MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - Mountain View County council has deferred consideration of a development permit application from Rocky Mountain Motorsports (RMM) until next month after parties both for and against the proposal spoke during the April 24 council meeting.
“We want to make sure that we get the decision right, whatever that is,” said the county's reeve, Angela Aalbers.
The Rocky Mountain Motorsports car racing recreation and training track facility is located at the intersection of Highway 2 and Highway 581 on a 385.64-acre parcel.
RMM has made an application for a development permit for a $20,000,000 expansion of the facility that would include the construction of eight buildings containing 80 vehicle storage units.
Five of the eight buildings would house the storage units, and the three additional buildings would include wash bays and washrooms. Also proposed are updated sound mitigation measures.
Dominic Young, president and chief executive officer of RMM, appeared before council during the April 24 meeting.
The additions proposed for the facility will help attract more users and generate additional tax dollars, he said.
“I think it is incredibly important, obviously important to ourselves, but (also) the neighbours, the province and the county to be able to attract national companies and film crews to RMM,” said Young.
“The county can look forward and appreciate the additional development they were seeking when they originally zoned this commercial. That can move forward and those tax dollars can in the future get generated.
“And, of course, for RMM we can move forward with the other parts of our development that we see as important. And that’s a win-win-win.”
Regarding sound abatement measures, RMM proposes to close the track one half day per calendar week, for four hours, either mornings or afternoons, the closure to be determined at RMM’s discretion and published six weeks in advance provided paddock admission area additional access hours is granted.
Several landowners with properties near the RMM facility spoke in opposition to the development permit application, saying the expansion would exacerbate concerns they already have.
Landowner Trudi Neumiller called on council to deny the development permit.
“(The facility) produces noise that we are forced to endure while providing an entertainment for a privileged few,” said Neumiller. “If this application goes forward as proposed we will continue to be assaulted daily. Our mental health and well-being will continue to deteriorate at an alarming rate.
“The most distressing part, we, the victims, the ones who suffer, have absolutely no control over our own fate. We are one hundred per cent at the mercy of the whims, needs and wants of others.”
Landowner Becky Stoesser said noise coming from the track is negatively impacting the operation of her family’s farm.
“The noise was so loud it interfered with our ability to work with our cattle,” Stoesser said. “We couldn’t hear ourselves over the noise from the track and the cows couldn’t hear us. It makes for an incredibly dangerous and frustrating situation.
“No business should be allowed to interfere to such an extent on anyone else’s personal property and business. We have become prisoners to the noise that now dictates what we can do on our own land and when we can do it.”
A number of letters from residents were also received by council, with concerns raised including storage of hazardous materials within the vehicle storage units, possible chemical spills, and increased vehicle traffic on adjacent roads.
The development permit application includes a number of proposed conditions.
One condition (31) states that “throughout the life of the development, the applicant, landowner, operator or any or all of them shall provide the Mountain View County’s planning and development department in relation to the permanent wet and permanent east sound meters . . . no later than Monday at 4 p.m. of each week of operations, an electronic report that includes the extrapolated measures at the perimeter (and) identifies periods of compliance and non-compliance with the sound averaging . . . during hours of operation of every operating day.”
Related to that proposed condition, council passed a motion directing administration to review and bring back recommendations on condition 31 that conforms with the direct control bylaw as related to extrapolated measures at the perimeter.”
Put forward by Coun. Jennifer Lutz, council passed a second motion instructing administration to “explore the addition of a community advisory panel as a condition of the development permit.”
Other conditions of the proposed development permit include the following:
• All chemicals, oil and other hazardous materials shall be stored in an approved container system and disposed off-site by authorized personnel specializing in proper disposal methods.
• The applicant, landowner, operator or any or all of them shall not be permitted to register a condominium plan for any of the five buildings covered by this development approval.
• The applicant, landowner, operator or any or all of them shall post signage within the paddock admission area that vehicle noise from revving engines and tire squealing shall not be allowed.
• The applicant, landowner, operator or any or all of them shall provide the county access to the site to observe and verify the collection of sound data throughout the life of the development.
Council carried a final motion instructing administration to bring the proposed development permit application back to the May 8 council meeting for further consideration.
