MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - County council will once again be considering the proposed Olds - Didsbury Airport area structure plan on Wednesday after deferring second reading of the bylaw enacting it last week.
Some residents living near the municipally-owned airport and who have land in the boundaries of the plan voiced concerns during last week's public hearing.
The original ASP for the facility was approved in 2006 and is being updated at the instruction of council. A steering committee is overseeing the project, which included an open house in January.
The Olds-Didsbury Airport is located just west of Highway 2A between Olds and Didsbury.
The updated ASP set out in Bylaw No. 07/24 would provide direction for the future land use, subdivision potential, and requirements for future development of the airport and lands surrounding the airport.
The proposed updated plan includes a number of key changes from the original ASP, including the following outlined in a briefing note from administration presented during the hearing:
• Expansion of ASP boundaries: The plan area for Bylaw No. LU 26/06 consists only of the two quarters that contain the current footprint of the airport, along with the expansion area of the airport when that may occur in the future (SE 5-32-1-5 & SW 5-32-1-5). The steering committee direction was to include within the ASP boundaries all lands that are directly impacted by the airport’s height limitations and noise exposure projection areas. This is an increase from the current two quarter sections to 31 quarter sections.
• Updated height limitations map: The intention of height limitations mapping is to show the allowable height of development that can occur along the take-off and landing areas of the airport’s runways. The steering committee want to update this map to ensure it reflected the current standards for protecting the runways from the height of nearby surrounding structures, while also protecting the take-off and landing areas of a potential future expanded runway, to a maximum addition 206 metres (675 feet).
• Limitations on location for new country residential district (R-CR) subdivisions. Agricultural land uses and development have coexisted with the airport for many years, however, it was identified that country residential subdivisions are less compatible with the airport, given the level of noise that can be generated.
The updated ASP also includes no new confined feeding operations supported, no new communications towers supported if it interferes with the safe operation of the airport, and no new commercial alternative/renewable energy are supported.
Steering committee and aviation advisory committee chair Glen Bradley spoke during the hearing.
“The aviation advisory committee is in support of the ASP,” he said. “We hope this ASP will help support the airport’s future growth and enhance the surrounding community.”
“The intention of the ASP is to allow for further airport growth while also ensuring the safety of airport operations. The proposed plan seeks to maintain, to the closest extent possible, the abilities to re-designate, subdivide and develop with some limitations for development with specific requirements.”
William Pochapsky, who owns property immediately east of the airport, also spoke during the hearing.
“In this case I believe myself as well as other producers and landowners are going to be affected by the scope and vision of the airport expansion,” he said.
“The scope of the ASP is potentially overlooking negative impacts on area residents and landowners in favour of future growth of the airport.”
He said his concerns include possible negative impacts on land values, increased air and ground traffic as development accelerates, increased safety concerns for residents and landowners as traffic increases, noise and privacy issues, and land taken out of agriculture projection.
“I understand that the diversity of the county extends beyond agriculture and individual landowners, but future developmental growth should respect the rights and concerns of those landowners that will be adversely impacted,” he said.
Area landowner Anke Wierenga said she has “very similar concerns as Mr. Pochapsky” with the updated ASP.
“It greatly concerns me that there is so many quarters in there,” she said. “It is really hard to have restrictions like this in place on such a big part of our farm and also other farms in that area.
“I think it would be great to take that into consideration because it is our livelihood and it is our future.”
She said her concerns include that no new confined feeding operations are supported by the updated ASP.
Several other landowners also spoke in opposition to the new ASP.
Council deferred second reading on Bylaw No. 07/24 until the May 8 council meeting.
The complete proposed ASP is available for viewing on the county’s website.
