The New MDP - Shall vs. Should = Responsible vs. Irresponsible Development

As a reminder, the on-line survey for the new Municipal Development Plan (MDP) can be found here and is available until June 1^st.  The remaining open houses are:

• Monday, May 26^th – Prince of Peace, Conrich, 5:00 – 7:00pm

• Wednesday, May 28^th – Springbank Middle School, 6:00 – 8:00 pm

Before the County concludes its consultations, we would like to share our preliminary assessment of the new MDP.  A quick scan, combined with the earlier messaging from County staff, led us to believe that the document would be an acceptable replacement for the County Plan.  Unfortunately, an initial review of the new MDP’s policies raises many unexpected concerns. These include:

• Weaker protection for agricultural lands.

• Dramatically weaker controls over business development and its location.

• Cluster residential development as the default housing form for country residential development.

• Reduced emphasis on environmental protection.

• Concerning language around resource extraction.

Why has the County weakened its commitment to preserving agricultural land?

The MDP is the County’s top-level policy guidance for how it sees growth and development moving forward and its “vision” sets the tone for the entire document. 

The County Plan’s vision was to “balance agriculture with diverse residential, recreational, and business opportunities”.  In contrast, the new MDP’s vision no longer acknowledges the importance of agriculture.  Instead, it sees the County as “home to diverse communities offering a range of rural lifestyles and opportunities for residents and businesses”.  This is concerning since one of the key themes throughout the MDP’s public engagement was a strong desire to preserve agricultural lands.

While the introductory comments in the Agriculture section of the new MDP suggest a continued commitment to preserving and protecting the County’s agricultural land, many of the policies raise serious concerns about that commitment.

After stating that development in agricultural areas should be designed to preserve ag lands to the extent possible, the same policy goes on to list acceptable uses on ag land. These include broadly defined agri-business and agri-tourism operations as well as all types of “business hubs” (see below for a discussion on these).  While having agri-business and agri-tourism in the County is important, the terms are too loosely defined. For example, “financial services” are considered an agri-business.  We have grave concerns that many businesses will use these loose policies to justify locating in agricultural areas rather than in areas identified for business development.

The new MDP also introduces “second parcels out” on agricultural quarter sections.   It is not clear how these fit with the stated commitment to avoid fragmentation of ag land, especially when each parcel already allows for two homes.

On a somewhat more positive note, the new MDP replaces the badly abused “new and distinct” rationale for fragmenting ag land with the concept of “diversified agricultural operations” as the acceptable rationale for fragmentation.  The downside is that the new policies have extremely impractical thresholds for justifying fragmentation.

What happened to focusing business development in approved ASPs?

The County Plan focused on moderate growth that “can be responsibly planned” and clearly directs development into approved areas.  In contrast, the new MDP’s overall message focusses on non-residential development and asserts that “the County must remain flexible and supportive of new economic opportunities that emerge organically outside identified growth areas and established communities”. 

We recognize that the recent push for data centres highlights the need for some flexibility in locational criteria.  However, we don’t understand why accommodating data centres has resulting in potentially opening the floodgates for business development to locate virtually anywhere in the County.  Furthermore, it is not clear how this change fits with the consistent feedback from residents supporting focused growth in appropriate areas.

The County Plan clearly “directed” business development into identified business areas, that is Area Structure Plans (ASPs) that have commercial and/or industrial land uses.  These are now referred to as “employment areas” in the new MDP.  The County Plan provided strict conditions that needed to be satisfied to justify locating business development outside of ASPs.  In contrast, the new MDP only “encourages” large-scale business development to locate in these ASPs and introduces “business hubs” to facilitate business development elsewhere. 

The new MDP provides for three types of “business hubs” – regional, highway, and local – to be “supportive of new economic opportunities outside of identified growth areas”.  Although the introductory section on business hubs suggests that these should be restricted to “strategic business development”, the policies do not identify what types of development qualify as “strategic” nor do they provide any criteria to justify their use.   

The County Plan had policies for regional and highway business development.  However, both were clearly limited to specifically identified areas.  The new MDP has no comparable limitations on where these can locate.  The only restriction on local business hubs is that they are to be situated in country residential developments, hamlets and rural locations.  This contradicts both the Springbank and proposed Bearspaw ASPs which have purposefully restricted such types of development.

How did cluster residential become the default for country residential communities?

The County Plan discussed cluster residential development forms and required that they be “considered” when country residential ASPs are revised or created. 

In contrast, the new MDP states that “residential development should be clustered”, without providing any guidance or limitations on how such development should be configured.  It also mandates that existing ASPS must be brought into conformity with the MDP when they are reviewed.  We realize that this policy doesn’t mandate cluster residential, but it will unambiguously make it easier for developers to push for parcel sizes smaller than 2 acres in new country residential development.

From our perspective, this appears to fly in the face of the consistent feedback that emphasized the importance of preserving the rural character of country residential communities.  It also raises real concerns for the longevity of the recent changes to the Springbank and proposed Bearspaw ASPs that clearly identify country residential communities as those with parcel sizes no smaller than 2 acres.   What were seen as “victories” for the residents of these communities may be quite short-lived.  At the very least, we believe that the new MDP needs to needs to define “country residential” in a way that is acceptable to those country residential communities.

Why has the County diminished its emphasis on protecting the environment?

The policies in this section of the new MDP are not inherently flawed, rather they are missing enforceability by an excessive use of “should” statements rather than “shall” statements.  In fact, most of the “shall” statements focus on provincial-level environmental regulation.  In contrast to the County Plan’s approach, the new MDP is making no effort to go beyond the weak oversight provided by the province.  While we understand that there needs to be some flexibility, we also know from experience that environmental protections that “should” be provided are frequently ignored.

We are also concerned that the new MDP’s policies are missing many of the key environmental commitments that had been in the County Plan.  For example, the County Plan included several policies focused on environmentally responsible land stewardship, such as ensuring that development does not exceed the carrying capacity of the land.  The new MDP has no comparable policies.

No teeth around gravel extraction

We recognize that the intent is to incorporate the Aggregate Resource Plan (ARP) policies into the new MDP.  However, the MDP’s section, as drafted, sets off alarm bells.  This is because the wording is weaker than what is in the current County Plan.  The ARP is scheduled for a public hearing on June 18^th.  If the ARP’s proposed changes are approved, those intentions will be met.  However, if the ARP’s proposals are not approved, we will be left with what is now in the new MDP.    

To mitigate against the risk that the ARP’s changes are not approved, it is critical for the MDP to emphasize the importance of protecting residents and the environment from the adverse impacts of gravel extraction.  It is also important for the MDP’s fallback language to clearly acknowledge the County’s role in regulating and overseeing the gravel industry in Rocky View.  Currently, the MDP fails to do either of these adequately.

Please read the document and submit your comments

The MDP is one of the most important documents in defining how development occurs in Rocky View County.  It is essential that it is done well.  We’ve provided a high-level summary of some of the issues we identified.

We recognize the fatigue that goes along with all the engagement the County has been doing.  However, it is imperative that the County hears from as many residents as possible on this important issue.  As a result, if any of the issues we identified resonate with you, we encourage you to read at least those sections of the new MDP and fill out the survey by June 1^st.