MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - In a split 4-3 decision, council has defeated a land use bylaw redesignation application related to the proposed expansion of the Schott’s Lake RV and Guest Ranch west of Sundre.
The move came by way of motion at the end of a special council meeting and public hearing held in council chambers on Aug. 14.
Council defeated a motion for second reading of the proposed bylaw amendment that, if passed, would have redesignated 79 acres from Parks and Recreation District to Direct Control District and redesignated 80 acres from Agriculture District to Direct Control District.
Council had given first reading to the proposed redesignation at an earlier meeting.
The application was intended to accommodate future expansion of the Schott’s Lake facility, which is located approximately 16 kilometres west of Sundre along Highway 584 and about a kilometre north of Rge. Rd. 71 in the Bearberry/Coalcamp rural district.
The proposed expansion would include an event centre to host weddings, conferences, family reunions and similar activities, a hotel that would include an indoor swimming pool and be developed in phases to a maximum of 80 rooms in total, a kid’s zone play area and nature-inspired playground, family campsites, and other buildings including administration office.
There were 23 recorded participants in the Aug. 14 public hearing.
During the hearing the applicant told council the proposed expansion would benefit the community-at-large.
“The long-term vision is to create more opportunities for year-round recreation and accommodation,” said Tracy Bealing. “We believe this redesignation is appropriate and beneficial to the county.”
Benefits of the project would include more employment, address demand for more recreational opportunities, contribute to local economic development and “involve the sensitive intensification of an existing recreational use on land that is not suitable for agricultural purposes,” she said.
Kimberly Verkerk, president of Schott’s Lake, said the expanded facility is needed to meet current and future demand and would be a benefit for the entire community.
“We need more spaces and accommodations in the region to ensure we can balance business and tourism while enabling agriculture,” said Verkerk. “I’m hoping today that you will see that this is the right thing to do with this property. It think it is a good project and good thing for the area.”
Sundre-area resident Laura Kutz Skorodenski spoke in favour of the application.
“The proposed development will bring many benefits to our area,” including job creation and tourism dollars, she said.
“We do need facilities such as this,” she said. “It’s a logical place for this facility to be.”
Numerous areas residents, many wearing red stickers printed with the word “No” on their lapels, spoke in opposition to the proposed redesignation, with concerns raised including impacts on groundwater and the aquifer, and increased traffic.
Kathie Morris, a Bearberry resident and president of the Bearberry Wapitana Society, said the vast majority of area residents are opposed to the redesignation.
“One hundred and thirty-six landowners and leaseholders have sent in letters voicing their concerns,” Morris. “The majority of Bearberry landowners and leaseholders have legitimate concerns. This direct control zoning will affect landowners. The Bearberry community does not want to see further expansion.”
She cited water use and wastewater disposal as two concerns of local residents and landowners.
Jennifer Wells, who lives near Schott’s Lake, spoke in opposition.
“I think it is the worst place to build an 80-room hotel. We’ve got an environmentally sensitive area. I worry about the wetlands, I worry about contamination. If this is built it will affect us forever,” said Wells.
Area resident Bill Lough also spoke in opposition, saying, “There is a lot of pressure on the West County. Bearberry is a beautiful area and I don’t want to see it become the Sushwap of the Eastern Slopes.”
Letters of objection and letters of support for the proposed redesignation were also received by council.
After reeve Angela Aalbers closed the public hearing, Coun. Gord Krebs said, “Our mission statement for the county is to maintain agriculture lands, so if we give up 80 acres of ag land we are never getting it back. I’m just unwilling to give up 80 acres of farmland.
“I realize that economic development is important but there is a cost benefit and I think the cost to local residents is not going to met by the benefit to all the residents of the county.”
Coun. Peggy Johnson said she was also concerned about the loss of agriculture land, “but my bigger concerns are the confined aquifer. I’m not at all sure that the neighbours are going to end up without water. I am very concerned about that. And I’m concerned with community impacts.”
Council voted on second reading of Bylaw No. 19/23 redesignating the lands within NW 1-33-7-5. Reeve Aalbers and councillors Johnson, Krebs and Alan Miller voted against, and deputy reeve Greg Harris and councillors Jennifer Lutz and Dwayne Fulton voted in favour.
Mountain View County chief administrative officer Jeff Holmes said land use redesignations are made by council and are not appealable.
The county’s land use bylaw requires a one year waiting period to re-apply, although council has the discretion to reduce this waiting period, he said.
Specifically the land use bylaw Section 6.8. resubmission interval states “Where an application for a change in land use designation to this bylaw has been refused by the approving authority another application for the same or substantially the same amendment shall not be considered within one year of the date of the refusal unless the approving authority otherwise directs.”
The Municipal Government Act, Section 640 (5) states: “If a second application is refused a third application may not be made within 18 months of the date of refusal.”
