Red Deer County councillors have voted to delay a vote on extending the current service delivery contract it has with Red Deer and District FCSS following the presentation of results from the 2012 program review update at the regularly scheduled council meeting May 7.
“They wanted to look at some other possibilities of how they might best deal with the Red Deer County ratepayers and their use of services both with the regional FCSS but also with other partnering communities,” said Curtis Herzberg, Red Deer County CAO. “It's kind of open as to what that could entail.”
A 2011 FCSS review noted the types of action that would improve service delivery for county residents.
Council settled on a three-year agreement with Red Deer and District FCSS at that time instead of the nine-year agreement as proposed by the Red Deer and District FCSS. This agreement expires Dec. 31, 2014.
Administration recommended considering extending the agreement for an additional three years, but council wants to look at other options.
“It might be a different distribution of the same dollars,” he said. “We're contemplating instead of just working with the one central FCSS group, looking at possibilities of working with places like Sylvan Lake and Innisfail who aren't part of that group.”
In 2012, based on an 80/20 cost sharing arrangement with the province, Red Deer County paid $518,135 for FCSS service delivery.
In total 80 per cent of this went to programs with large county use, 12 per cent went to programs with small county use and eight per cent went to cover administration costs.
Council approved first reading of a bylaw that would encourage increased selection of the residential conservation district (R-2) designation by removing the requirement to provide 40 per cent of the site as open space and clarifying its purpose.
“We're just tweaking the residential R-2 district to make it a more useful district,” said Ron Barr, Red Deer County planning manager. “It's really been underutilized.”
The proposed legislation would change the Land Use Bylaw to add “conservation design” as a significant part of land designation.
“Conservation Design, is controlled-growth land use development that adopts the principle for allowing limited, sustainable development while protecting the area's natural environmental features in perpetuity, including preserving open space landscapes and vistas; protecting natural habitats for wildlife, and maintaining the character of rural communities,” it reads.
Barr envisions the R-2 zone as the bridge between agricultural land and more intensive development.
“There's nothing really in between,” he said, adding the new Municipal Development Plan tries to conserve not just agricultural land but also naturally significant areas. “We want to have more flexibility with that requirement for open space.”
A public hearing date was set for June 11.
Co-op Area Structure Plan
Three people showed up to speak during a May 7 public hearing in response to a plan to allow Co-op to build a farm supply store and bulk fuel supply and distribution facility, before council gave the thumbs-up to the project later in the meeting.
The fuel site is set to go in south of Twp. Rd. 360 just west of Rge. Rd. 282.
“The close proximity of a fuel wholesale facility to residential property would likely have a negative impact on property value,” wrote Lenard Hopkins, in one of several letters of concern submitted ahead of the meeting.
“The risk of an environmental mishap would cause one to reject such a development in close proximity to residences, never mind the inherent risks when storing large quantities of combustibles.”
Only Coun. Penny Archibald opposed the Co-op Area Structure Plan, which passed second and third readings.
The vote to redesignate three acres of land from agricultural district to direct control district at the site was unanimous on both second and third readings. Coun. Archibald opposed the actual land subdivision in a motion moved by Coun. Dave Hoar.
Council voted unanimously to add the Environmental Review in Environmentally Significant Areas section to the Land Use Bylaw.
Three people spoke at the public hearing before the approval of second and third readings.
“We've now made it part of our rules and part of our processes that you'll have to engage a professional,” Herzberg said of the new environmental regulations, noting this will have the largest effect in the land near rivers in the county.
Environmental reviews are seen as a planning tool by the county which helps authorities make decisions about developments in environmentally significant areas (ESA), outlining potential impacts to an area and listing mitigating measures where possible.
An environmental review isn't required for dwellings or accessory buildings or their additions.
A minor home-based business is also exempt. Existing uses or buildings are exempt from the requirements of the regulation if no changes are being made to them.
A “full review” is required for developments requiring rezoning or an area structure plan prior to third reading while proposals for aggregate removal or processing, excluding permit renewals, would have to submit this as part of their application.
Other development applications would require a “basic review.”
