also includes an urban addressing system.
The rural addressing system will be maintained in the Sturgeon Valley Core.
The urban addressing system will only be implemented for new urban developments in the Sturgeon Valley south,
consistent with the development framework outlined in the Sturgeon Valley south area structure plan.
The new by law contains clear definitions and utilizes current terminology.
As well, it outlines penalties and offenses for contravention of the by law, something that is not in the current by law.
The slide proposed the civic at the proposed civic addressing by law as noted maintains the existing rural addressing system based on the range road and township road that provides access to the parcel or subdivision.
But it also includes an urban addressing system that assigns numbers based on the street name assigned with odd and even numbers assigned depending on which side of the road the lot is located on as is standard in most urban centers.
As noted, the urban addressing system will only be implemented for new urban communities in the Sturgeon Valley south.
It doesn't want to move.
As part of the development of the civic addressing by law, the team reviewed what other jurisdictions have done regarding addressing, particularly jurisdictions that have both urban centers and rural addressing.
Some have implemented this through bylaws, other have policies in rural municipalities with some urban type development.
They typically shifted to an urban addressing system only for those urban areas over time, just similar to what we're doing as the urban development happened then they added an urban component to their civic addressing by law.
Neighboring municipalities like Stratkona County obviously for Sherwood Park have urban addressing and in the county they still address via the rural addressing system.
As does the county most of the county is addressed on a rural system but for their east-westest development, they are implementing an urban addressing system.
So we are asking that Council consider the following motion that Council give first reading to bylaw 1616-23.
Additionally, that Council directed administration to prepare a separate naming policy for neighborhoods, roads, municipal address assets being parks and facilities and other municipal infrastructure.
And that is my presentation Madam Mayor and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Any questions?
Go ahead Councilor Clinton.
Thank you, three Madam Mayor. I'm wondering what the advantage of this would be why we're choosing to go this route why not keep them as they are.
Partially just because of it gets convoluted we are going to be naming streets within the urban valley or in the Stratkona Valley.
Currently the rural system is set up by Township Road or Range Road. So you could be on Range Road, you know 125 and then your address is.
Range Road 125 and then the number that's assigned within your neighborhood, right, whichever access you have off.
So we don't have it would be Starky Road or Sturgeon Road but we're going to have numerous accesses off of Starky Road and so that system is just it's not practical in an urban environment.
We're also going to have things like apartment buildings, townhouses and accessory dwellings, you know basement sweets and garage sweets and all of those things.
That we need to be able to address and make sure that emergency services knows whether they are going to a basement suite, whether they're going to a garage suite, whether they're going to a unit in an apartment building and all of those types of things.
Right, definitely.
Counselor now, but thank you.
Oh, is it much first? Okay, good, sorry. So just curious, this is only sort of a pint of the valley area south but we have two new developments that are going to go forward in the valley core area.
So would motion number two apply to them with respect to a naming policy strategy?
Yes, I think we would probably defer that, I mean a developer will probably have a suggestion on the names for those subdivisions in the core.
But certainly if we get the naming policy in place that the naming policy of the community of the subdivision would be vetted through that committee.
Seeing no further questions.
And I'm sure, as Deputy Mayor Choms has alluded to before, any address changes that can help kind of post get mail in the right mailbox and the valley would be much appreciated.
And I think this might help that potentially.
Seeing no further questions.
If we can read that motion in the record, I think we did yet go ahead.
Through Madam Mayor that council give first reading of by last 16 16 slash 23.
Any debate?
Go ahead.
Councillor Lee.
I thank you through you Madam Mayor.
I'm going to support this.
This is a, we're looking forward doing, you know, with the multilots subdivisions.
Accessory dwellings.
I mean, keeping families and residents in the county.
I mean, we continue to grow.
There's no doubt about that.
And it's going to.
One thing that really stands out is that appointing the CAO or.
A designate for addressing authority.
A problem.
You have a common sense approach after you studies the situation.
He can make that decision.
And influence a problem.
That they could drag on.
And, you know, that definitely interferes with emergency services.
So supporting out and getting emergency services to a site quicker.
Definitely gets my support.
Thank you.
Seeing you for the debate.
I'll call the question those in favor.
And that motion is carried unanimously.
Second motion, please.
Through you, Madam Mayor, that council directed administration to draft a naming policy strategy for
Neighborhood's Roads Municipal Assets and other infrastructure.
Any debate?
Seeing none?
Those in favor?
And that motion is carried unanimously.
Thank you.
And then agenda item six point four.
This begins.
Please go ahead.
Good morning, Michael.
Good morning, Madam Mayor.
Members of council.
Item six point four on the agenda relates to.
Resubmission of the Villain of Airport area planning documents to the Edmonton Municipal.
Our Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board through their rough process.
Michael Klauson program lead for long-range and regional planning is here with me this morning.
And he will present this item.
Good morning.
Council members of public.
Also here today with me is Rachel Davis.
Senior planner.
She's in the council chambers as well.
Next slide, please.
So for the benefit of members of public.
Brief overview of the road less traveled of this rough application that's far.
Sturgeon County submitted a regional evaluation framework application to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board for the
Council of Airport area structure plan in September 2022.
MRB administration issued a rejection decision for the application in October 2022.
And there was an Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board meeting scheduled in December 2022 to bring the resolution to.
Bring the matter to resolution.
So following regional discussions and opportunities to improve support for the rough application.
The county agreed to withdraw the rough application to address items of concern prior to resubmission.
So which brings us to today.
Next slide, please.
Following meetings in late 2022 and 2023 with the MRB administration.
County administration is now in a position to present to council.
On the proposed changes that would accompany the rough resubmittal.
While there are some changes it is important to note that no new information or additional analysis has been completed as part of the changes.
Essentially what we have done is we have taken a lot of the information from the appendices and we've brought them into more prominent sections of the area structure plan itself.
So as such all of the adjustments they are considered non-substantial and there will be no requirement to reopen the public hearings associated with the bylaws.
Next slide, please.
So as reminder to council, there are actually three bylaws associated with the rough application, the first being the MDP amendment,
the second being a Calivillum Santa gravel ASP amendment and the third being the ASP amendment.
So the only bylaw of the three that has changed through this additional process has been the new ASP bylaw itself.
The public hearings for the all three bylaws they were held on June 14, 2022.
And once again just want to emphasize that while the changes are being proposed within the new ASP, all the information once again is being taken from the appendices and.
So, all of the information that was submitted as part of first reading in the public hearing, all the public council, stakeholders have all seen this information.
And once again, it's we're bringing it into more prominent sections of the SP itself.
Next slide, please.
So, based upon feedback received from EMRB administration.
Administration is recommending several adjustments to the dnduary structure plan.
And my presentation today will take counsel through the proposed changes at a very high level.
Both the red line version and a final version of the adjusted by law is provided in the council agenda package.
So, if we look at the slide, if you see the items to the left, there are five items of concern.
These were the items that were identified by EMRB administration as part of their October 2022 report.
And what I'll do is I'll go through each individually and on the slide to the right, highlight and grade, give the summary of what the changes we are proposing in the new SP.
So, for the first item of concern, there was more information needed on the land use proposed of the plan area along with phasing.
So, what you'll see in the new in the update of SP, you'll see more text and figures in section 6.2 of the SP.
We've also included a new future land use map.
We have updated land use statistics.
And we also included additional policies that help guide the four business concepts of the SP.
So, if you remember the four business concepts, they're related to aviation and aerospace, equal park, aggra innovation and logistic parks.
Next slide, please.
On the item number two related to the ag impact assessment, what we needed to do is we went into the SP section related to agriculture.
And we made some adjustments there, interesting for council to know it on this item.
This will be the first wrath that will be evaluated under the now that ramp is an in effect.
So, what we did as part of this as well, in the ag impact assessment, we actually completed under the premise that the ramp would be approved by the province.
So, this is a good news for us, we did some good long range planning in that aspect.
So, the ag impact assessment has been completed in conjunction with the policies that are included within ramp.
Next slide, please.
On the item related to alternative modes of transportation, in the context of the growth plan, alternative modes of transportation also includes items such as transit.
So, in the area structure plan, we did already have sections related to this.
So, what we needed to do is we made some necessary adjustments to shore up each of those sections.
Next slide, please.
On the fourth item related to regional infrastructure required to enable development.
This is, this is the item that demanded the most attention over the last three months.
So, when we talk about infrastructure, it includes water, sanitary, storm water and transportation.
So, we have to go within each of those sections individually and bring more of the information from the appendices.
We included more preamble text to give context of what's local infrastructure, what's regional infrastructure.
And then we also short up some of the policies to paint a more clear picture of what's needed for implementation in the plan area.
On the last item regarding expansion of the major employment area.
So, from the beginning of this process, we have articulated that this is a reconfiguration of the major employment area based upon servicing needs.
Principles of continuous growth, cluster development, and jurisdictional needs.
So, in jurisdictional needs, we talk about what's within the airport authority and then what's within the the municipality itself.
In reference to this item, what we have done, we've laid in more background text within the area structure plan itself.
The item, just for councils understanding on this one.
I guess despite our efforts to provide more clarification on this one, it this one does remain and I'm known in terms of if the adjustments we've done are enough.
So, ultimately this item may need to go for clarification for the board immediately following the the ref process.
Next slide.
So, just in terms of next steps, these are noted on the slide.
Today administration has several motions for council consideration.
This will include first needing to rescind a previous council motion for the ASP by law, which already received second reading.
With that, we would need to complete a second reading once again to by law 1594-22 as amended with the proposed changes.
And following that motion, we would need council direction to submit the the the ref to the to the board for review.
Administration upon those those motions of the administration would then finalize the ref application in the coming days.
I've highlighted a March second deadline for submittal.
Just this being need to submit it but to MRB by this date in order to meet an April 13th MRB board meeting.
In the event that a refusal recommendation is received in the item related to the expansion.
So, if we do submit by March second, which we are will be in a position to this allows MRB via a lot of time to review the application as per their mandate of timelines.
And then we would still have the ability to get on to the board agenda for April 13th if needed.
In conjunction with council's authorization to submit the ref application, the county will also employ all the necessary communications as per our approved advocacy plan.
And if the if the application is approved either through the ref process or subsequently.
April 13th we would then be in a position to come back to council for third reading.
And for approval of all the bylaws at that time so that I'm there and members of council.
This concludes the presentation and we'd have to take any questions.
Thank you.
Any questions of administration.
Go ahead council.
Thank you.
Thank you to you madam mayor.
Can you go back to the fifth point?
I'm just curious with that if you could expand on that a little bit.
Just is there a number that they gave us a number and say.
You know, it has to be below this number in terms of employment numbers or is can you provide a bit more clarity on that for me?
Thank you.
Thank you for the question.
Through the chair to council.
The item related to expansion gets to.
On a technical aspect related to the schedule of the growth plan.
So the area that we have articulated is mostly surrounds the airport.
While we have.
I looked at the growth plan policies.
We there are support policies that speak to the area around it.
So really.
That is the main item that the board or the EM might be administration concerned with.
They feel they're not in a position to be able to provide a decision on that matter.
Now there has been previously in.
To support the growth plan.
In initiation there has been some reports done to talk about areas in terms of jobs and in terms of numbers.
But those are not going to be used to evaluate the rough application in any nature.
So really what we essentially were doing as part of this.
We're providing updated information with employment statistics, land use planning, all the analysis.
So I think the really that item related to the expansion.
It just remains as an item because it is.
Not a cotton dry.
I don't believe EMRB is in a position they feel where they can they can make the decision on that.
And that's why they're deferring it to the board.
If I could just clarify I think.
One of the points of disagreement is the.
EMRB administration is looking at a conceptual map that shows.
A shaded area to be a defined employment area.
But because that's not in our jurisdiction.
It's federal jurisdiction.
It's owned by the Hamilton Regional Airport Authority.
It's not for us to develop.
So we've created a plan.
For outside of their area.
And so it's that's where there's.
Break down in in opinion as to they look at.
They look at it as in an expansion of the employment area.
We look at it as a displacement into an area that we have jurisdiction over.
So that's the the difference.
There.
Go ahead.
Mr. Peter.
And through the chair that that's a great.
Great supplement there.
And the only I would add is that that in the the the clarity were.
We're seeking and and the way that the county is interpreting this.
This this application is this major in.
I'm I'm employment area.
It's important that the public understand that the total area.
To be be be developed or be designated as as an employment area is essentially unchanged.
In fact, it's a smaller now under our new application.
And it was under the the growth.
The growth plan itself.
So so again.
I.
Further to the comments that the mayor had.
It's interpretation on on whether this is in fact an expansion and and that's.
Fend nature of the conversation that the board may have to.
Thank you.
I appreciate the information or the explanation.
So it's more a question about.
The size of the.
As opposed to numbers on how many employed.
And it's more of a definition about how big that area exists.
So then that was actually my follow up was how is this practically speaking improved our case.
And then so making that that area is impact smaller is part of it.
And then was there any other kind of practical things that are easy for me to understand.
It's to how much like how this improves our application.
And that to the chair.
I would just add that that in terms of how this improves our our application.
We certainly do feel in the speaking to all of our peers in the region.
And even even in some of the the dialogues that members of council have.
I've been having or the the CAO here.
That that that that we wanted to clear up any opportunity for.
Confusion on well well where is information that located in the document.
I think that's been all cleared up.
We cleared up through a process at the EM or be where they actually educated.
The game members of the board on the purpose and the intent of the rough.
You know.
What is their role to consider.
But what.
Like what are the elements of the the the the rough that are germane to be considered and not.
So that like that's all happened and in our view now the only matter to to be.
Me debated or interpreted is this this expansion of major employer.
Just to supplement the.
Madam Mayor through you to council McLinder how this has improved.
The the rough process doesn't allow.
The minister to.
To to talk essentially once you submit your application it's it's in there.
Through these.
Process us we've been able to just have discussions for the last three months essentially we've been able to.
Educate him our be administration on the particulars of this plan area.
The items related to servicing to jurisdiction to working with the airport.
All the collaboration we've done with through the VLN network.
I would say at this point they have they know our application just as well as as we do.
Especially related to those additional items.
So that has been a benefit in terms of being able to work as partners and planning in this area to to understand our application.
So.
How does that benefit us now that it where we.
Reapp.
Reapplication.
Once again the door closes not allowed to talk but with this.
There was this time I believe we would have a.
EMR be administration would have a very clear understanding of our application.
So that has been positive in that sense.
I would say councilor McLean.
Go ahead.
Ms. McLean.
Mayor could I recommend that we go into.
Close session the council consider going into close session.
Certainly I think there's probably some debate or conversation around here that.
Probably does need to be done in private to protect relationships potentially.
Should we recess do need a moment to to select the parts of the Freedom of Information Privacy Act.
Or.
Thank you madam.
I would propose to state the motion and a member of council thereafter wishes to move it.
That would if that would be satisfactory to council.
The proposed motion would be that council move to a close session at 951.
Presumed to Section 197 to the Municipal Government Act in accordance to Section 24.
Advice from officials in Section 25.
This closure harmful to economic and other interests of the public body.
If the Freedom of Information and Protection Privacy Act.
I'll attribute that most of you definitely are Tom's.
I think she's crushing on you.
The fact that you've just rattled that off by heart.
Policy wants.
Okay.
I'll call.
All the questions I was in favor. And that motion is carried. We'll give administration a moment to take
us into closing.
You
Please, public comment.
There are four motions. In front of us, go ahead, Councilor Clinton.
Do you remember Mayor that Councilor said motion 325-22?
Any debate on that?
Seeing none, those in favor?
That motion is carried unanimously.
That Council gives second reading of bylaw 1594-22 as amended.
Any debate? Those in favor?
That motion is carried unanimously.
The Council directed administration to resubmit the Villanue of Airport Area Documents bylaw 1592-22 bylaw 1593-22
and bylaw 1594-22 to the Edmonton Metro Region Board in accordance with the Regional Evaluation Framework process.
Any debate? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Thomas?
I'm going to support this motion. First, I wanted to thank our staff for what I see unfortunately in some circumstances those hoops to jump through.
I believe there's way more than one way to do documents correctly.
I went to university. Appenduses count. They are not an extra. They're not an extraneous. They're not a nice to have. They're part of the document.
I appreciate you going to all the trouble to move the writing from the appendixes into a different section so that people were more comfortable with it,
although I absolutely disagree with us having to do things in a prescribed manner by an external board.
Like I say, that being said, I want to thank you for all the work to move the writing so that the appendixes were not an issue anymore.
I appreciate it very much. I think you guys have really stepped out and done a ton and whether I agree on whether that work should have had to have been undertaken to begin with.
I'm really glad that you were here to do it. Thank you.
Go ahead, Councillor Barry.
Thanks, Chair. I will support this motion. Just because I support the bill and the work that we've done to it.
And going forward, I think it's a great thing for certain county.
But I also know that there's...
I have some issues with the structure of the EMRB and this will also bring forth some change if not accepted by the EMRB.
So going forward, I would support this.
Councillor Durman, go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. I'm going to support this motion.
Like Councillor Durman, Deputy Mayor Tom said, support the staff and well-prepared application.
I mean, that corrections made changes happening.
I mean, even the fact that the EMRB was willing to have these misunderstandings recognized and they're talking, it says lots.
So that being said, you know, they're approaching this maybe with an unopened mind and we can move through this.
And yeah, that's what I have to say. Thank you.
I will certainly support this motion. I echo the comments already made.
And I do hope that this entire exercise has been a learning opportunity for the members of the Board.
And potentially there could be a reconsideration of the defeated motion that Sturgeon County brought forward in 2019 to update the regional evaluation framework, especially with respect to economic development.
When we've gone from planning growth to fighting for growth in appropriate areas.
So I will support this and I'll also, at the board, support any work around updating the...
The ref process, a meaningful and appropriate update of the growth plan.
I think there's a bit of an opportunity lost there, but we'll continue to work.
And we'll also continue to advocate for a shift in the voting structure so that the good work that's done at the board can proceed.
But with, I think, more diversity of thought at the table than what we currently get with the voting structure that's currently there.
But I know there's work underway in a number of fronts to make those improvements.
And I do think the VLN and what's happening in that area.
I think this is the forefront of work similar to the great cluster development in the Heartland, around oil and gas and petrochemical.
I think there's as much opportunity on the west side of the county.
So I'm excited to support that. And I appreciate the support of council and administration in doing that great work.
I'll see no further debate. I'll call the question, those in favor.
And that motion is carried unanimously and fourth and final motion.
Through you, Madam Mayor, that council directed administration of bringing forward by law 1592-22
by law 1593-22 and by law 1594-22 for consideration of third reading.
Following completion of the Edmonton Metro Region Board Regional Evaluation Framework process.
Thank you. I'll call the question those in favor.
And that motion is carried unanimously.
Thank you very much.
Bonnie and Michael will take a ten minute recess.
Thank you.
We'll call the Reggo Accounts meeting back to order for February 28, and the next item of business
is a public hearing. I will call this public hearing to order. I'm Marlon Anatu, and I will be the
chair for the public hearing. So please direct all comments or questions through me. This public hearing is
proceeding in accordance with section 1, 9, 9, and 2, 3, 0 of the Municipal Government Act and the
Sturgeon County Procedure by law. This public hearing is an opportunity for administration and
affected parties to provide input to council on by law 1610, slash 23. The amendment to
Disturgeon Valley Core Area Structure Plan by law 1557 slash 21, Sturgeon Valley Core in
Phil policy. The county is the applicant on this matter. I've been advised by legislative
services that we do not have any registered speakers. Written submissions will be accepted electronically
up to the close of the public hearing. If you are in council chambers and did not pre-register
to speak, please add your name to the sign-in sheet at the administration desk, and I can see we have
potentially visitors, no visitors. I'll just read that piece again. So if you are in council chambers
and did not pre-register to speak, please add your name to the sign-in sheet on the administration desk.
For those of you in council chambers today, the emergency exit is through the chamber doors
and then exit out the front doors of the building heading to the master point at the east and of
the south side of the parking lot. Washrooms are located in the hallway just outside of council chambers.
I will now review the process for this public hearing. This is a recorded hearing and the minutes will be
prepared. Administration will provide a brief overview in summary of the proposed by law and then
members of council may ask clarifying questions of administration. Any written submissions provided
in advance of the publication of the agenda are included in the agenda package, which there were none
for this particular by law. I will ask the legislative officer to read into the record in the written
submissions that were received after the publication of the council agenda and then council will then
recess or adjourn the public hearing. So administration, please introduce yourselves and provide an overview of
the by law. Good morning, Madam Mayor, afternoon, Madam Mayor, members of council and any
members of the public in attendance. This public hearing is for by law 161023, which are amendments to the
surgeon valley core area structure plan with the intent to provide new infill regulations that would
support landowner clarity and subdivision on subdivision in the valley core and to maintain the
county's ability to service the existing lots within the valley core. Rebecca Shepansky,
planning and subdivision officer is here to present this item this afternoon.
Hello again and good afternoon. So as Bonnie stated today, I will be speaking to the proposed by
law 161023, the amendment application to the Surge of Valley Core area structure plan regarding
infill subdivision. So for context, this amendment pertains to the Surge and Valley Core
area structure plan. To facilitate the amendments, the land use by law, which will be discussed later
this afternoon by law 161323, a clarification policy is required in the Surge and Valley Core area
structure plan. The purpose of which is to guide the development of the remainder of the existing
core of the Surge and Valley in alignment with the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan.
Section 5.5.2 of the Surge and Valley Core area structure plan states that the county should
investigate opportunities to optimize existing municipal infrastructure, which may include evaluating
opportunities for greater infill development. Any outcomes from this investigation shall require
an amendment to this plan prior to implementation. As such, administration proposes to add policy
5.5.2A, which would state that further subdivision of existing residential lots, may only be
considered if the proposed lots of the remnant lot may be adequately serviced and adhered to the
land use by law regulations respecting minimum parcel size and width. As the infrastructure for existing
communities was only designed to accommodate the existing lots, it is important that the
county developed clear policy and regulations pertaining to infill subdivision to ensure that servicing
requirements are met without requiring infrastructure upgrades. Additionally, this by law also gives
us the opportunity to undertake a minor mapping amendment update to reflect two redistricting
applications which were approved last year within the Southwest 30-54-24 West to the Fourth
and the Northwest 30-54-24 West to the Fourth from a state residential to agriculture.
This will result in an update of figure 5, the development concept map, and figure 9,
development phasing map found within the area structure plan.
Relevant county departments have reviewed the proposed policy and regulatory amendments
and have expressed no concerns. Administration has received confirmation from the Edmonton
Metropolitan Region Board that the proposed infa policy does not constitute a substantive amendment
and is therefore not subject to the regional evaluation framework process. Section 5.5.1 of the
Surgeon Valley Core Area Structure Plan notes that established community character shall be maintained
by following the subdivision regulations within the land use by law. Section 5.5.2 of the Surgeon
Valley Core Area Structure Plan states again that the county should investigate opportunities to
optimize existing municipal infrastructure which may include evaluating opportunities for greater
infill development. Any outcomes from this investigation shall require amendment to this plan prior
to implementation. So this concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Any questions from council to Mr. Shinko Head Council.
Thank you. Through you Madam Mayor, I was just curious. Is it the EMRB that makes the determine solely
as to whether or not it's considered substantive?
Through you Madam Mayor to Councillor McLean. No, there is criteria in the rough or referral
process that indicates that when some amendments to the to a statutory document are considered
non-substantive. They do not need to be referred. We did, however, just ask because we just felt that
it was prudent to ask the EMRB whether they also felt that in our opinion we thought it was
a non-substantive change and they agreed with us. So we just did it out of undo kind of caution.
In just reviewing the policies for this bylaw, I have a question that maybe isn't specific to this,
but on policy five, three, two, or says the county shall allow for existing agricultural
operations to continue in alignment with the land use bylaw. Districting until outliding plans for
future development have been approved by the county and redistricting has occurred. Are we, or can we
go forward, ensure that as development happens there, that we manage the time between when agriculture
is happening and when active development is happening so that we don't end up with a valley filled
with sentmas kennemile and horse tail and a number of other noxious weeds and I know, and I know
this isn't specific to the bylaw, so I'm just going to look over to legislative services and see if I
can raise this question here or because it's not specific to the subdivision of those
whether I should hold this question for another time. Thank you through Madam Mayor. The advice
would be that the questions respect just the bylaw amendment that's proposed, but that the question
be posed, and administration could respond at a later time.
Okay, well, duly noted, please answer my question at another time.
Seeing no questions of administration and could the legislative officer read into the record any written submissions
that were received after the publication of the Council meeting agenda package?
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I can confirm that there have been no submissions received.
I just want to confirm that the gentleman in the gallery is here for the next public hearing,
potentially not for this one, so that it's okay.
Okay, okay, I just want to make sure, thank you very much.
So again, Council knowing that there have been no written submissions last call for any questions.
Seeing none.
Any final comments from administration?
No, okay.
So once the public hearing is closed, Council is unable to receive any further written or verbal submission.
So as Council satisfied that the information received enables you to make a decision on this matter.
Okay, then I will move to close the public hearing at 144, and we will now move to the next item on the agenda.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
So prior to the next agenda item, two will move on to agenda at 9.1.
So I will give notice that I will introduce the following motion at the March 14th, 2023 Council meeting.
The Council directed administration to research the process that comparator municipalities used to appoint the deputy chief elected official and report back to Council by April 11th, 2023 regular council meeting.
And our next item on the agenda is to a clock so we could take a brief recess and come back at you.
Thank you.
It's 201. We will call the public hearing to order. I am Marilyn and I will be the chair of this
public hearing, so please direct all comments or questions through me. This public hearing is proceeding in accordance with Section 109 and 230 of the Municipal Government Act and the Surgeon Count to Procedure by Law.
The public hearing is an opportunity for administration and affected parties to provide input to Council on by Law 1613-23.
Amendment to land use by law 1385-17 are two district subdivision regulations amendment by law. The county is the applicant on this matter.
I have been advised by legislative services that we have two people registered to speak of this public hearing, so I will ask the speaker to please wait for me to call on them when it's their turn to speak.
If you are attending in Council Chambers, please approach the podium when I call on you and ensure that the microphone is on.
Written submissions will be accepted electronically up to the close of the public hearing.
If you are in Council Chambers and did not pre-register to speak, please add your name to the sign and sheet at the administration's desk.
For those of you in Council Chambers today, the emergency exit is through the Chambers doors and then exit out the front doors of the building heading to the master point at the east and of the south side parking lot.
Washrooms are located in the hallway just outside of Council Chambers. I will now review the process for this public hearing.
This is a recorded hearing and minutes will be prepared.
Administration will provide a brief overview and summary of the proposed by law and then members of Council may ask clarifying questions of administration.
Any written submissions provided in advance of the publication of the agenda are included in the agenda package.
After the registered speaker has provided input, I will ask the legislative officer to read into the record any written submissions that were received after the publication of Council's agenda.
Council will then recess or adjourn the public hearing.
Subministration, please introduce yourself and provide an overview of the by law.
Good morning, Madam Mayor for the record. I am Bonnie McGinnis. I'm the manager of Planning and Development Services here at Sturgeon County.
By our item 5.2 proposes corresponding minor amendments to the subdivision regulations in the R2 district of the land use by law that support the subdivision policy proposed in by law 161023.
The previous item that we just had a public hearing regarding for the Sturgeon Valley Corps.
I will again hand things over to Rebecca Shapansky who will present this item this afternoon after which we are available to answer any questions that Council may have regarding these amendments.
Hello again. Thank you, Bonnie. Good afternoon, Council, colleagues and administration and members of the public.
Again, for the public record, my name is Rebecca Shapansky, Planning and Subdivision Officer. Today I'll be speaking to by law 1613-23 and amendment application to the line use by law regarding the R2 district subdivision regulations.
So, for context, the majority of the R2 country estate residential district lots are located within the Surgeon Valley Corps.
There are other R2 lots indicated in these small yellow circles here that I will speak to further.
The additional R2 lots outside of the Sturgeon Valley Corps are related to four quarter sections zoned R2 outside of Castavista estates.
These will require an outline plan in order to be fully developed in the future with regards to infill subdivisions as well.
And next, we have the Northern Lights estates that have roughly 45 lots currently zoned R2.
And again, there are some servicing requirements that would need to be further investigated but wouldn't apply to the infill subdivision as is currently proposed.
So, the county is experiencing development pressures within the Sturgeon Valley. Part of this pressure is an increase in inquiries and applications related to the further subdivision of residential parcels with an existing Sturgeon Valley communities.
The vast majority of which are zoned as R2 country estate residential district with some of these subdivisions proposing panhandle access.
Panhandle access is the name given when the area of a parcel that abuds the road is much narrower than is typical, usually a chute via a long driveway and odd parcel configuration.
Historically, there have been issues with panhandle access, which include landowner conflicts over privacy and potential blocked access.
During the development of the Sturgeon Valley core area structure plan and the Sturgeon Valley south area structure plans, comments were received from valley residents, opposed to large scale infill of existing Sturgeon Valley communities.
The overall intent of the core was to keep these existing character of the lands as is which is mainly comprised of larger country residential parcels.
Another concern is related to inadequate spacing between access points and driveways and future servicing of proposed parcels is also a large issue.
If too many parcels are created, it could trigger the additional, it could, excuse me, it could trigger the need for additional infrastructure to water sanitary storm or roads.
These recent inquiries and applications, together with the comments received during the development of the area structure plans and the limitations of servicing capacity have resulted in internal discussions on what type of infill the county can support.
These recent, sorry, excuse me, administration proposes that minor amendments to the subdivision regulations within the R2 country estate residential district be adopted in conjunction with the proposed amendments to clarify infill subdivision policy within the Sturgeon Valley core area structure plan, which we just discussed as by loss 1610-23.
The amendments to the subdivision regulations include clarifying that the parcel density is only to be applied to the new R2 multilots subdivisions, example of greenfield development,
amending the infill subdivision regulations to remove reference to parcel density and instead replace it with parcel width and clarify that both the proposed lots and the remnant law must be adequately serviced.
If implemented, the R2 country estate residential district parcels could only be subdivided if both the proposed and remnant parcels are a minimum of 0.2 hectares in size and have a minimum parcel width of 25 meters.
A desktop analysis was undertaken to determine the infill potential of lots within the Sturgeon Valley core area structure plan using the existing criteria of a minimum parcel size of 0.2 hectares and a minimum lot width of 25 meters.
A total of 16 R2 country residential properties were identified as having infill or lots split potential.
Administrative administration has noted that the maximum number of additional lots identified by the desktop analysis can be serviced with existing infrastructure.
It was also noted that limiting infill subdivisions would safeguard existing servicing without requiring any costly upgrades.
Relevant county departments have reviewed the proposed policy and regulatory amendments and have expressed no concerns with the development potential of 16 lots within the Sturgeon Valley core.
Administration has received confirmation from the Edmonton metropolitan region board that the infill policy does not constitute a substantive amendment and is therefore not subject to the regional evaluation framework process.
Administration has received clarification calls from landowners but no concerns have been noted.
Section 1.4.7 of the municipal development plan requires the county to restrict proposed development that may constrain infrastructure networks that are imperative for the growth and development associated with the strategic goals of the RARGS.
As part of the application process, Sirgeon County may require an application to demonstrate that no adverse impact will occur due to the proposed development.
Policy 2.2.3 of the MDP discourages the use of panhandles to provide residential subdivisions of legal and physical access to a municipal roadway.
And finally 12.2.3 of the land use by law are two country estate residential district states that further subdivision of existing parcels for the proposed parcel does not meet the minimum parcel area and or the prescribed parcel density shall be subject to the recommendations of an approved local planning document.
This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Any questions of council to administration.
Go ahead. Council.
Thanks to chair. So I noticed on the map you had to saw the visions noted by Casa Vista. This has nothing to do with them. There's just for reference.
Yes, through the chair to Councillor Barry. So I wanted to make reference to the lands outside of Casa Vista and Northern Lights because these changes would be made to all are two parcels within the county. I know we're focusing a lot of our.
Discussion around the search and valley core, but it would also affect those parcels, but again the area around Casa Vista will require an outline plan in an in a proof or in prior to approval excuse me.
So yes, it wouldn't it wouldn't apply to those lands surrounding.
But it would once there was an outline plan because that's my question to we know there are 16 sites in the valley, but our two has broader implications to other spaces that don't have plans and we'd have to.
So I'd like to know a little bit more about that as well, what it means to those other locations and when those decisions would happen.
Yes, in response, Madam Mayor, so initially you would need to have an outline plan for those subdivisions and as the outline plan would then.
Sort of in a general way allocate roads, ways where.
You know, park spaces trails, those types of things would happen and then subdivision would come forward and at the subdivision stage.
The lands would be redistricted.
But they probably were redistricted after the outline plan stage, right, so that would be when and they're already districted are two, so there may be some changes as a result of the outline plan.
They may want to change the zoning on some of the lands because it's the blanket entire area.
We may want to change some to open spaces or PULs or those types of things to facilitate the development of that area and then the subdivision would come in.
And these criteria with regards to our to subdivision criteria would then apply to those lands, but it would be after all of that process was in place.
So, because the focus has been on the valley, so do we have to have the same densities in those other, because they're in surgeon counties, which is under the MRB,
would we have to meet the same densities in those outline plans in those other outline areas?
I don't believe so. I think we can get some clarity on that. Those lands are already zoned, R2.
So when the MRB undertook its plan, it would have been aware that those lands already had a density factor attached to them.
I mean, I can clarify that my understanding would be that that would be consistent with the MRB, because those lands would have been identified as already being zoned for country for large estate residential.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Councillor Comum.
Just curious on both of those subdivisions, do we have a ballpark? Like we know there's 16 within the valley. Do we know how many in-cassivists and how many in Northern Lights there could be?
We don't have a subdivision plan yet. So we have no idea how many lots there are creating, but when they create those lots, we would hope that, you know, we don't want them to do panels, right?
So these criteria would then be in play, right, as terms of that sort of stuff. So yeah, we don't know yet.
Okay. Thank you.
Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Councillor Klein.
Through you, Madam Mayor, a lot of those same questions I had.
Is there an outline plan then for Northern Lights to the in-existing work?
We have an area structure plan for Northern Lights. Yes, they don't, we don't have a detailed subdivision layout for some of the remaining lands within Northern Lights.
Again, we don't know what the actual physical lot layout is for Northern Lights at this time. We do have, there is, there is some preliminary planning that has been done. Yes.
And if I may just further on Northern Lights as well as one of the key components of this proposed policy is that we connect to municipal servicing.
We do acknowledge that we have some issues in Northern Lights with regards to servicing. So until those are fully proved the in-filled policy does not apply in that area.
So not only are you having to meet the land use by lower requirements for minimum size and access via local roadway, but you also have that piece of key municipal servicing.
So because we have those issues in Northern Lights as states that this in-filled policy will not apply to them until that's rectified.
Seeing no further questions. So I do have the name of registered speakers who counsel will now hear from.
So when I call your name, please step up to the podium, advise who you are and how you are affected by the proposed by law and please advise if you are in favor or against the by law and provide any other information that you would like to bring to Council's attention.
You will have five minutes, some less Councillor Grease to allow more time and your comments must be specifically related to this particular by law.
Members of Council may now or will have may have questions for you once you finish your comments.
I will now ask Bev Golan to provide her comments. Thank you and apologies if I have not pronounced your last name correctly.
Okay. Hello everyone. My name is Bev Golan and I am a resident of St. County.
I come here with great concerns regarding the changes being made to what I believe is our little heaven here on earth with rolling hills farmers fields full of amazing animals.
For the life of me, I cannot understand the changes being brought for us to our county.
First of all, I would like to know why there needs to be any changes to the acreages.
Living in wide open spaces, why would there be any need to subdivide any of these lots?
In addition to this down the line, is there a catch that would allow municipal or even provincial governments to further divide the acreages without our approval?
You may laugh at such a question and say that it would never happen.
But I understand that the county is a member of the Alberta Smart City Alliance, which has ties to the W.E.F.
and clash swab and unelected professor and anyone truly awake not woke but truly awake knows the direction that this maniac is leading the world into.
We know how the Sturgeon County municipal government works just like all of the other government bodies.
As peasants are promised to fair chance to speak our minds in matters that affect us directly.
The facts are lands, our roads and our environment, but regardless of what the people in Sturgeon County wishes this council just votes for whatever is that the higher official tells them to do.
Don't believe what I'm saying? Well, why would Sturgeon County need to make any changes to our acreages?
Why would Sturgeon County be a verified member of the Alberta Smart City Alliance?
Why can't Sturgeon County just let us live in peas without the ridiculous government interference?
If you question this, just ask yourself about Prairie Gardens and how free you think you truly are.
Why is the member of your planning department says that planning of Sturgeon County land is already done even though they don't have the land that they planned for?
When the government is scared of the people, that is democracy, but when the people are scared of the government, that is tyranny.
When we see the ridiculous changes being made in each municipality, each city, each province, and each country, it is not difficult to see that we are not living in a democracy.
So my question, what is the purpose of subdividing any more land?
What prevents the government from coming in and enforcing it in the future? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Golan.
I will now actually so are there any questions of Council to Ms. Golan if you could please come back to podium?
Go ahead, Council Como.
Just curious, Ms. Golan, do you live in the valley?
Okay, thank you.
And if I may, Ms. Golan, I'll go to you. I'll go, I'll hold my questions, go to you first to Council McLeanon.
Thank you, through Madam Mayor, I was going to let you go first, but that's appreciated.
I was just wondering, is your biggest concern with regard to the valley and to regard to this, that you just don't want to see more people like you don't want to see those views?
That's great. I like it left the way it is.
Thank you.
I'm just wondering where you got your information from as far as urging County being a member of a smart city alliance.
It was through the internet. My daughter does a lot of research and stuff like that, so.
Well, I'm unaware as our administration, so I would, I would be interested to know where that information lies because it appears to be incorrect.
Okay.
So I just wanted to make that clarification.
And also have you had any contact with any of your neighbors as you know there's 16.
No, potential. Okay.
Thank you.
Oh, sorry, Councillor Stank, go ahead.
Sorry, one question for you. I appreciate you bringing your points forward. I just want to make.
I guess it's not necessarily a question more of a statement, but typically subdivision is applications come from the resident.
It's not something that the county initiates by any stretch.
So any of those opportunities would be resident driven, not necessarily county driven.
We're just creating an opportunity for that to happen.
So I guess it wasn't just more of a statement than the natural question.
I'll also be county driven as well, right? Like if you need.
No?
Okay.
But thank you for taking time out of your day to share your reviews.
I would now ask Nicole Peterson to provide comments.
Hello, everyone. I have come today. I, my name is Nicole Patterson, and I live in the surgeon county as well.
And I very much support and back up with the previous speaker in the talking boat.
I also have big concerns about the smart city allowance, lions with surgeon county.
And how that's going to affect all residents here in the county and within St. Albert and all of the area.
But I do think it is a lot of government over reach and I think it is something to be concerned that we're being divided into different divisions and districts.
And I just wanted to really share that it is concerned that our rights are continuing to be taken away from us.
And with the segregation and isolating and dividing, I think it's something serious and it's to be looked at.
I had some more questions that I heard today that surgeon county isn't part of that alliance.
But if you go on the Canadian government website, you'll see that Emminton and St. Albert are part of that plan.
So I'm just curious how this entire council could be unaware of that.
I didn't say that I was unaware of surgeon county is not a member.
And county is a separate municipality in the city of Edmonton or city of St. Albert.
But it is the surgeon county. It is this whole surrounding area.
No, there are different corporations, different organizations, different municipalities.
Okay.
So it sounds like both of us believe that it is part of that.
And by separating the land use, it does seem to fall in line with that agenda.
But that's basically my concern. And I think it is impacting people.
And I think as we heard today, people are impacted by that live in this general area.
So are you in favor of this bylaw?
No, I'm opposed to it.
Even though it's driven by individuals who want to be able to subdivide their land, it's resident driven.
Well, I'm not getting the driving land and dividing people is ever the answer.
So no, I am opposed by it.
Okay.
I'm going to refrain from debate because that's not what we're here to do, but you have a question.
Go ahead.
So would you have us ban people from applying to subdivide their own private property then?
I think if someone wants to divide their own public property, that's different.
But if it impacts others, then it should be taken to account.
Then we agree on that because that's what this actually is.
Okay.
Thank you.
That was everything.
Is there any other questions?
No.
Do we have any newly registered speakers?
I think you met a mirror.
We don't have anybody else registered to speak, but I do note that a number of attendees indicated that they'd be listening to the presentation.
So maybe an opportunity to ask anybody who may have changed their mind after listening to the information from administration.
Thank you.
Offering them to register to speak now.
Yes.
So if there is anyone in the gallery that would like to speak to this particular bylaw, please do give your name to administration.
And you can approach the podium.
I am seeing none.
Okay.
Could the legislative officer read into the record any written submissions that were received after the publication of the council meeting agenda package?
Thank you.
Madam Mayor, I can confirm we have received no written submissions.
Thank you.
Do members of council have any further questions?
Does administration have any comments that on the information provided by the registered speakers?
No comment.
Thank you.
Once the public hearing is closed, council is unable to receive any further written or verbal submissions.
So is council satisfied that the information received enables us to make a decision on this matter?
Okay.
Then with that, I will recess the public hearing.
I'm sorry.
Not recess, but adjourn the public hearing at 227.
So thank you for those who have attended today.
And we'll now move on to the next agenda item.
Which I think is recess.
We have one left.
Yeah.
6.5.
We're going to find my.
There we go.
Yes.
6.5.
Next item on the agenda.
Chris Wells.
Whenever you're ready.
Hello, Madam Mayor and Council. For the record, I am Christine Wells, Director of Community Services, and I'm here today to seek Council approval for the Sturgeon County RCMP priorities for the Mornville and Redwater Detachments for 2023-2024.
At the February 23rd, 2023 Governance in Council Services Committee meeting, the committee recommended crime reduction, community engagement and public safety, as Sturgeon County's 2023-2024 priorities for the Mornville and Redwater Detachments, following the quarterly update presentations from Mornville and Redwater Detachment commanders that were earlier today.
At the committee of the whole meeting and in accordance with the governance and Council Services Committee recommendation, administration recommends that Council approve these RCMP priorities and upon that, authorized the Mayor to send a letter to respective detachment commanders, advising them of the same.
Thank you, Ms. Wells. Are there any questions of Council to administration on this?
If I could have a move for the motion, please. So go ahead, Councillor Stain.
Thank you through the chair that the Council approve crime reduction, community engagement and public safety as Sturgeon County's 2023-2024 priorities for the Mornville and Redwater Detachments, and if I can speak to this,
I'd like to commend Director Wells on getting both detachments presented front and center earlier today, and I definitely appreciated the information that was provided, and I look forward to the ongoing engagement throughout the year.
So thank you so much, Director Wells.
Okay, seeing no further debate, I'll call the question, those in favor.
And that motion is carried. Thank you very much.
And I believe that concludes business for the day if I could have a motion to adjourn, please.
Councillor Barry, thank you. I'll call the question, those in favor.
And that motion is carried, meeting adjourned.
Thank you.