County approves plan changes

In a split decision, Mountain View County council has approved changes to the municipal development plan (MDP) regarding the mapping of environmentally significant areas (ESAs) in the municipality.

Reeve Bruce Beattie and councillors Angela Aalbers, Dwayne Fulton, Greg Harris and Duncan Milne voted for the amendment, and councillors Al Kemmere and Peggy Johnson voted against.

The approval came by way of motion following a public hearing on Aug. 22 in council chambers.

Areas covered in the amendment include properties in the Bearberry, Bergen and Water Valley-Winchell Lake neighbourhoods.

A first public hearing regarding the amendment was held on March 28, followed by open houses in council chambers and in Sundre on April 10 and 24 respectively.

“As part of the (recent) subdivision and development application review process, administration utilized the 2014 provincial environmentally significant areas data by Fiera Biological Consulting along with the existing 2008 ESA Summit Report data,” administration said in a briefing note to council.

“The result of the change would mean 15,798 acres out of 662,087 areas of agricultural preservation area land would now be located within the potential multi-lot residential development area.

“While this proposed change includes a large land mass becoming potentially developable, the majority of these lands are long narrow strips that may pose challenges for developing new lots within these areas and amounts to only two per cent removed from the agricultural preservation area.”

The amendment is not related to rezoning properties and property assessment will continue to be agriculture if the land is currently assessed and being used for agriculture, council heard.

During the Aug. 22 public hearing, resident Sally Banks called on council to defeat the proposed amendment.

“A ‘no’ vote chooses ecology over computer-generated technology,” said Banks. “It acknowledges that the more we extend our human footprint the less biodiversity we have.

“A ‘yes’ vote strips away the current ESA protection from a land area larger than all the towns in MVC and replaces it with ‘For Sale’ signs. A ‘yes’ vote sets in motion potentially irreversible ecological damage and reduces the legacy you leave to future residents.”

The county received a number of letters from residents regarding the proposed amendment, some in opposition and some in support.

Letter writers Brian and Kim Allan said, in part, “The re-designation cleans up a lot of land designation and ownership problems. We fully support this initiative by Mountain View County. It is about time this re-designation was done.”

Letter writers Michael and Ingrid Mayr said, in part, “With this change in policy we feel we are double gouged, not only because we must pay potentially higher taxes, but our market value is less because the potential to develop our land unrestricted is not there.”

Coun. Peggy Johnson said, in part, “Mountain View County information has big gaps in these wetland but we could do studies in order to improve that information. There are lots of tools out there that we could use instead of Fiera that are a more accurate tool to identify ESAs.

“My second point is that we have a responsibility to reduce the impact of development on the environment. Financially we don’t have to develop ESAs to remain viable, but if we don’t identify them, we won’t protect them. When we start off on the decision tree using the wrong tool to identity what the decision is going to be, we end up with the wrong decision and this is the wrong decision.”

Coun. Al Kemmere said, in part, “I’m not quite sure of the outcome from the council point of view because we are just taking more land out of the filtering process. I’m trying to understand what we would accomplish other than a lower level of scrutiny on the lands that have been identified up to this point as ESAs.

“I’m struggling with the whole concept of making these changes and putting less filter on these properties.”

Coun. Greg Harris said, in part, “The bottom line is I reject the concept that this is being done for some nefarious purpose to increase development, which is not our intention whatsoever. It’s to use the most accurate data available as a starting point and that has to be clear. This is a starting point. I think this is more of a paper change and update than anything else that has been suggested.”

Coun. Dwayne Fulton said, in part, “The real evidence is when the site visit comes into place. If there is no application there is no need to be out on the site to see it, but if there is an application you’re on the site and the chances are if there is something significant it is going to be picked up then and that will follow through with the recommendations that come before council.

“The ultimate report comes from the people who do the site visits and actually identify areas of significance.”

Coun. Angela Aalbers said, in part, “I support using the best data that we have at this current time. I think administration has done a very good job in giving that opportunity to update what we are using. This is a good framework.

“The county has been a big supporter and a big proponent of the Legacy Land Trust in order to protect these sorts of areas that people feel very strongly about. I think as a county we have supported those kinds of organizations that are willing to protect.”

Reeve Beattie said, in part, “We are trying to use the best data that we can to give an idea of where we are at and then, as Greg (Harris) has said, come back and look at those individual parcels and say they qualify or don’t qualify based on the criteria that we’ve established.

“I think the county has an extremely good record from an environmental perspective. We are often held up as an example across the province of a county that has been very supportive of environmental issues.”

The municipal development plan is used to guide development across the county.