Patricia Maloney & Associates 1636 Queequeg Turnabout, Gabriola, BC, VOR 1X5

Office: 250-247-7956 Cell: 403-819-8196 Email: pa_maloney@hotmail.com

December 4 th, 2013

Reeve Bob Long and Kneehill Council Kneehill County 232 Main Street Three Hills, Alberta, TOM 2A0

Dear Reeve Long,

Re: Presentation to Kneehill Council - Badlands Motorsport Resort Direct Control District

I am making this presentation on behalf of residents in the area. We are opposed to the adoption of this Direct Control District.

We are opposed to this land use district because:

• It is poorly written. It is obviously not written by a planning professional or written with full understanding and knowledge of planning and planning legislation. Nor is it written with the intent of promoting good planning. Direct Control districts, because they are unique land use districts and generally are accommodating a spot zoning and accommodating something that is not currently or has ever been approved in the municipality, require very clear and distinct requirements and regulations. I have provided an example of a professionally prepared appropriate DC district. It is for a unique commercial development in the City of Calgary. The DC district includes a map of the area to be affected by this land use district, definitions for all of the uses proposed in the district, a short list of permitted uses and all of the uses specific to this land use district are listed as discretionary uses. It is critical that the uses are listed as discretionary uses. This allows the Council to review the Development Permit applications, require the mandatory background information, such as a TIA, wetlands assessment and geotechnical investigation. This also allows council to place conditions on the development permit that will ensure that any development that takes place mitigates all impacts and is considered to be "good" planning.

• It provides no guidance for the development of the land uses identified. The proposed DC district, and the existing Land Use Bylaw, provide no density provision, maximum height, parking, landscaping, or any other requirements, including setbacks from top of bank for the uses listed in the proposed DC district.

• It proposes the land uses as permitted, rather than discretionary and there is no direction or guidance for the conditions to be placed on the development permit and as permitted uses, significant conditions cannot be placed on the DP. Fred Laux, one of the premier planning lawyers in Alberta, has argued that a permitted use cannot have onerous conditions placed on it as it is a permitted use and as such, has been considered appropriate for the land. While a

1

discretionary use allows the council or approving authority some discretion in approving the use, and setting whatever conditions are required to ensure that the development is appropriate, and developed in a way that it will not negatively impact adjacent uses. It also allows the Council the ability to refuse a use if it is not considered appropriate for the site. In this case, many of the uses proposed should not, in my opinion, even be considered for this site. If the council is to approve the uses, they must have sufficient conditions placed on them to ensure that they do not negatively impact adjacent lands, complete the appropriate studies and demonstrate that the development will not have adverse impacts and affects on the surrounding agricultural community (particularly since the county says that agriculture is the most important industry in the County).

• It proposes uses that are not identified or defined in the land use bylaw. The majority of the permitted uses proposed in the DC district are not defined in the current bylaw and no definitions are proposed in the DC District. Some of these uses are particularly critical for accurate and specific definitions. Let's take for example the use, driving tracks. What does that mean and how does the County regulate the type of vehicles that can use the driving tracks or control the times the tracks can be used. Without clear definition the track could be used for drag racing, motorcycles, monster trucks and formula 1 vehicles. While the developer says that is not want they are proposing now, if the project gets into financial difficulty or the customers request they broaden the scope, how do we then ensure that a new noise study is completed and then the use potentially restricted based on recommendations from the updated noise study.

• it does not layout the process for gathering the additional information required to approve development. This development will have major impacts on the area. While some cursory studies have been completed, there are many more that have to be prepared. Every developer knows that they have to complete the background work. This is the cost of doing business. Before any development is considered, before an application can be considered complete, the developer must complete:

o a full Traffic Impact Assessment considering all of the uses proposed, the hours of operation, the traffic splits, the impacts on all roads including Wheatland County roads and provincial highways

o a full geotechnical analysis that considers the slopes and all of the topographic features on the site and considers the instability of the slopes, the tendency for slumping and slides and the history of washed out roads

o a wetlands assessment and clearance from Public Lands on crown interest and then negotiation with Albert Environment under the Provincial Wetlands Guidelines to determine if the wetlands are to be protected, enhances, or compensated.

o A full historic clearance must be obtained considering that this land is in an area of significant archaeological and palaeontological resources.

In addition, all of the county standards must be outlined prior to an approval of development and the Development Agreement must be one of the conditions of the development permit approval. Without that, the county has no control of the full development of the site.

2

Section (4) of the proposed DC district states that "those standards described in the Badlands Motorsport Resort Area Structure Plan or as approved by Council or its delegate", however the ASP does not provide any guidance or direction or regulations.

This whole process has been handled badly and the role and responsibility of municipal staff is to reduce liability. However, the County is now in litigation over the ASP and Albert Transportation clearly stated in their letter dated December 2, 2009 that:

"The Area Structure Plan does not appear to address how much business might be expected, but the indication is that there will be no spectator events. The development appears to be limited to accommodating motorsports enthusiasts with higher end sport vehicles. Therefore, it can be inferred that no peak periods with large traffic volumes are likely. However, if this development eventually creates unsafe conditions or traffic problems at highway intersections the County will be responsible for constructing proper intersection treatments at no cost to the department. You may wish to explore the ramifications prior to approval of the development.

The department has clearly outlined the potential liability to the county and the county tax payers if a full TIA is not completed and the cost of road network upgrades inserted into a Development Agreement or as a condition of development permit for the very first application for this development. Also, by approving this Direct Control district with all of the approved uses, you have virtually approved the development without any requirement for a Traffic Impact Assessment or road upgrades. This also places liability on your neighbouring municipality and places additional liability on the Kneehill County for potential intermunicipal dispute and legal action (how can Wheatland County gather taxes to maintain roads that access development in Kneehill County?).

While this has taken four years to get to this point, I believe, as a professional planner, that the developer has not completed the work required to fully consider this application and that the staff are not familiar with large developments that have significant environmental and social impacts and that the Council are not aware that they can still refuse second reading of this bylaw and make sure that the right thing is done.

Thank you for allowing me to make this presentation.

Sincerely,

Patricia A. Maloney, MCIP Principal

3