Reeve Upham called the Public Hearing to order at 11:00 a.m. with all members of Council present, except Councillor M. Fodness.
Krystle Fedoretz, Planning and Development, informed Council that the public hearing was advertised in accordance with section 606 of the M.G.A. and the adjacent landowners were notified.
Krystle Fedoretz informed Council that the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss Bylaw No. 2013-35, which is a bylaw to amend the Land Use Bylaw as it relates to rezoning S 1/2 SW 35-56-7-W4 from Agricultural to Country Residential (1).
Krystle read aloud the following written submissions in opposition to the proposed rezoning:
August 27, 2013
I am currently a co-owner of the adjacent property at NW 35-56-7 W4M. I strongly object to the rezoning of the a/n property for residential purposes.
As a family we have had gravel sales from our land bordering this property and hope to maintain future sales as the oil extraction continues in this area. This is a long term process that entails crushing and hauling gravel. The ensuing traffic, dust and noise are part of our commercial viability.
It would be reasonable to assume the developer of this property would object to our commercial ventures and thwart any further business for us. There are five families affected by this possible motion.
I request a moratorium on any residential development on this property for 10 years.
At that time it would be reasonable to expect the gravel source to be exhausted and the land reclaimed as required.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ross and Gail Farewell
August 28, 2013
I recently received a notice of a Public Hearing on Tuesday concerning the rezoning of property S 1/2 of SW 35-56-7-W4M to be held on September 10, 2013 at the county office in St Paul. I will be out of the country on that day and am therefore sending by mail my strongest possible objection to rezoning this property from Agricultural to County Residential.
I am a co-owner of the property NW 35-56-7-W4M adjoining the proposed rezone property S 1/2 of SW 35-56-7-W4M where we have had agricultural and commercial interests for many years. In recent times this land has been used for cattle pasture and other agricultural purposes. In addition, our property is the source of a valuable gravel resource, of which I understand is urgently needed by several counties and by the oil and gas industry in northeastern Alberta generally. Both agricultural use and gravel development on our property are inconsistent with the proposed residential development.
I can well imagine that the county would not want to prevent commercial development in the area (tax revenue, etc.). There are other locations suitable for residential development in close proximity to Elk Point that would not conflict with agricultural and gravel commercial activity. I therefore, urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider rezoning this property.
Marie Bibby, Co-owner
August 28, 2013
As co-owner of a property in close proximity to the above property, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of the above property.
The property at NW 35-56-7-W4 has been in our family for well over a half century. Over those many years it has provided pasture for large herds of cattle and a steady source of gravel. Today, that land continues to provide economic benefit for what are now five families. As oil extraction continues in the area, we anticipate the need for gravel will not only continue, but expand, well into the future and our property will continue to contribute to the livelihood of us and our children for years to come.
I was quite surprised to hear that the property so close to ours is being considered for residential use. I can't imagine why someone would choose to develop a residential area in the middle of pasture across the road from a gravel pit. Raising and transporting cattle and crushing and hauling gravel are both dusty, noisy and odorous endeavors that are bound to cause problems for anyone living close by. In this case, residential use would not be a good fit with the current use of surrounding land.
Given that I was only notified yesterday, I must admit I don't yet know what all rezoning for residential use would mean down the road and I really haven't had sufficient time to fully consider this matter. At this moment, I am very concerned that rezoning would be the first step on a slippery slope. Rezoning the adjacent property for residential use would allow for further action that limits, interferes or otherwise impinges on our long standing use of our property, and access to our property for that use. This would adversely affect our ability to continue to benefit economically from our land. This would not be fair or reasonable.
As such, I must voice my strong objection to the passing of Bylaw 2013-35.
Jean L. Edwards
September 5, 2013
Diana Anderson - Also, co-owner of the property spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning as they have a gravel pit on the adjacent property. She read her letter aloud to Council:
I received the notice that the Council of the County of St. Paul No 19 is considering amending the Land Use Bylaw No. 2013·11 from Agricultural to County Residential One(1).
I am a co-owner of the property located on NW-35-56-7-W4M which is adjacent to the land that you are considering for rezoning.
I fully realize that the tax revenue generated from the proposed residential development will be much higher than what you are currently getting from agriculture taxation but ask that you consider the following:
Our property has both aggregate and future re-estate value as the creek runs through the north end of the property and the golf course borders us from the east.
It is our intent to extract the aggregate and once the land has been re-claimed to sell it for residential development.
As you are aware, the oil patch is booming and gravel is in great demand, We have several parties interested in developing the aggregate potential and are very concerned that objections may be raised due the activity this would create.
On this basis, I must object to the proposed re-zoning.
However, when we receive a signed document from the County of St. Paul, that the owner/developer and future owners of the proposed residential area will not raise any objections or restrictions (traffic, noise, dust, environmental etc.) now or in the future to impede the development and access to the aggregate on our property, I would withdraw my objection and am reasonably certain my sisters would do so also.
This response has been discussed and approved by my sister Evangeline Munns, who is also co-owner, and lives in Toronto and is unable to attend the meeting.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mrs. Anderson went on to state that she is not totally opposed to the proposed subdivision however is requesting that a condition be placed on the approval, stating that there are no objections to them using the access road to develop the aggregate on their property. They have not removed any aggregate from the property for a couple of years, but the potential is there to develop the aggregate.
Albert Rachynski, with Rachynski Land Surveys, spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning. The landowners are looking to plan and develop for the long term and are open to conditions on the proposed development.
Reeve Upham declared the public hearing closed at 11:16 a.m. The delegation left the Council Room.
Councillor Maxine Fodness abstained from voting as she was absent during part of the public hearing.
Councillor Maxine Fodness abstained from voting as she was absent during the public hearing.