Mountain View County reeve Bruce Beattie says he expects that more information will be available for consideration when county council revisits a proposed development moratorium for an area of McDougal Flats on Nov. 12.
Some of that information may come from a scheduled Nov. 4 public meeting being hosted by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) at the Sundre Legion, he said.
Bylaw LU 39/14 has been put forward by the county following the release of AESRD's draft Golder Associates McDougal Flats Flood Hazard Study report that examined whether portions of the McDougal Flats area may be in floodways and flood fringes.
The draft Golder report, which has not been made public but has been shown to the county, has not yet been adopted by AESRD. A draft of the report, including delineation of floodways, may be released at the Nov. 4 meeting.
New provincial legislation, Bill 27, puts new restrictions on developments in floodplains, including floodways and flood fringes.
Under the county Bylaw LU 39/14, which received first reading on Aug. 13, redesignation, subdivision and the construction of new structures in the study area would be prohibited, with agriculture, roads, bridges, flood and erosion infrastructure and recreational vehicles on wheels in existing recreational lots exempted.
“Whereas a draft of the McDougal Flats Flood Hazard Study has been prepared for AESRD and council believes an amendment to the Land Use Bylaw should be initiated to limit development and subdivision pending finalization of the study,” LU 39/14 reads in part.
The bylaw would make an amendment to the Land Use Bylaw and if passed would be in effect until Feb. 28, when it would be repealed unless further action is taken by council.
The study area is bordered by Rge. Rd. 63 on the west and Rge. Rd. 53 on the east, between township roads 322 and 324. It covers 60 quarter sections, with 525 parcels and 441 landowners.
About 100 residents in the study area attended the Oct. 9 public hearing for the bylaw. Many in attendance expressed concern that a moratorium would have a significant negative impact on property values and should therefore not go forward.
Bruce Johnson, general manager of Coyote Creek Golf & RV Resort, which is in the study area, says the moratorium should not go forward.
“How restrictions can be placed on development that has all their permits, bylaws, etc. in place and 13 years and millions of dollars invested is beyond belief,” said Johnson, who spoke at the Oct. 9 public hearing.
“To take away previous building allowances that were in place when existing owners bought could put us and MVC at risk of litigation. I'm asking council to reconsider these possible restrictions as this will have a major impact on our bottom line and our ability to move forward on completing our project.”
Murray Griffin, one resident who spoke at the hearing, says he is already suffering a devaluation of his property because the moratorium has been proposed.
“I am writing to express my total objection to the flood fringe moratorium we have been placed in,” said Griffin. “By designating this area as flood fringe it would only work to devalue my property.”
Following the public hearing, councillors deferred consideration of second reading of the bylaw until Nov. 12.
Reeve Beattie says council and administration should have more information to consider following the Nov. 4 open house, including a draft of the Golder report.
“Council will be taking into account all the information they received at the public hearing,” said Reeve Beattie. “Because it (the report) is related to information that was brought forth at the public hearing, we can take that into account when we look at second reading.”
Jeremy Sayer, Division 1 councillor, says county council must consider the possible future liabilities for the entire county and its ratepayers when deciding whether to approve a moratorium, and if so, what it should cover.
“I don't want to have us pull something out of it (of the moratorium area) that we should actually leave in,” said Sayer.
