Pat Maloney DC Planning Letter Mar 2014

8/9/2019 Pat Maloney DC Planning Letter Mar 2014

1/7

1atriciaalon9 Associates

1636 Quee queg Turnabou t , Gabriola , BC, VOR 1X5Office: 250.247.7956 Mob ile : 403.819.8196 Em ail :pa maIonevehotmail.com

February 27, 2014

K. Hugh H am, B.A., LL.BBanister and Solicitor#1 5508 1 Street S.E.Calgary, AB , T2H 2W 9

Dear Mr. Ham

Re: Badlands M otorspor t Specific Direc t Cont ro l Dis t r ic t D C4 Co nform i ty wi th A lber ta LanUse Policies

Th is report provides the rationale and reason s why I believe that the K neeh ill Cou nty Specific Con trD istrict D C4 (the D C4 District ) does not conform to the Province of Alberta Land Use Policies(0.C.522/96).

Th e purpose of the Lan d U se Policies is to provide direction for the application of consistentapproaches in planning efforts. Th e Province's responsibility extends to m anaging air, water, andrenewable and non-renewable natural resources. M unicipalities are given planning auth ority underPart 17 of the M unicipal Governm ent Ac 2000 R.S.A c. M 26, as amend ed (M GA ). Mun icipal plannefforts m ust com pliment provincial policies and initiatives. Th e land use policies supplem ent theplanning provisions of the M GA . Policies in Sections 4 to 8 hav e particular application to the contenof statutory plans and land use bylaws. H owever, there are also relevant policies in Sections 2.0 an3.0. The following provides the section, the policy from the L and U se Policies in i talics and the

comm ents on why theD irect Control D is tr ict D C4 does not com ply wi th the Land Use P ol icy.

2.0 lanning Process

Policy 2.1The mu nicipali ty is expected to take steps to inform both interested an d po tential ly affected m u n i c ip a l p l a n n i n g a c t i v it ie s a n d t o p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e o p p o r t u n i ti e s a n d s u f f i c ie n t iallow m eaningful part icipat ion in the planning p rocess by residents , landown ers, comm unityinterest groups, m unicipal service providers and other s takeholders.

Th e m unicipality is supposed to take steps to inform both interested and potentially affected parties.Th is did not occur in the case of the Kn eehill DC4 D istrict. The draft bylaw that was advertised in t

local papers (copy attached) and on th e web site was significantly different froth the land use districtthat staff circulated (copy attached) prior to the public hearing.

A pproximately 10 minu tes before the hearing was to com m ence, staff of K neehill County provided oone copy of the new draft DC bylaws to one attendee of the public hearing an d did no t provide copito any o f the other attendees. T he proposed revised land use d istricts were significantly different fromwhat was advertised. The public did not have an effective opportunity to review them an d com m enton the new drafts. In the end, the C ouncil adopted one o f the new draft bylaws without effective pubinput into the bylaw that was adopted.

In add ition, the Cou ncil lim ited the tim e of the speakers to an unreason ably short time period (3m inutes), would not allow any extended period of time for technical presentations and would n ot all


2/7

Patricia M aloney &A ssociates ebruary 27, 2014

letters from affected individuals unable to attend the h earing to be read into the record, did no t ask oquestion all day of the over 100 presenters. O riginally the Coun ty Indicated that non residents wounot be allowed to speak, but in the end th ey were.

Pol icy 2 .4In carrying o ut their planning resp onsibilities, mu nicipalities are exp ected to respect the tighindividual ci t izens and landowne rs to consider the impa ct of any policy or decision w ithin ththe ov erall public interest.

Given the am ount of opposition to the proposed bylaw, it is very questionable whether the m unicipalrespected the rights of individual citizens and landowners to consider the im pact of any policy or

decision within th e context of the overall public interest.

3.0 lanning Cooperat ion

Policy 3.2In part icular, adjoining m unicipal it ies are en couraged to cooperate in the planning of future in the vicinity of their adjoining m unicipal bounda ries fringe areas) respecting the interests omu nicipal it ies and in a m anner w hich does not inhibi t or preclude appropriate long term use ointerfere w ith the con tinuation of existing uses. A djoining m unicipal it ies are encouraged to jprepare and adopt intermunicipal developmen t plans for cr it ical fr inge areas: these plans m alands wh ich are in both of the adjoining mu nicipalities.

W hile Section 3 deals with intermun icipal planning, and is not directly related to the D C district, it isvery im portant to note that the Land Use P olicies encourage inter-municipal cooperation. The bylawwas passed without consultation with W heatland C ounty and , in particular, there was no consultationover roadway stand ards or costs notwithstanding tha t issue was the subject of one of the points inopposition by the presenters. It is my present understanding that W heatland C ounty has com m encean interm unicipal dispute pursuant to Section 690 of the M unicipal Governm ent Act relative to theimpact of 0C4 on W heatland C ounty.

Th e DC 4 District requires that two of the m ajor accesses be provide solely through W heatland Counand wh ile the W heatland C ounty C ouncillor for the area spoke about access issues at the publichearing and m any other speakers at the public hearing also addressed the access issues, the C ountdid not ind icate that they were concerned about th e access, the volum es of traffic and the standardsthe road. And even though the D C4 D istrict requires a Traffic Im pact Assessment, K neehill Countycannot require the road upgrades in the adjoining m unicipality of Wheatland County be m ade or paidfor by Wh eatland Cou nty's ratepayers. Those costs are presently unknown bu t could cost millions odollars to either or both m unicipalities.

Policy 3.7M unicipalit ies are en couraged to w ork direct ly w ith provincial land and resource man agemenagencies in the developmen t of p lans and p ol ic ies on issues of m utual in teres t . Decis ionsapprovals affect ing land use and developm ent on, near, or w ith po tential to impact provinciaresources should be coo rdinated between these levels of governm ent .Section 3.7 encourages cooperation with Provincial land and resource agencies but, despite theidentification of the Rosebud River V alley as an E nvironm entally Significant Area and water being vital resource especially in southern-Alberta, there is no evidence of coordination with Provincialagencies. The issues of storm water runoff and con tam ination, construction near the top of bank,erosion, sediment, dust, noise and disturbance of the native grasslands and the site, were notcirculated to the provincial agencies o r at least there is no evidence of com m ents from theseagencies. Th e fact that the D C4 D istrict requires an En vironmental im pact Assessment as acond ition of the subdivision or d evelopm ent is potentially too late in the process to allow proper

2


3/7

Patricia Maloney Asao ciates ebruary 27, 2014

evaluation. The provincial and federal agencies should have received and com m ented upon this prto the land use redesignation.

4.0 Land Use Patterns

Policy 4.1M unicipali ties are encou raged to establish, on a m unicipal and on an intermun icpal basis, p a t t e r n s w h i c h p r o v i d e a n a p p r o p r i a te m i x o f a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s i d e n t ia l c o m m e r c i a l i n dinstitutional, public and recrea tional land uses develop ed in an ord erly, efficient, com patibleeconom ical man ner in keeping w ith the gen eral policies of this section and the m ore speciffoun d in sections 5.0 to 8.0.

Th is DC 4 D istrict does not provide an appropriate land use mix for the land. Und er good planningprinciples this development is not considered:

O rderly - the appropriate backgro und work was not required prior to land use designation andthe developm ent is situated in an agricultural area, far from a work force or staff housing andaccessed by roads th at are incapable of handling the proposed traffic

Efficient - in that it does not m ake good use of the land in terms of density; the developm entwill be bringin g water and sewer pipes to the site but the developm ent density is very lowm aking very poor use of the infrastructure and dem onstrating great inefficiencies ofdevelopment.

Com patible with the adjacent ag ricultural com m unity - it will bring in traffic that will interferewith the local roads and agricultural traffic, and it proposes a development in an area wherethere are no services.

Safe the developm ent is proposed very close to the top of bank for the Rosebud River wh icis very unstable causing co ncern for the safety of the future users and property from erosionand landslides

Pol icy 4 .2M unicipali ties are encouraged to establish land u se patterns which em body the principles osustainable developmen t, thereby contributing to a healthy environm ent, a healthy economh igh qu a l i ty o f l i fe .

Th e land use pattern of this DC 4 D istrict, under g ood planning principles, is not consideredsustainable. Wh ile a large portion of the land is river valley, the proposed developmen t also takes alarge parcel of good agricultural land out of production and threatens environm entally sensitive landTh is is NO T con tributing, but rather endangering a healthy environm ent. It is destroying the qualitlife of the existing residents of the agricultural com m unity. The L UB appears contrary to policy 4.2inasm uch as a race track in a river valley does not appear to be consistent with protection o f either twater body or th e riparian area.

Pol icy 4 .5M unicipali ties are encouraged to establish land use p atterns wh ich provide the opportunity variety of residential environm ents which feature innovative designs and den sities, and w he f f ic i e n t u s e o f e x i s ti n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d p u b l ic t r a n s p o r t a ti o n .

Th e residential options allowed by the D C4 D istrict do not feature innovative design and d ensity orm ake efficient use of the land, existing facilities, infrastructure and pub lic transportation. Th eproposed h ousing is for townhouse/apartment type housing in th e form of ownership/timeshare/rental accomm odation. The density is very low. The services for these residents are non-existentunless future residents travel great distances. W hile the applicant m ay not con sider this a placewhere there will be school aged children, there is nothing that will prevent school aged children from


4/7


5/7

atricia Maloney Associates ebruary 27, 2014

Alberta Environmental Protection and n o mitigationestablished, itw ould appear that the proposedland usepattern is completely inappropria te and as such does not conform to the Land Use P olicies.

Policy 5 4 If subdivis ion and deve lopm ent is to be approved in these areas identified in a ccordance w ith po licy 3m u n icipalities a re encouraged to , within the sc ope of theirjursid iction, u tilize mitigative m easures tominimize the risk to health, safety and to loss due to property damage.

D espite the know ledge that the land is subject to subsidence and erosion a nd the develo pm ent is-proposed very close to the top of the ban k, i t does not appear that any mitigat ive m easures have beenproposed for this development. Unm itigated risk to health and property damage is contrary to theLand Use Po licies,

Policy 5 5M unicipalities a re e ncouraged to identify, in consultation w ith Alberta Environmental Prote ction, areasof significant fish, wildlif e, and plant habitat and to establish appropriate land u se patterns des igned tominim ize the loss of valued habitat w ithin and adjacent to these areas .

As with Policy 5.3, there is no evidence of consultation with Alber ta Environmental Protection on the site w ith regard to fish, wildlifeand plant habitat. The adopted Kneehill County Significant Areas Study does identify the area as significant and as such, unm itigated development would be contrary to theLand Use Policies.

Policy 5 6 If subdivision an d development is to be approved in the areas iden tified in a ccordance with policy 5municipalities are encouraged to, within the scope o f theirjurisdiction, utilize m itigativ e m easurestominimize the loss of hab itat.

As with Policy 5.4, there were no mitigative measures included in the DC district and as such it doesnot conform to the Land Use P olicies.

6 0 eso urc e Conser vati on

6.1 AgricultureThe goal for agriculture is to contribute to the maintenance anddiversification of Alberta agriculturalindustry - the DC district takes good land out of agricultural production. Policy 6.1.1 says thatagriculture should remain where is currently exists. A large portion of the subject lands are agricultura land are being proposed for non-agricultural uses. Policy 6.1.2 says that fragmentation of agricultural la nd should be limited, but the proposed development increases the fragmentation.

F inally, Policy 6.1.3 says that where possible,m unicipalitiesshould direct non-agriculturaldevelopment to areas that will not constrain agricultural activitie s. The municipality couldeasily h avere directed this development away from the agricultural area and the proposed use will constrain theexisting agricultural uses in the area by creating congestion on roads that serveagriculture, creatingnon comp limentary uses and taking good agricultural land out of production. These policies are notbeing met and are not conforming to the Land Use Policies.

6.3 Water ResourcesThe goal for Water Resources ifto contribute to the protection and sustainable utilization of Alberta swater resources, including lakes, rivers, and streams, their beds and shores, wetlands, groundwater,reservoirs and canals. Policy 6.3.2 wants M unicipalities to determine appropriate land use patterns inthe vicinity of significant rivers. Theproposed development is onthe bank of the Rosebud River butthe proposed land use is a completely inappropriate land use pattern


6/7

Patricia Maloney Asso ciates ebruary 27, 2014

Policy 6.3.3 addresses the need for mitigative m easures to m inimize the neg ative im paction waterquality and soil erosion. No m itigative measures have been identified. Th e D C district and theproposed development do n ot conform to the L and U se Polices.

6.4 Historical ResourcesThe goal for Historical Resources is to contribute to the preservation, rehabilitation and reuse ofhistorical resources, including archaeological and palaeontological resources. Given the location othe subject property, the D C district does not add ress an H RIA an d yet this is a critical areafor paleontological and archaeological resources. This does not conform to the Lan d U se Policies

7.0 ransportat ion

Th e goa l for transportation policies is to con tribute to the safe, efficient and cost effective provincialtransportation network. T his policy addresses specifically provincial roads. Th e access routes for thproject have n ot been clarified. The T IA sh ould have been com pleted prior to redesignation todem onstrate how the developm ent will impact the provincial and m unicipal road system and especithe roads in W heatland Co unty, if nowhere else.

8.0 esidential DevelopmentTh e land use policies direct well planned residential com m unities the DC4 D istrict allows detacdwellings, duplexes and m ulti attached dwellings. It do es not d em onstrate that the development iswell planned, high quality and it does not provide adequ ate and affordable housing. N othing in the district demo nstrates that it will m eet any of the following g oals.

Policy 8.1 M unicipalities are encouraged to identify the n eed for housing in their m unicipalN o study has been c om pleted. An d, no consideration has been identified for staff housing

Policy 8.2 - the Lan d U se Policies recom m end a wide range of hou sing types which is notdem onstrated here

Policy 8.3 the L and Use P olicies support the intensification o f existing developed. T hisdevelopment represents som e intensification of the agricultural land but the development is nintense and the d ensity is considered extrem ely low.

S u m m a r y

In sum m ary, Kn eehill Coun ty has not followed the process for good planning. Using the principles good planning, including the L and U se Policies, a mu nicipality should ensure that th e proposeddevelopment is sustainable, environm entally viable and ord erly prior to the adoption of the land usedesignation. In this case, the A rea Structure Plan did not provide the backg round studies or them itigative measures, but rather both the A SP an d the D C4 D istrict deferred the studies and collectof im portant information to the subd ivision and /or developmen t of the site.

It would appear that the County is fully aware that the development m ay have shortcom ings and thathey are now trying to ba cktrack by requiring an EIA , a TIA , site development plan, etc. after theproper planning time h as occurred. This arguably has reversed a goo d planning process by requirinfeasibility studies at the end of the process, not the beg inning of the process. The last sentence in last paragraph of section 1.1 of the L UP s states:

Mu nicipal it ies are expected to design a dec is ion-m aking system wh ich ensures that the requiredat tent ion is g iven to a l l sect ions of the Lan d Us e P ol ic ies .

If you put the cart before the h orse, can you reasonably expect good decisions to result? A goodplanning process requires that the backg round studies, the con sultation with the Provincial agencieand clear definit ion of the m itigative m easures should have been com pleted prior to the adoption of

6


7/7

ratricia Maloney Associates ebruary 27, 2014

the land use designation.

Also, according to Fred Laux, the author ofPlanning L aw and P ractice in Alberta,conditions shouldnot be placed on a land use d istrict that m ay be considered onerous. Th e fact that the D C4 D istrictrequires a large num ber of studies, could be considered to be onerous. The D C4 D istrict requires aEIA , TIA , road access route and design, water supply and distribution options, compreh ensive siteplan, design guidelines for architecture, design gu idelines for environm ental reclamation and a siteservicing analysis for storm, sanitary, gas, power, cable and telephone and other condition issued bthe subdivision and developm ent authority. The D C4 D istrict appears to be requiring the keyinform ation after the land use h as been established rather th an as part of the d ecision m aking procto determ ine if the land use is appropriate in the first place.

Th e Lan d U se Policies state that:M unicipalities are expected to design a decisionm aking system which ensures that the required

attention is given to all sections of the L and U se Policies.

It is m y opinion that the D C d istrict does not conform to the intent or the content of the L and U sePolicies.

I trust that this report provides sufficient justification of why I do not consider that the D C4 District(Kn eehill Coun ty Direct Control District D C4 for the Badlands M otorsport Resort Development), donot conform to the A lberta Land Use P olicies.

Sincerely,

Patricia A. M aloney, MC IP

7

Documents

Pat Maloney DC Planning Letter Mar 2014