Reeve Upham declared the Public Hearing open at 11:17 a.m. Nine residents were present for the Public Hearing.
Krystle Fedoretz, Planning and Development informed Council that the purpose of the public hearing is to hear from anyone and everyone affected by Bylaw No. 2017-19, St. Paul North Area Structure Plan.
Krystle then informed Council that the Public Hearing has been advertised in accordance with section 230 of the M.G.A and that following the Open House on March 30th, a copy of the amendments that resulted from the open house was distributed to those in attendance who provided their email address.
Krystle Fedoretz informed Council that she received the following email from Jim McGonigal:
After reviewing the area structure plan for the area north of St. Paul, I would like to include a Light Industrial/Residential District along the west side by Rge Rd 95. I am planning to build a shop in the future there for commercial use.
Krystle then informed Council that an amendment has been made to the ASP to address this concern.
Gail Plante then read the following submission aloud to Council on behalf of Plante Farms, and requested that it be included as part of the public record.
1. Not Enough Information
We have only since the open house been given the option of Country Residential zoning of our land. This is not an option we requested but are finding out with new information that this might be something we have to look at to protect the legacy of our family farm for the next generations. At this point we don't understand the consequences of zoning our land Country Residential. We are not interested in being developers; we plan to continue to farm and are only interested in subdividing land that is actually needed. With any situation getting good information helps considerably with the understanding of why some things are an option and some things are not. Unfortunately, we have not had access to the information as we have not been involved with the planning over the last 2 years. Since the planners have had two years to work with landowners and has chosen not to do that until the last few days; we can't do anything about the fact that they have run out of time and did not come to us for input sooner. It is unfortunate because now that there is finally an exchange of some information, had we been involved sooner, we could have probably worked on a constructive solution that had all affected parties interests considered. We could have forwarded our ideas for our land but were waiting for information we needed to make a good plan and informed long term succession plan proposal. For example we did not know that the sewer capacity on the east end has been updated, that would have been important to know. All this time we have been expecting information regarding surveys on water, sewer, road upgrades and environment assessments with all relevant information to make up or plan to put forward. Now in the last few days since the open house, we are finding out things that would have helped develop our plan. We would have thought it would be fair to be a part of the planning of our land in the ASP, working with the planning committee to find solutions that made sense for everyone. That is how we thought a community should work together.
2. Improper development which affects our livelihood
Development within the IDP is causing flooding of farmland as this affects our livelihood it is relevant in any plan. This is happening in many areas North of Township Road 582, South of Garneau Lake and Northwest in the Town limits. This all causes flooding to farmland North and South of 582 and also flooding of some acreages. What planning has been done within this ASP to protect land from flooding due to development that does not conform to the Alberta Water Act? Developers who are unaware of their responsibilities under the Act could have consequences that they would otherwise not have, if they were informed of the regulations beforehand through a responsible ASP that is proactive. Is that not the whole point of an Area Structure Plan to ensure development is done property, which would include not breaking the laws of the governing legislation in the process? We have been told that overseeing development is not the responsibility of the county/town. Everyone tells us to call Environment. You have an opportunity through this plan to protect the livelihood of your farmers, just because you haven't done it in the past doesn't mean you can't be proactive with at least the "Area Structure Plans" that you participate in.
3. Storm Water Management Concept: page 40 - Figure 14. The plan shows 3.5 large storm water facilities on our 35% portion and only 2.5 facilities on the remaining 65% of the land. We have an unfair amount of our land taken up for storm water facilities. In particular, in regards to the 40 acre parcel North of Garneau Lake beside the towns land on the East side of the ASP. The water does not currently flow into this area from the North on its way to Garneau Lake; this is not the natural water course. We have been farming this land for over 40 years and plant crops here every year. The map shows where the actual water course enters the lake, which is not on our property. Our plan for this property is residential. Should not the Storm water facility reflect where the natural water course enters the lake? Also, in the corner just west of 46th street another storm water facility has been placed on a subdivided acreage with no regard for that? There are still so many things that need to be addressed on this plan. It also looks to us that most of the infrastructure required for water management that is needed now to address recent development and development underway, has been deferred to the properties that are to be developed later. How can an Area Structure Plan overlook the infrastructure needs required now by deferring the responsibility onto the property owner next door?
4. Transportation (page 35 of ASP) The draft proposed a four lane road on Township Rd 582. At the open house it was not determined whether this is a four lane or two lanes and this has still not been updated. The sketch at the bottom of page 35 is for a two lane highway, so which is it, two lanes or four lanes? What is the easement for moving the pipeline further onto our property? There are more questions than answers about this road. The plan is incomplete and we cannot support an incomplete ASP when we do not know the full impacts to our land or operation.
5. Policy Context: (page 18, 3.2 of the ASP) "Collaborative and transparent decision-making". We own 35.8% of the area covered by this structure plan. We find the planner has not tried to foster good relations with the surrounding land owners who are the major stakeholders. We are only now at the last minute being asked what we think about the plan. We have many more areas that need changes and more information is warranted before we can agree to this plan. We should have been involved in the planning any time in the past two years, trying to rush this plan through in the final hour is not acceptable. As the development of this area affects our livelihood and we do not fully understand the consequences of this ASP we cannot support it at this point and don't feel council should either.
Jacques Plante also spoke in opposition to the plan. The Plantes were involved with the original consultation and they did not receive any further information until the open house. Mr. Plante asked why the information was withheld until it was time to approve the ASP. They are not prepared to support the ASP at this time.
Louise Plante also spoke in opposition to the ASP. She is concerned that the plan is designed for four lanes. It will affect their lots on 51st street and the pipeline on their property. She is also concerned that the plan does not properly address the water flow issues.
Leo deMoissac spoke in opposition to Bylaw No. 2017-19. He feels that the bylaw is premature and that more time has to be spent with residents before Council approves the plan. Access to water is included in the plan, which require that his property would have to be annexed to the Town of St. Paul and he does not want to be annexed.
Victor Gill spoke in opposition to to the proposed plan. He requested that his submission be included as part of the public record:
We know we need an ASP but I don't think this plan is ready yet. There needs to be talks with the land owners to best develop their land. There should have been a one on one meeting with each landowner to best develop their land. The land owners know more about the land than designers who look at geographical maps to develop the land.
We don't agree that we need a 4 land roadway for 2 miles. By building this roadway it will increase the traffic and the speed at which people travel on it. There is a problem at the rate of speed some people are traveling right now and it is an oil gravel road with rough spots. The new road would increase the speed and drastically increase the amount of garbage that would be lost along 51st, 46st, range road 95, highway 881 and township road 582. As of right now there is no enforcement of the speed at which people travel, nor the enforcement on having loads tarped going to the transfer station, And the first sign going into the transfer station is ALL LOADS MUST BE TARPED, NO ENFORCEMENT. As long as these roads are rough it is the only speed control there is.
By building the roadway this will increase the big truck traffic. Right now some of these trucks do not follow the speed limits, and like to use their engine retarder brakes or jake brakes. We hear this happening often day and night, and we are getting tired of being woke up during the night to the sounds of these brakes.
In short, if this roadway is built then there better be reduced speed limits along 582 for safety, reduced garbage in the ditches. And sign install restricting the use of engine retarder brakes on these roads, and the speed and tarped loads enforced. We are not in favor of any expansion's to be done at the transfer station.
IN SHORT THIS PLAN IS NOT READY.
Councillor Fodness informed Council that Mr. Vidiuk sent an email expressing that he is opposed to the Area Structure Plan.
There was no one present to speak in favor of the proposed bylaw.
Reeve Upham declared the Public Hearing closed at 11:38 a.m.
Following the public hearing, those in attendance for the Public Hearing left the Council Room at 11:38 a.m