Municipal Development Plan - Public Hearing July 10th

The public hearing for the proposed new Municipal Development Plan (MDP) will be held on Thursday, July 10^th starting at 9am at the County Hall.  A copy of the revised draft MDP is available here.

Written submissions are due by 4:30pm on Friday, June 27^th and should be submitted to legislativeservices@rockyview.ca with the subject heading: Bylaw C-8653-2025.  Pre-recorded audio or video presentations can be submitted by noon on Wednesday, July 9^th.  That is also the deadline for requesting to speak electronically at the hearing.

We have reviewed the revised draft MDP and would like to congratulate Administration for listening to residents’ concerns on many policies in the previous draft MDP.  They clearly were hard at work to turn around a significantly revised draft in just a month.  However, there are still some serious outstanding concerns, particularly with the policies dealing with agriculture and country residential development that we will highlight below.

From our perspective, the positive changes include:

• Replacement of a significant number of “should” clauses with “shall” clauses.  Also, stronger and clearer language in many sections.

• The policies strengthen language on where business development can locate.  However, criteria for creating new employment areas are still somewhat unclear.

• Revised “Business Hub” policies to clarify that “regional business hubs” are to provide for strategic business development that have specific needs not available within employment areas or growth hamlets.

  • Also, the elimination of “local business hubs” removes some risks that threatened indiscriminate business development in the County’s agricultural areas.

• Although the “Environment” section could still be stronger, it has been improved by changing some of the “should” clauses to “shall” clauses and by adding new policies for:

  • Watershed and source water protection

  • Recognizing the relevance of relevant watershed and stormwater management plans

  • Emphasizing the importance of limiting fragmentation and impacts to environmental areas

  • Groundwater protection

• The introduction to the “Natural Resource” section has been revised to parallel the language in the proposed Aggregate Resource Plan.  This ensures that the policies in the MDP are at least as strong as those in the current County Plan.

Outstanding Concerns

• The definitions of “agribusiness” and “agritourism” remain sufficiently broad that they could be used to rationalize commercial development on agricultural areas rather than in areas identified for business development.

• This is aggravated by the addition of a new policy stating that “culture, tourism, and hospitality uses that do not primarily support or involve agriculture may be supported in agricultural areas”. 

  • From our perspective, we fail to understand where this came from since most proposals for this type of development have been highly contentious.  It also appears to contradict the MDP’s assertions that it is committed to protecting and preserving ag land.

• Second farmsteads out will be permitted on agricultural quarter sections in addition to retaining first farmsteads out (formerly called first parcels out).  This option was never discussed in the MDP consultations and the rationale is weak since the MDP is supposed to be protecting ag land.  As well, with a first farmstead out, an agricultural quarter section can already have three homes plus associated accessory dwelling units, so is subdivision really needed?

• Country residential development – the revised draft MDP has removed “clustered” as the word to describe its policies for country residential development.  However, that is all that has changed.

  • The policies still state that country residential development “should be designed to use land efficiently and to achieve a reduction in the overall development footprint of the community”, with the “permanent retention of a portion of developable land as open space”.  That is the basic definition of clustered development – so what has changed?

  • From our perspective, this section needs to acknowledge that the default parcel size for country residential development should be no smaller than two acres.

  • We see no problem with encouraging consideration of clustered development, whether or not it is called that.  However, insisting that this is the default development form flies in the face of the longstanding feedback emphasizing the importance of preserving the rural character of country residential communities.

• Although the policies for “business hubs” have been improved, there are still serious concerns regarding the policies for “highway business hubs”.  It is not clear why “highway business hubs” should be permitted at virtually any intersection or interchange along provincial highways.  The County Plan provided for highway business development, but only at specified locations.