Mountain View County council has defeated a motion calling for the re-designation of a four-acre parcel at the Betchton Community Centre from institutional, educational and cultural district to country residential district.
The vote came during a public hearing held during the recent regularly scheduled council meeting.
The change had been proposed by the Betchton Community Centre Association to allow for future sale and development at the site.
The property is located within an agricultural preservation area in the Reed Ranch neighbourhood, within 27-33-28-4.
"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."
The parcel contains an aging structure that historically has been used as a community hall.
"The association has seen a steady decline in activity and the parcel and the structure has not been utilized as a community facility for a number of years."
The maintenance and upkeep has been handled by volunteer members of the community but this has become increasingly difficult, administration said.
"The association has conducted meetings to determine what should be done with the property and it was decided that due to the inactivity the assets would be sold."
Association chairman Pat James, a former Mountain View County councillor, told the hearing that re-designating the property to country residential would potentially allow it to be sold for more than if it is left with its current designation.
"This would increase any monies that would be put to public use," he said. "Re-designation to country residential would increase the value of the public asset. We feel this re-designation is in the best interest of the public."
Local residents have been consulted about the proposed re-designation and money realized through the sale would be donated to a charity organization, he said.
"I feel confident that we have the majority of the community requesting re-designation," he said.
The county received a number of letters of objection to the proposed re-designation.
In one of those letters, Val and Rick Leibel, who own the land surrounding the parcel in question, called on the county to reject the re-designation.
"The Leibel Family Farm feels that it is in the highest interest of the community, and the best interest of the land, to have the four acres dissolved back into the quarter," the letter stated.
The Leibels also appeared before the public hearing, saying they joined other residents in opposing the proposed re-designation.
At the conclusion of the hearing, councillors discussed the matter at some length.
Coun. Angela Aalbers called for further public consultation on the matter.
"I would like to see a new consultation process, including more public involvement," said Aalbers. "I don't think it (re-designation) is the best thing for the community at this time. I think it requires a lot more public consultation."
Coun. Greg Harris said he concurred with Aalbers' comments.
"I support what Councillor Aalbers says," said Harris. "I'm concerned as well that it's going to cause a rift in this community that is going to last a long time. I'd like to see more consultations. I would like to see them do some more consultation."
Coun. Al Kemmere said he could not support the re-designiation and called for further public consultation.
"I'm not sure country residential designation is the best thing for this parcel," said Kemmere. "The solution that I see in front of us is not one I would call a true solution at this time."
Reeve Bruce Beattie said he could not support the re-designation.
"I don't think it's appropriate. I don't see country residential as an appropriate re-designation for this parcel. I don't think it's a good choice," said Beattie.
All seven councillors voted against second reading of the proposed re-designation.
Following the hearing, James said he was disappointed with the vote.
"I'm very disappointed," said James. "This property is ideally suited for country residential because anything else there is going to be a detriment to the community. I think council made a very bad decision today."
Asked if he will be involved in future public consultation over the matter, he said, "I guess I will be because we still have our society, but I don't know how much more we can do."
