In a split vote, Mountain View County council has given final reading to an amending bylaw re-designating the Betchton Community Centre property from institutional, educational and cultural district to country residential district.
The move came by way of motion following a public hearing at the recent regularly scheduled council meeting.
The purpose of the re-designation is to allow a new owner to develop within the parcel, which is located in the Reed Ranch rural neighbourhood east of Olds at the junction of Twp. Rd. 334 and Rge. Rd 283 (SW 27-33-28-4), council heard.
The property involved contains an old community hall structure which is no longer in use. The four-acre parcel is owned by Betchton Community Centre 2015 (society).
“This is a proposal to re-designate an existing parcel that was historically used by the community association and contains the old community building,” administration said in a briefing note to council.
“The association no longer uses the site and wishes to sell the property. The association believes the lot would be more useful for sale as a country residential parcel.”
A public vote held in the community earlier saw a majority of voters support the proposed re-designation, council heard.
During the public hearing, six people spoke in favour and five spoke in opposition to the re-designation.
Petria Erick, secretary of Betchton Community Centre 2015, spoke in favour of the re-designation, both as a society executive member and as a nearby property owner.
“If you see acreage owners as adding families and vibrancy to the community, adding extra eyes on your safety and livelihood, then another acreage would be welcome,” said Erick. “We have an opportunity to have another great neighbour in our community.”
Money realized through the sale of the property would go back into the community at the direction of the society, she said.
Arnold Lachman, who lives east of the property, spoke in opposition to the re-designation.
“I can’t understand why the community wants to make a whole bunch of money off this,” said Lachman. “They are forgetting about the neighbours around it. It’s sad to see that neighbours see this big money in front of their eyes; they can make big money, they are told.”
The county received a number of letters of objection to the proposed re-designation.
In one objection letter, Bob Blackett said, in part, “I am opposed to the change as the acreage would be between and close to two very busy farm yards. There is a calving pasture, cattle handling set up and an equipment shop close to the north fence. Across the Twp. 334 road directly south of the property there is a large equine facility.”
In one objection letter, residents Andy and Diane Nisbet said, in part, that, “This original land was agriculture land and very good soil. There are an increasing number of acreages in the area and good farm land is becoming used for residential instead of agriculture. More acreages are causing more issues with the farming community in not appreciating the time restrictions of planting and harvest time – complaints of noise, dust, odours, etc.”
In another objection letter, nearby residents Rick and Val Leibel said, in part, that, “The objective of this society seems to be completely selfish and money driven, with no common sense or concern for the community involved. It is best summed up by a councillor at the Dec. 13 (2017) meeting when stated: ‘It doesn’t matter how much that acreage is sold for and where the money is donated to. It will be forgetten within a year or two. It’s the people that live around there that will be dealing with the consequence of this decision for years to come’.”
Council also received several letters in support of the re-designation.
In one letter in support, Wanda and David Okamura said, in part, “I strongly believe in re-designation of the Betchton property as an acreage. The property has road access and a mature shelterbelt perfect to welcome some new members to the community. With re-designation the property can be sold and the funds donated to the benefit of the community as a whole. It is my understanding that the two last votes found the community in favour of this solution.”
In another letter in support, Anita Budd said, in part, that, “We as a community have voted for this location to be re-designated to an acreage and sold so the funds donated can benefit the whole community.”
In a letter responding to objections to the re-designation, the society said, in part, that, “The members of the Betchton community have voted in favour of selling the property at public auction. This re-designation application has not divided the community. Members within this community choose how they behave and how they treat one another.”
Following the public hearing, councillors made comments on the proposed re-designation.
Coun. Peggy Johnson said, in part, “I guess based on everything I’ve heard and read, I see this as a struggle to establish fair market value and I think the dollars in fair market value pales in comparison to the definition of what is a community. It kind of rips me to see the animosity that this decision has created because I think it detracts from what a community should be. It’s disappointing to see how this has ripped the community apart.”
Coun. Duncan Milne said, in part, “The vote (by community members) was to re-designate and that’s the community wish. I accept that and that’s the way it’s going to be.”
Coun. Greg Harris said, in part, “When we talk about protecting agricultural land, we also need to protect agricultural operation and in my mind that makes this piece of land unsuitable for the purpose for which they are asking for this re-designation. Right next to it we have fairly intensive (agricultural) operations. It is not suitable to make this country residential.”
Coun. Al Kemmere said, in part, “I would much rather have it in a country residential environment than the other potential uses. It is very unfortunate has this has affected the community.”
Councillors Beattie, Aalbers, Dwayne Fulton, Milne and Kemmere voted in favour of the re-designation; councillors Johnson and Harris voted against.
