More grazing land could be removed from the Potential Multi-Lot Residential Area under changes to the draft Municipal Development Plan recommended last week by Mountain View County council's policies and priorities committee.Other recommended changes to the draft MDP include increasing the minimum agricultural parcel size from 40 acres to 80 acres and reducing the maximum number of titled lots per quarter from five to four, with the three additional lots to take up a maximum of 10 acres.Other recommendations from the special P&P meeting last Tuesday were made in-camera, after councillors opted to go behind closed doors for about 90 minutes to discuss issues related to growth centres, including densities and servicing options.The question of what is “good farmland” came to the forefront during a discussion on multi-lot residential subdivision, when Div. 6 Coun. Paddy Munro said, “If it's ag land as far as I'm concerned it should not be on the table.”Div. 7 Coun. Al Kemmere countered that the current draft MDP rates the productivity of land on “its ability to grow wheat” under the Canada Land Inventory soil classification index.In some areas, Kemmere said, “if you take down the trees and graze cattle on it, it's ag land.”The current draft MDP designates much of the West Country as Potential Multi-Lot Residential Area, while most of the county east of Highway 766, except for growth centres around towns, lies in the Agricultural Preservation Area.If council wanted to include “good ranching lands” within the Agricultural Preservation Area, that section of the document would have to go back to staff for revision, interim planning director John Rusling said.“Densities for cattle-raising is an issue,” Div. 5 Coun. Bob Orr said. “In this West Country, the land is too expensive. A rancher couldn't afford to buy it.”“From what I hear, ranchers are dead serious about protecting their grazing land,” Div. 1 Coun. Kevin Good said. “I agree the map is too broad-based – it doesn't cover any of the grazing land … hay land, too. Production isn't just wheat.”When consultant Cam Lang asked how grazing areas would be defined, Rusling said, “We'll come back with something.”Earlier in the meeting, Kemmere had taken a shot at the emphasis some councillors were placing on flexibility and council discretion on individual applications.“What is the purpose of a plan that is totally flexible?” he asked. “Have we identified the number of quarters we're going to open ourselves up to that will have multi-lot subdivision, and how is that preserving agricultural land? We've taken a lot of land from Highway 766 west.”Rusling said the planning department had done a comparison and “there's certainly more quarters under the current MDP that are half a mile from the CCN that could potentially be open to subdivision. There's less in the draft document,” he said.On the maximum agricultural parcel size, Reeve Bruce Beattie said he was inclined toward doubling the proposed 40-acre minimum to 80 acres.Good agreed, pointing to smaller ag parcels in Rocky View County that are used as storage yards or to graze a couple of horses.“Forty isn't working, 20 wasn't working. I would support 80, as well. It would also discourage people from getting CR under an ag parcel guise.”As a farmer, Good said, he would not look at renting less than 80 acres as it would not be worth his while.Councillors also recommended dropping the proposed 20-acre maximum for country-residential development back down to 10 acres, as set by the current MDP, and Munro asked fellow councillors if they had “an appetite for three” CR lots instead of four, with a three-acre minimum lot size.While Good pointed out that a majority of survey respondents did not favour more than two lots, deputy reeve Patricia McKean said she supported Munro's three-extra-lot maximum and Good acknowledged that it was still a reduction from the current draft MDP number.Once the subject of growth centres came up, Munro said, “I think we have to go in-camera.”CAO Tony Martens intervened to say that “the communications from the towns should all be public,” and councillors briefly discussed a letter from the Town of Sundre and acknowledged receipt of letters from Olds, Carstairs and Cremona. A joint meeting with Sundre officials went well, Munro said. “There was no controversy.”He then reiterated his request to go in-camera to discuss “growth centres, density and servicing.” Another outstanding item flagged by Lang in his preamble was whether the county should grandfather existing concept plans, but it was not clear if that question was also dealt with during the 90-minute closed-door session, recessed in the middle for lunch.Besides the media, shut out of the meeting for the in-camera portion was planning consultant and former county planning manager Nathan Petherick, appearing for Brown and Associates on Netook Crossing and other files, and Jim Hansen, a county resident who spoke at the MDP open house in Carstairs on the need to recognize approved concept plans.Repeatedly during the public discussion, Beattie said transfer of development credits or some other tool was needed to preserve farmland in an equitable way. He reminded councillors that landowners had felt it was unfair that they could not subdivide because they were not close enough to the County Collector Network.“If we're going to say we're going to limit (subdivision), there has to be a potential tool. But I think it should be limited,” Beattie (Div. 4) said.McKean, Good and Div. 3 Coun. Duncan Milne all said the county should commission another survey to get feedback on the revisions.
