Update on Council's July meetings + MDP public hearings

Since we took some time off over the summer and council held more meetings than usual in July, this update is quite lengthy.

Key decisions from these meetings include:

• Approving a new Agriculture Master Plan that, among other things, commits Rocky View to monitoring agricultural subdivision activity and exploring housing options to reduce land fragmentation.

• Holding a public hearing for the new Municipal Development Plan and the follow-up public hearing to consider possible amendments on September 2^nd, with decisions deferred until the September 16^th council meeting.

• Giving final approval to policies to implement the long-awaited Aggregate Resource Plan, after a rocky start to the public hearing.

• Approving amendment to the Conrich ASP for its future development area, with some councillors seeming incapable of understanding the basic process for land use decisions.

• After a questionable delay, cutting discussion short to give preliminary approval for new Springbank recreation facilities, but leaving the door open for the next council to reconsider the decision.

New Agriculture Master Plan

The new Agriculture Master Plan recognizes the important role agriculture plays in Rocky View and identifies many actions to strengthen the County’s role in supporting that sector. 

The Plan was developed with significant input from Rocky View’s agricultural community.  Protecting agricultural land from further fragmentation and incompatible development was the most frequent identified tension.  Serious concerns were also raised that small acreages in agricultural areas are detrimental to large-scale agricultural operations.  77% of survey respondents identified development and subdivision as one of the top three factors harming agricultural operations in Rocky View.

These concerns were somewhat complicated by a desire for housing flexibility to accommodate on-site housing for agricultural workers and succession planning for farmers to age in place.  In response, the Agriculture Master Plan recommended investigating amendments to the Land Use Bylaw to provide the desired flexibility without fragmenting agricultural properties.

New Municipal Development Plan Set to Replace the County Plan

The MDP is the County’s top level planning policy and governs development for land outside of area structure plans – the majority of Rocky View’s land.  The MDP also provides policy on issues where area structure plans are silent.  Given its importance, it was disappointing to see that Reeve Kissel was not there for either public hearing.

At the July 10^th public hearing, residents raised the following concerns from several residents.  These included:

• The effectiveness of the MDP policies to adequately protect agricultural land.

  • Introduction of second parcels out.  This will lead to further fragmentation of agricultural quarter sections when additional subdivision is not needed to address housing flexibility.  Under current policy, an unsubdivided quarter section can already have two houses and two accessory dwelling units.

  • Excessively broad definitions of agri-business and agri-tourism that risk incompatible development in agricultural areas

  • Introduction of policies for non-agricultural tourism development in agricultural areas

• Lingering references to cluster residential housing that posed threats to the longevity of the two-acre minimum parcel sizes recently enshrined in the Springbank and Bearspaw ASPs.

• Weaker controls over the location of business development than in the current County Plan, particularly through the inclusion of policies for highway business hubs.  

Given the breadth of concerns raised at the July 10^th MDP public hearing, it is interesting that only Councillors Hanson, Samra, and Wright submitted amendments.  Those amendments were the focus of the Sept. 2^nd follow-up hearing.  The threat of incompatible industrial development from rushed-through data centre applications on prime east Rocky View agricultural land resulting in even more concerns being raised about the MDP’s weak protection for agricultural land. 

At the end of the over 4-hour public hearing on Sept. 2^nd, council accepted Administration’s recommendation to delay making decisions on the proposed amendments until the Sept. 16^th council meeting.

If the amendments proposed by Hanson, Samra, and Wright are approved, the new MDP will be an improvement relative to the existing County Plan.  From our perspective however, without these proposed amendments, the County Plan provides stronger protection for the County’s agricultural communities and better control over indiscriminate commercial development.

Aggregate Resource Plan (ARP) Approved

Residents have been waiting for an ARP since it was identified as a priority in the County Plan in 2013.  The last council killed the earlier attempt under pressure from the gravel industry.  In contrast, this council carried through on its commitment and brought to fruition gravel policies that will substantially improve Rocky View’s oversight of the gravel industry.

This council should be congratulated for the foresight to establish the ARP Stakeholder Advisory Committee in August 2023, with representatives from industry and Rocky View’s agricultural and country residential communities.  The Committee made six consensus recommendations as well as identifying several issues where there was not consensus.  The consensus recommendations guided most of the policies in the now-approved aggregate resource policies.  It is hard for industry to object to improved oversight when their own representatives supported it.

Having said this, approving the policies got off to a rocky start with Councillor Boehlke making a motion to delay final consideration until the completion of the province’s task force on cutting red tape for sand and gravel operations.  Since Boehlke has consistently supported a pro-gravel stance, it was hard to see this as anything other than a delaying tactic.  Despite receiving overwhelming resident support and no substantive opposition form industry, both Deputy Reeve Kochan and Councillor Schule supported his failed attempt.

While there is still work to be done, the new policies will substantially improve Rocky View’s oversight of the gravel industry.  No one questions the need for gravel.  However, its extraction and processing have unavoidable negative offsite impacts for both residents and the environment.  As a result, it is important that it is extracted responsibly.  This has been a long fight for residents.  It is good to see it finally reach a positive conclusion.

Conrich ASP – Future Development Area Amendments Approved

The Future Development Area in the Conrich ASP was left unfinished when the Conrich ASP was approved in 2015.  The public hearing to provide policy guidance for development in this area was held on July 9^th, with the follow-up public hearing to consider amendments on July 15^th.  All but one of the amendments were approved.  Schule was absent for the July 9^th hearing and, as a result, chose to not vote on the amendments on the 15^th.

The final area within Conrich’s Cambridge Park community will be a mixed commercial / residential area and the developer has all necessary approvals in place to proceed.  Despite that, she opposed Councillor Samra’s amendment to include this area within the Conrich hamlet.  His logic was that it is the only residential area not inside the hamlet, which would complicate future planning.  The developer objected since she might have to adapt to different rules if the amendment was approved.   It is important to note that different rules would only apply is if she modifies her already-approved development so radically that it no longer complies with the community’s concept scheme, which is grandfathered under the ASP. 

When is it ever appropriate to base a decision on possible inconvenience to a single developer rather than on the overall policy rationale?  But, that is exactly what Kissel, Kochan and Boehlke did, causing the amendment to fail on a tie vote.  They chose to exclude a portion of Cambridge Park’s residential community from the hamlet because of potential hardship for the developer.  This will complicate all future decisions for the broader Conrich hamlet on important issues like servicing.

Springbank recreation facilities take another halting step forward

Everything on council’s July 22^nd agenda, other than the Springbank recreation facilities issue, were completed by 11am.  Instead of dealing with it at that point, Reeve Kissel opted to give council a two-hour lunch break.  As a result, the recreation facility discussion didn’t start until after the afternoon public hearings were done at 5pm.  Kissel then cut short council’s discussion on the issue because it was so late in the day, leaving many unanswered questions. 

Council gave conditional approval to both Phases 1 (community event centre) and Phase 2 (indoor turf, gymnasium, and track), directing Administration to return in early 2026 for a final decision.  In response to questions from Hanson and Wright, the CAO confirmed that the project was still at a very preliminary stage and council still has options to change its scope, timing or direction.

From our perspective, before committing $26 million on these facilities, the next council needs to look seriously at the following questions:

• What happened to the repeated promises to meaningfully consult with Springbank residents to update the 2017 recreation survey before making decisions?

• Why is the option of building one multi-purpose facility not being considered? 

  • Staff’s response at the June open house was that people wouldn’t want soccer kids running around while they were hosting a wedding.  If the community centre is truly for local resident use, considerations for maximizing its appeal as a wedding venue should not be relevant.

• The proposed facilities emphasize organized indoor sports and activities.  How does this fit with repeated feedback that residents prefer unstructured recreation opportunities?

• What is meant by “wholly funded by” Rocky View County, the description used in council’s conditional approval?  Does that mean the Park for All Seasons doesn’t have to contribute any funding for its expansion?  Is that fair given that all other organizations that receive county funding to support their recreation facilities must contribute?

• Will these facilities be primarily used by Springbank residents or will they end up primarily serving Calgary minor sports organizations?

• Do these facilities complement or duplicate facilities already available within easy driving distance for Springbank residents?  For example, the newly constructed facilities at Webber Academy in South Springbank.

The next council also needs to carefully examine the decision to move forward with both phases concurrently.  Administration’s recommendation reversed the Recreation Master Plan, which saw the two phases being built sequentially over 10-15 years.   Their recommendation relied heavily on input from the Springbank Park for All Seasons and the Springbank Community Association.  Neither group engaged the community to determine if their preferences were widely supported. 

The County’s engagement on these options had serious limitations – short time frame just as summer was starting and closed rather than open-ended questions.  Who doesn’t want “both” when asked if they’d like “a” or “b”, especially when the implications of the answers are not presented? 

Then there’s the reality that the engagement did not provide strong support for Administration’s recommendation to build both phases concurrently.  While 24% of responses indicated support for building both Phase 1 & 2 at the same time; 23% supported building Phase 2 first; and 20% did not support building either phase.  Such narrow differences indicate a need for truly meaningful consultation before council commits $11 million for Phase 2 or $26 million for both phases.  Either amount is a significant expenditure, especially when considered in relation to what Rocky View spends on county-wide recreation.