The East Side had its say last week on Mountain View County's draft Municipal Development Plan at open houses in Reed Ranch and Carstairs ñ and the reception was markedly negative compared to the first two sessions held the previous week in the West Country.In Carstairs especially, where about 50 people filled up a room at the Half Century Club on Thursday night, the tone was generally critical of the draft plan.ìI think your pendulum has swung way too far from where we were ñ you have to find some kind of balance,î said one farmer in the audience, who identified himself as one of the 11 per cent who did not say that preserving agriculture was paramount in his phone survey response.The draft plan designates much of the land east of Highway 22 and outside the growth centres as the Agricultural Preservation Area ñ coloured grey on the county map ñ which would be virtually limited to first parcel out.ìYour grey area ñ there is a lot of land there that is never, ever going to be farmed,î resident Ed Jensen said. ìWhy shouldn't it be allowed to have acreages?îJensen said his land is on a former gravel pit.ìI would really like to see the county keep the grey area,î he said, ìbut at least pick points within the grey area where subdivisions would fit.îReg Watson pointed to the white areas on the map delineating the Potential Multi-Lot Residential Area, mostly in the West Country and in growth areas surrounding the towns, and said the county would end up with more acreage development rather than less under the plan, but it would instead be clustered in those areas.ìI'm just surprised by how much white area is up for grabs,î Watson said.ìI'd rather see one subdivision per quarter throughout the country,î another speaker said. ìI'd be more happy with that. Equality is important.îJim Thain took issue with the proposed 10-year ownership requirement to subdivide. With many farmers aging, he said, their children might want to return to the farm but would need to subdivide and sell a parcel to make the operation financially viable.ìCan you address that for us?î he asked Div. 1 Coun. Kevin Good.ìYeah, there's a downside to most things and that would be one,î Good said.ìObviously it would not be a good thing for me and a lot of people here,î Thain responded, ìbecause the agricultural community is aging.îJack Bell was critical of the proposed Highway 2 commercial-industrial corridor and skeptical of Good's explanation that area structure plans would have to be in place before development is allowed.ìAll you're gonna get there is you're gonna have pods of mishmash all over the place,î Bell said.Jim Hansen asked if the previous council's approved concept plans for low-density residential development (allowing five titles per quarter) would be honoured under the new plan. After hearing from planning staff that in his case he would not be able to split his five-acre parcel into two lots, Hansen fired back: ìYou're holding a carrot in front of us then you're taking the carrot away.îMaking matters worse, he said, he was forced to construct his house within a building envelope that would leave the balance of his parcel clear for another residence in the future.Later in the meeting, Hansen threw out a blanket question to farmers in attendance, asking them if removing the potential for development would lower the value of their land.ìIt's going to lower the value, but I don't care,î said Greg Rosenke, a young farmer in the audience. Lower farmland values would apply across the board, he said, and would mean he could afford to buy more land to farm.Two or three men in the audience applauded loudly after that comment.ìIf I was a banker I would be curling my toes right now,î Hansen said, adding that in Denmark stripping farmers of the right to subdivide ñ in the name of preserving agriculture ñ drove many of them into bankruptcy.Good responded that one way the previous MDP undermined agriculture in the county was by raising land values so high that farmers could not expand their operations.The discussion drew puzzled comments from Wade Bearchell, manager of the Olds Golf Course, who attended the Carstairs open house to ask what the county's plans were for economic development.ìI heard today that somebody wants their land to go down in value. I've never heard that before,î Bearchell said. The 10-year ownership requirement to subdivide, he added, ìsounds almost illegal to me.îDefending many of the changes in the draft MDP, Good stressed that studies done by Red Deer and other counties have shown that residential development comes with a net cost to municipalities while commercial-industrial development brings a net benefit; that the requirement to own land for a period of time before subdividing has been successfully implemented by counties in the Edmonton area; that the coloured areas on the map were still at a very rough stage; and he stressed repeatedly that the draft plan was based on what the people said they wanted in a record number of mail-in surveys and a statistically valid phone survey.At Reed Ranch School on Tuesday, where again about 50 people attended, questions focused on the proposed Confined Feeding Operations Area which cuts a wide swath east of Olds and would be deemed unsuitable for residential development, including in some cases first-parcel-out subdivision.Linda Svaling called the proposal too restrictive, saying it would prevent farmers from subdividing a parcel for a family member.ìIt doesn't say it can't take place,î Div. 7 Coun. Al Kemmere told her, ìbut it's gonna be looked at a little more intently.î Kemmere acknowledged that a number of residents had raised questions about the proposed ìgreen areaî with him prior to the public portion of the meeting.ìIt just seems that all county residents are not being treated equally,î Svaling said. ìEvery application should be looked at on its own merit Ö I realize there must be guidelines, but this seems very restrictive and unnecessarily so.îìYou're not the only one who's said that,î Kemmere replied.Speaking more supportively of the idea, Mary Devolin said farmers have to be able to expand their operations. ìIf they're surrounded by acreages it will be very difficult,î she said.Former councillor Everett Page asked if council had considered transfer of development credits as a way of equalizing subdivision opportunities across the county.ìSay everyone has two lots assigned to them, so it's equal for everyone,î Page said. Under the program, landowners in areas where no subdivision is allowed could sell their credits to people in other areas, who would be able to develop beyond the maximum allowed density.The same idea was floated at the Carstairs open house by Kim Good, who added however that density bonusing is required to make the program work, ìand you're taking out the opportunity for density bonusingî under the draft MDP.Another speaker in Carstairs said he struggled with the idea, likening it to carbon credits.At both open houses, the Netook Crossing development was again a flashpoint, with some residents criticizing the plan and the developers defending it, insisting that county taxpayers would not be on the hook for piped services or any other costs.After calculating their exact costs incurred to date, Prodev representative Terry Johnston said the two companies ñ his and Neuroese Properties ñ had arrived at the figure of $26 million ñ significantly higher than the $20 million previously quoted.Also speaking at Reed Ranch, Ray Cavin of Olds RV noted that businesses had invested a lot of money in the Highway 2/27 location with expectations based on assurances from the county.ìAs someone who's affected, it's just disappointing that developers could come in with what a lot of people thought was good faith and have the rules change on them,î Cavin said.Councillors at both open houses said they were reluctant to comment on the Netook Crossing proposal because applications had recently been filed and would soon come before council for decision.
