Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-05-22 Council (Regular) Minutes
County of Newell No. 4 Minutes of Council Meeting May 22, 2003 The regular Council Meeting of the County of Newell No. 4 was held in the County Office at Brooks, AB on Thursday, May 22, 2003 commencing at 10:00 a.m. Members Present Reeve W. Daniels Councillors G. Musgrove C. Vermeeren J. Harbinson E. Moss M. Loewen A. Eckert A. Pickett C. Baksa Administrator A. Martens Assistant Administrator N. Moriyama Recording Secretary P. Garrett 1. Excused from Meeting Moved by Councillor Harbinson that Councillor Fabian be excused from this meeting. Carried. 2. Minutes 1. Council Minutes - May 8, 2003 Minutes of the May 8, 2003 meeting were presented. Moved by Councillor Eckert that we adopt the minutes as presented. Carried. 6/"J -s I .... 2. Public Hearings - May 8, 2003 Minutes of the May 8, 2003 Public Hearings were presented. Moved by Councillor Vermeeren that we adopt the minutes as presented. Carried. 3. Call for Post Agenda Items The Reeve called for post agenda items. May 22, 2003 Council Page 97 4. 5 Adoption of Agenda Moved by Councillor Vermeeren that we adopt the agenda as amended. Carried. Business from Minutes 1. Bylaw 1414-02 - Pt. SE 28-18-14-W4 - OF to DC - Division 5 Applicant: Bigelow, Dean - Owner: 985778 Alberta Ltd. This item was not lifted from the table. Post Agenda Items 1. Alberta Energy & Utilities Board - Electric Restructuring The Reeve read to Council a letter from the Hon. Murray Smith, Minister responsible for Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, regarding electric restructuring. Business from Minutes (con't) 2. Bylaw 1427-03 - Bantry Bay Land Use Amendment This item was not lifted from the table. Planner T. Henry was in attendance for the following items. 3. Area Structure Plan Proposals The Planner presented information on the EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. proposal to include additional lands in the proposed area structure plans. Moved by Councillor Moss that we approve the inclusion of the S %2 of 36-18-15-W4 and the N'h of 25-18-15-W4 to the proposed Area Structure Plans and the corresponding additional costs as presented. Carried. The Planner left the meeting at this time. May 22, 2003 Council Page 98 7. Correspondence 1. Medicine Hat College - Bachelor of Education Program - Request for Support A letter from the Medicine Hat College, requesting a letter of support for their proposed Bachelor of Education Program, was presented to Council. Moved by Councillor Loewen that we send the requested letter of support. Carried. 2. Parkland Community Planning Services - Formation of a Red Deer River Basin Watershed `Alliance' A memo from Parkland Community Planning Services, regarding the formation of a Red Deer River Basin Watershed `Alliance', was presented to Council. Moved by Councillor Vermeeren that our representative to the Red Deer River Basin Advisory Committee attend the June 4' Watershed "Alliance" meeting in Red Deer and follow up establishment meetings. Carried. Petro -Canada - Request for Annexation A letter from Petro -Canada, requesting permission to be annexed into the Town of Brooks to be able to utilize Town sewer services, was presented to Council. Moved by Councillor Vermeeren that we attempt to facilitate sewage servicing from the Town of Brooks to the Petro -Canada property. Superintendent of Public Works E. Somerville was in attendance for the following item. 4. Scott Telecom - Municipal Access Agreement Alberta SuperNet (Rainier/Rolling Hills) A memo from Scott Telecom and the Municipal Access Agreement - Alberta SuperNet for the Hamlets of Rainier & Rolling Hills, was presented to Council. Moved by Councillor Baksa that we enter into the Municipal Access Agreement - Alberta SuperNet for the Hamlets of Rainier and Rolling Hills. Moved by Councillor Vermeeren that voting on this motion be VOS postponed until after the Public Hearing. Carried. The Superintendent of Public Works left the meeting at this time. Planner T. Henry was in attendance for the following items. May 22, 2003 Council Page 99 8. Public Hearing - Lake Newell Reservoir Resort Area Structure Plan +/- 225 ha (+/- 556 ac) - Pt. Sec. 6-18-14-4, Pt. W %i 7-18-14-4, Pt. NE 12-18-15-4 & Pt. E %2 1-18-15-4 - South of Town of Brooks 6 Moved by Councillor Harbinson that we recess for the Public Hearing at 10:34 a.m. Carried. Council reconvened at 12:18 a.m. The Planner left the meeting at this time. Lunch Council recessed for lunch from 12:18 p.m. to 1:49 p.m. Superintendent of Public Works E. Somerville was in attendance for the following item. Correspondence (cont'd) 4. Scott Telecom - Municipal Access Agreement Alberta SuperNet Rainier/Rolling Hills) (cont'd) Vote on the following postponed motion: "Moved by Councillor Baksa that we enter into the Municipal Access Agreement - Alberta SuperNetfor the Hamlets ofRainier and RollingHills." Carried. The Superintendent of Public Works left the meeting at this time. In Camera There was no In Camera session. Treasurer's Report The Treasurer's Report for April, 2003 was presented to Council. Moved by Councillor Loewen that we accept the Treasurer's Report. Carried. May 22, 2003 Council Page 100 12. Other Business Division 5 & 10 Municipal Library Board Moved by Councillor Baksa that we appoint Elsie Strach to the Division 5 & 10 Municipal Library Board. Carried. Planner T. Henry and Contract Planner J. Ramjohn were in attendance for the following item. By-law 1428-03 Moved by Councillor Loewen that Bylaw 1428-03, being a bylaw to adopt the Lake Newell Reservoir Resort Area Structure Plan receive second reading. Moved by Councillor Baksa that the Area Structure Plan be amended such that the RR2 areas on the east side of Greenwald Inlet that are designated for RR development within the Area Structure Plan be identified as future RR1 zoning. Vote on amendment. Carried. Moved by Councillor Vermeeren that the following be deleted from paragraph 2 of Section 11.2 on Page 28: "Additionally, if the Town of Brooks imposes a cap ofjust 700 units that can tie-in to their extension sewage line, then any additional development in the project area above 700 units that may occur sometime in the future would be serviced by building a sewage lagoon. Therefore, this ASP allowsfor thepossibility ofadditional development on the subject lands above the 700 units, and the sewage generated by this additional development would be serviced by building a sewage lagoon if one does not already exist at the time. " Vote on amendment. Carried. Moved by Councillor Loewen that Area Structure Plan amendments, as recommended by the Contract Planner as a result of the Open House and the letters received, be incorporated into the Area Structure Plan. Carried. Moved by Councillor Moss that we table second reading. Carried. The Contract Planner left the meeting at this time. May 22, 2003 Council Page 101 Other Business (cont'd) 2. Summer Meetine Schedule Moved by Councillor Vermeeren that the August 4 Municipal Committee, the August 7 Council and the August 18 Workshop meetings be cancelled; that the August 21 Council meeting be moved to August 18; and, if necessary, a Municipal Committee meeting also be held on August 18. Carried. Moved by Councillor Baksa that the July 21 Workshop meeting be held following the July Agricultural Service Board meeting. Carried. 3. MDP/LUB Progress & Open Houses The Planner updated Council on this item. Post Agenda Items (cont'd) 2. FCM Resolutions Moved by Councillor Loewen that the delegates attending the FCM Conference listen to discussion on the resolutions and vote as they deem appropriate. Carried. 3. Duchess Agricultural Society - Recreation Councillor Eckert reported that the Duchess Agricultural Society was looking for funds to upgrade their tennis court and skateboard park and asked for clarification on what Public Reserve Trust funds could be used for. 13. Committee Reports Municipal No report. Y A.S.B. No report. Newell Foundation Councillors Moss and Loewen gave this report. May 22, 2003 Council Page 102 Salary Negotiating Committee No report. Assessment Review Board No report. Airport Commission No report. Disaster Services No report. Municipal Library Board No report. Foothills Little Bow Association No report. Municipal Budget Committee No report. Municipal Planning Commission No report. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board No report. May 22, 2003 Council Page 103 Eli Workshop Session 1. Long Range Planning Strategy Moved by Councillor Loewen that we hold a retreat and hire a facilitator for this retreat. Carried. 2. Electricity Billing Inaccuracies Moved by Councillor Harbinson that we contact a lawyer to obtain an opinion on the probable success of a class action suit against Epcor, Aquila and the Provincial Government for billing inaccuracies. Carried. 3. Chairs Moved by Councillor Baksa that we purchase 14 new chairs for the Council Chambers with funding from the Municipal Surplus Reserve. Carried. Moved by Councillor Eckert that we purchase 24 stacking chairs to be used for public hearings in the Council Chambers with funding from the Municipal Surplus Reserve. Carried. Brooks & District Ambulance Association Councillor Harbinson gave this report. 9-1-1 No report. Newell Regional Solid Waste Management Authority No report. Urban Fringe Committee No report. May 22, 2003 Council Page 104 Community Impact Study Committee No report. Road Ban Committee Reeve Daniels gave this report. Municipal Development Plan Committee No report. Grievance Committee No report. College Advisory Committee Councillor Vermeeren gave this report. Red Deer River Basin Advisory Committee No report. Bow River Basin Advisory Committee No report. F.C.S.S. Board No report. Palliser Economic Partnership Reeve Daniels gave this report. May 22, 2003 Council Page 105 Regional Services Councillor Musgrove gave this report. 50`h Anniversary Committee Councillor Baksa gave this report. Partners in Tourism No report. Shortgrass Library System Councillor Moss gave this report. 14. Question Period / Notice of Motion A question period was held. 15. Information Items 1. Safety Meeting Minutes 2. Mini -bus Report - March 16. Adjourn Moved by Councillor Vermeeren that we adjourn at 3:41 p.m. Carried. REEVE ADMINISTRATOR May 22, 2003 Council Page 106 County of Newell No. 4 Minutes of Public Hearing May 22, 2003 A Public Hearing of the County of Newell No. 4 was held in the County Office at Brooks, AB on Thursday, May 22, 2003 commencing at 10:36 a.m. Members Present Reeve W. Daniels Councillors G. Musgrove C. Vermeeren J. Harbinson E. Moss M. Loewen A. Eckert A. Pickett C. Baksa Assistant Administrator N. Moriyama Planner T. Henry Contract Planner J. Ramjohn Recording Secretary P. Garrett The Reeve opened the Public Hearing at 10:36 a.m. Applicant Jeet Shergill of K300 Financial Corp., Rob Potrie of Planning Protocol and ten members of the public were in attendance for this hearing. The Assistant Administrator stated that the purpose of the Public Hearing was to hear representations on Bylaw 1428-03, being a bylaw to adopt an area structure plan to be known as the Lake Newell Reservoir Resort Area Structure Plan. Contract Planner J. Ramjohn gave the background on this application. The Reeve advised those present of the procedures that would be followed for the hearing. The Reeve asked if the applicant wanted to present support for this Area Structure Plan. Rob Potrie of Planning Protocol, representing the applicant, first inquired as to whether the Contract Planner would give a summary of the comments received at the Open House. Contract Planner J. Ramjohn reported that the applicant held an Open House on May 711 , 2003 with approximately 25 members of the public in attendance. He presented a summary of the 10 major issues that emerged from the Open House. A copy of this summary is attached to and forms part of these minutes. Rob Potrie of Planning Protocol representing the applicant, spoke in support of the bylaw indicating the following: — they want to maintain some flexibility between RR2 and RR1; — they want to be able to transfer density from block to block; — the sewage line is dependent on this Council and the Town of Brooks' Council; — if the current Lake Newell Resort area residents want input on the quality of the development, there will be other opportunities during the development stage; — they are proposing architectural controls that are equal to or more stringent than the current development has; — the E.I.D. chose not to participate in the Area Structure Plan but they are part of the density for sewage disposal; — they concur that there is a lack of parking for both RVs and vehicles - to compensate, their roads will be wider and they would consider the designation of an RV storage site; — the timing of the phases will be dependent on market demand; — it would be up to the County to enforce architectural controls; and — commercial development will not conflict with other activities and is proposed for development at a later date. Council was given the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Potrie. Council had no questions for Mr. Potrie. Applicant Jeet Shergill of K300 Financial Corp. spoke in favour of the bylaw explaining the r following: ! — what is intended with the density transfer proposal; — the problems with the cost of development; — that the RR2 zoning has no designated density per acre; — they have to designate sewage capacity for each block; and — they want to be able to move density to use sewage capacity. Council was given the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. The Reeve asked about a developers bond and expressed opposition to the statement in paragraph 2 of Section 11 of the Area Structure Plan regarding development exceeding 700 units. The Reeve asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favour of the bylaw. There was no one else wishing to speak in favour of the bylaw. The Reeve asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the bylaw. Mara Nesbitt, resident of Lake Newell Resort, on behalf of the Lake Newell Condominium Association, spoke in opposition to the Area Structure Plan. Ms. Nesbitt reviewed points in letters from the Condo Association and from herself. These letters are attached to and form part of the minutes. Council was given the opportunity to ask questions of Ms. Nesbitt. Councillor Harbinson asked if the Planner had received a copy of Ms. Nesbitt's concerns. Councillor Eckert asked Ms. Nesbitt for an explanation of "good development". The Reeve asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to the bylaw. Rob Breakall, resident of Lake Newell Resort, spoke in opposition to the Area Structure Plan indicating that he had sent a letter of opposition to the County. He expressed concern over 2 duplexes that were in the process of being developed 2 years ago which have been abandoned and stating that the development that has been started should be completed before starting more development. Council was given the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Breakall. There were no questions for Mr. Breakall. The Reeve asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to the bylaw. The Administrator stated that letters of opposition had been received and should be read. The Planner and Contract Planner read letters from the following people: — Ron & Debbie Remus — Cam & Beth Christianson — Lake Newell Condominium Association — Colm & Penny Covenden — Herb & Connie Hemsing — Bob Tiegs and Sandra Kimmel — John & Robyn Nesbitt Darrel & Evelyn Murray — Jim Gregory — Marjorie & J.F. Carmichael Don Snell — Rob & Cyndy Breakell — Jon & Mara Nesbitt The letters are attached to and form part of the minutes. The applicant was given the opportunity to present further information. Mr. Shergill expressed concern that 3 minutes for rebuttal would not give him enough time to respond to all the concerns expressed in the letters. Council consented to give Mr. Shergill 10 minutes for his rebuttal. Mr. Shergill indicated the following: — Westbridge Management is totally out of this development as K300 Financial Corp. has foreclosed on them; — Westbridge Management went broke because they were not allowed to proceed with development; — the existing 40 acres within blocks 2, 3, 5 and 6 are paying approximately 65% of the road costs; — they are not able to sell smaller, single family lots; — they need to be able to diversify; — the Area Structure Plan needs to be adopted before they can advertise lots for sale; — the proposed development was denied for 2 years and they were requested to provide an ASP for entire area; — although the area is zoned for RR2 they were not allowed to develop until the ASP was adopted; — single family units do not make sense for the RR2 area; — RR2 zoning is needed on the lake front; — it will not be high density RR2; — they would like the choice to be able to change to single family units; — with regard to road stress - 450 units have be planned 60 to 80 units have been built; — the development can only be built in progressive stages; — saying there is a demand for residences over 1200 square feet only addresses the local Brooks market: a resort cannot survive on only local consumption; — doing joint marketing can get the site going; — it is not cheap to sit on land with high financing; — they have to develop the lots into a nice design so they will sell; — if local people are allowed to decide the zoning, the development will not survive; — they have to market to people from out of town; — once there is a hamlet there can be controlled development; — what if future people do not like what current people decide for architectural controls; and — he considered what it was that caused this development to fail in the past and does not intend to let this project fail. r Council was given the opportunity to ask further questions of the applicant and his representative. Councillor Loewen asked for clarification on density exchange and sewage capacity and indicated that the sewage line proposal includes the 70 E.I.D. lots. She also indicated that RR2 zoning is already in place. Councillor Musgrove asked why the 2 duplexes have not been developed. The Reeve asked the applicant if he owned the marina property and asked why, although Council has had representation from the residents to improve the marina, the applicant hadn't been involved in this improvement. He also asked the applicant what he felt was his responsibility to the current residents and what he had done to help beautify the area. The Reeve asked if Council had any more questions of the applicant or any of the presenters. Mr. Shergill explained the differences between the RR and RR2 lot sizes. He indicated that they anticipate the size of their lots to be triple the minimum RR2 lot size. They are proposing RR2 for the west side of Greenwald Inlet but would agree to Direct Control or RR with a variance to lot size for the west side. Councillor Moss asked Ms. Nesbitt to explain what the developer had done at the marina and/or to beautify the area. Councillor Loewen indicated that the issue is really with lot size not zoning. She asked the Planner if we have a maximum coverage allowable for development on a lot. The Reeve ask Ms. Nesbitt the importance of the marina to the residents. The Reeve asked Council if they had any more questions. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Councillor Baksa that the Public Hearing adjourn at 12:18 a.m. Carried. REEVE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 05/23/03 FRI 15:33 FAX 403 203 3301 FAX May 22, 2003 Tammy Henry, fo i - County of Newell No. 4, Box 130, Brooks, AB TIR IB2 EBA ENGINEERING DATE: - Re: Area Structure Plan for the Lake Newell Resort Please accept this letter as a written notification of the concerns that we have as lot owners/current residents of Lake Newell Resort. We are not against development at Lake Newell but what we are concerned with is a poor development plan that deviates from future generations of growth and also from the increase in the tax base that the County should foresee if developed properly. We all have a vested interest to ensure that this proposal is the best it can possibly be, as the future of our development is what we all have to live with long after the current developers are possibly gone. There are certain aspects of the Area Structure Plan that we are in favor of and we will start with the positive: Block 5 development directly west of the marina would consist of large urban style lots with single- family. We have not heard what the EID has proposed for their 70 units but feel this will suite future development of that area. The area south of Block 1 in the development is also suppose to see three single -detached housing residential blocks and an upgrade to the Marina and a Lodge facility. The concerns that we would like to raise are as follows. We have a concern with the volume of RR2 development proposed, of the 37 % for Residential Development of this 34% is proposed multifamily residential which is a considerable amount. We are concerned that this group is not wanting to follow the guidelines already in place through the Architectural controls in place for Block 1 & 4. We have gone to considerable work trying to ensure that the residential areas within the complex are built with a compatible and pleasing look that gives people a favorable impression of the area. This group has indicated they do not want to work with the Board and expect to setup a Homeowners Association which as we all know takes a lot of time and a lot of damage to Z001 05/23/03 FRI 15:33 FAX 403 203 3301 EBA ENGINEERING Z 002 a whole area can be completed long before this group is established and have it together to set up an architectural control. AIso reading through the document obtained at the meeting, I noted that the Land Ownership deals with a consortium — one of which Westbridge Developments Inc. is currently being sued for over 2 million dollars. Does this affect the continuation of this proposal because are we now looking at a development group that has proposed a number of development ideas to us at the public meeting and which may due to a judgment be in a position to do a fire sale on the properties owned to satisfy this judgment. Where does this Ieave us out there with all of the RR2 designation and the projects proposed? There is nothing to confirm that the next purchaser would not do high-density RR2 developments in all of these sites. As outboard mentioned in their letter can another designation be administered to accommodate the cabins that Mr. Shergil proposes for the area at the northwest quadrant that is currently zoned RR2. There is also a concern about the moveablility of the RR2 developments within the whole structure plan. This could add a lot of additional stress to the roads and sewer systems. I feel that the development group has downplayed the RR2 developments in their phase outlines indicating 2 small multi -residential sites. East development — proposed RR2 development along the lakefront would be a considerable waste of valuable land for larger lots — single-family developments. With RR2 development the density is considerably increased which raises the concerns on the services we currently have — would they be able to handle this type of increase in population. With the proposed development proposed residential units proposed are 630 but if these are multi family units under RR2 the population base changes considerably. We have a certain capacity allotted by the Town of Brooks in the Sewer agreement that we do not want to jeopardize. The Marina development is slated for Phase 1 development with multifamily townhouses. The first outline we looked at for the proposal was extremely shortsighted to say the least. There were a lot of units jammed into a small area with limited parking and storage for these residents. This development could be a bonus for the developer if they would utilize that site for the mid -high end townhouse homes. We noted that the Developer unit levy mentioned negotiated amount charged to the developer by the County — with additional development the main road compensation must be brought into the formula as the current lot owners were advised that as future development took place there would be a fee charged to the new developers to help on this cost of the chip dealing of the road. Who will charge the Unit Levy mentioned? 05/23/03 FRI 15:34 FAX 403 203 3301 EBA ENGINEERING Again the lot owners take on all of the costs and responsibilities of the area without compensation from the developers and this I have a problem with. Thank you for consideration of our concerns. Please ensure that everything in this document is clearly defined and not left to promises because we have all seen those promises go by the wayside and once the lots are resold this developer doesn't have any further connection or liability to the project development. Sincerely, �on/Mara Nesbitt 362-6969 # 53 Lake Newell Resort 2003 05/23/03 FRI 15:34 FAX 403 203 3301 EBA ENGINEERING IR Z lV u GG,V•L�,; Fye yU���C�: FY •� cay.,�. Vi.iO f �l,u q.e � 1 3 to c1c 3 c� � - ca.� o►o C� d.P,z c- �,�,w,Nt m.�e. --37 co-" c"i-e_ „ roact s _ —)i P H aA. t f 5 CLU a� k.� ►�,,. �. d t,,., cls tha.kd - - /, -, HiQ+-„�- - h,4, a a 004 �� fid. FROM :HARWOOD FORDPGOD- FAX NO. : May. 22 2003 oe:5eAM P1 May 22,03 County of Newell : Public meeting regarding area known as Greenwald Coulee. I wish to voice my objection to further development of this area for the following reasons: 1) From what I understand, Greenwald Coulee is a spawning ground. for the pike and walleye. Regardless of how stringent the controls arc on development, people in that close proximity, almost always tend to upset the balance. I believe Lake Newell is far too valuable a resource to take that chance. 2) The area known. as Lake Newell Resort, has a tremendous amount of space already zoned for development, including lake front. Perhaps one development should be substantially complcte before another starts. I think the worse thing that could happen would be a string development around the lake shore, which. I believe this application sets the precedent. Thank you for the opportunity to have input into your decision. Ron and Debbie Remus 89 White Pelican View Lake Newell Resort CAMERON CHRISTIANSON, A.L.S. Box 301, Brooks, Alberta TIR IB4 Phone 403 - 362 - 6619 May 21, 2003 Dear County Councillors: We are opposed to the overabundance of R2 Zoning in the currently proposed Area Structure Plan. The practice of allowing developers to hire the planner to propose the kind of zoning they wish for the structures they wish to build should be outlawed. The planner should be impartial, but that does not happen when the developer is paying for the plan. We are not opposed to some multifamily housing, but the Architectural Control Board has little control over what is built under the R2 Zoning designation. We do not have the services (such as policing) to deal with the problems created by a large number of people crammed into a small amount of space. Parking is already a major problem out here at the resort, and there seems to be nothing in the current Plan to rectify that. With narrow roads and no parking allowed on the street, there is a lot of congestion even with single family dwellings. When we invested in a house out here it was with the understanding that this was to be a Resort as the name implies, not some low cost housing development. We hope our municipal government not allow some of the most beautiful and potentially lucrative recreational property in southern Alberta to be wasted and ruined by putting in place such a short-sighted Land Use Plan. Thank you for your attention, Cam and Beth E. 1 C r� , M� MAY 2 2 2003 County of Nowell No. 4 Brooks, Alberta May -21-2003 10:46am From—1 OBERG May 15, 2003 Tammy Henry, Planner, County of Newell No. 4, Box 130, Brooks, AB TIR M2 +403 362 5923 T-261 P.001J0O6 F-005 Re: Area Structure Plan known as the Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan within portions of section 6-18-14-W4th . Please accept this lerter written on behalf of the Lake Newell Condominium Associations as our written presentation for the Nearing to be scheduled on May 22, 2003. Please be advised that we would recommend the area structure plan in its proposed state be declined by council for the following reasons and concerns detailed below: We are not in favor of the RR2 around the marina and east lip of Greenwald Inlct, and throughout the other designated areas. We request that these areas be rezoned to and regulated into another type of zoning to match what the developer says that he is intending on putting in — cottages — maybe a RR1 A designation to not allow for high density, attached homes or multifamily units. Proposed area for the campground is not suitable due to the fluctuation in the water levels and the dense mud pack in that north end of the lake — could pose extreme danger to young children in the water. Also would question the congestion at the main entrance to the resort all our traffic comes and goes through that hairpin corner — not a suitable place for a commercial venture as designated on the area plan. We have a strong concern with the moveability of the RR2 developments within the whole proposal due to the added stress on our roads and other services. We feel the County needs to keep this properly defined right from the start. We are concerned with the fact that there is no mention in the area structure plan of the EID area. We feel that the area structure plan should encompass the whole area. Cont. page 2..... May -21-2003 10:46am From -L OSERG Page 2..... +403 362 5923 T-281 P M2/006 F-005 Future purchasers are our concern as well because if the properties are deemed RR2 and even though the current developer says he isn't going to build high- density projects —what is there to stopping the next person or even this group once the zoning is in place. The other problem that we foresee because they are not wanting any connection to the current development or with the current boards and Architectural boards this will open it up to almost anything. We have a fairly established direction now after a lot of learning curves, the proposed homeowners associations will go through the same problems we did and will see the same lack of developer participation. We as current lot owners have maintained at our costs and our free time all areas that are owned by the developers to keep our area at a respectable level. They, the developers have never once offered to assist with or compensate anyone for this work done on their behalf. They have never made any attempt to enhance the areas at all letting the weed growth and garbage get out of control. We conclude that the corporate citizenship to the area, board and County has been terrible over the years that this group has been involved in one name or another. We thank you for considcring our concerns and again reiterate that we are not in favor of the proposed area structure plan. We are in favor of development j ust done properly. Thank you. Sincerely, �Mar=I Per Lake Newell Condominium Associations Block 1, & Block 4 c.c Alan Martens c.c Jack Harbinson MAY -21-2003 02:10 PM HEMSING,HerbiConnie 403 362 4460 P.01 HERB AND CONNIE HEMSING chomeiag@cidnet.org FAX TRANSMISSION May 21, 2003 TO: Tammy Henry, Planner County of Newell No. 4, County Council Fax: 362.8681 CC: Land Use Bylaw Committee — please forward a copy of this transmission to the appropriate committee Page 1 of 3 RE: Greenwald Inlet Development, Lake Newell Resort I am not in favor of the proposed Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan Proposal received What are the proposed lot sizes and. street widths? Wheree are the planned parking and storage areas? I am concerned with how the significant amount of RR2 designation may Impact the existing Resort Residential District (RRI) taxpayers/home owners, now living at I ake Newell Resort. I had written to voice this concern earlier, July 3, 2001 in fact. t had suggested then, that the County of Newell No. 4 should consider the best use of this land and possibly amend the Land. Use By -Law • • perhaps by developing and implementing a Resort Direct. Control designation.. 1. There should be no RR2 designations allowed within the Resort area. a. The County should. retain direct control of gay development that is not a single-family dwelling. i. The existing derelict duplexes in Blue Heron Estates are visible proof of that. These have already proven to devalue neighboring properties as evidenced In a recent home sold there this year. 2. L.eam from the c)dsting development at Blue Heron and White Pelican Estates regarding lot size, road width and lack of visitor parking and. residential storage areas. Attention to these Issues will ensure quicker sales and return to the County via taxes. a. Lot size — ensure lot sizes are large enough to provide rear yard access where no lane is allowed for. i. Lots should have at least 50 foot frontage. -more would be preferable. Again, look at the lot sizes in your hamlets — they are significantly larger, of course your assessor gives them less value because of location, but please realize buyers want more elbowroom. if they are willing to pay higher taxes for a Resort area at least ensure they have a lot size that can accommodate their need for shelter. storage and privacy. it. A major factor in poor sales of existing lots at Lake Newell Resort is the small lot sizes. It is a great challenge to find a house plan, with or without a garage, which can tit on some of these lots. Buyers are demanding homes with at least 1200 square feet on the main floor, and more in the 1500 square feet plus range, if it is bungalow construction (a main level living space preferred by our aging baby boomers). iii. Creating a high-denslty neighborhood in our wide-open praMe/lake neighborhood gust doesn t make sense. Leave the urban municipalities to the high-densiry developments. b. Road width — Ensure developers include a road width that can accommodate parking on each side of the street AND two-way traffic. Wider streets are certainly more appealing and provide for more privacy and. again, attracting more buyers. c. Visitor parking and residential storage are sorely lacking in the existing Lake Newell Resort developments. Perhaps these won't be as critical in the proposed areas if larger lots and wider, streets are allotted. 25 White Pelican Way, Lake Newell Resort Box 1463 • Brookk PSA • T1R IC3 Phone (403) 362-3901 • Fax (403) 362-4460 /.o 3 MAY -21-2003 02:11 PM HEMSING,HerbiConnie 403 362 4460 P.03 3. AccognwWry godpaet hist► - it is my understanding that some of the principals involved in the proposed Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan were developers in the existing lake Newell Resort Area. They do not have a good track record in completing their projects. The County is well advised to proceed with caution and maintain as much direct control of development in the new areas, as possible. a. Of the 160 lots currently developed in Blue Heron and White Pelican Estates (including 15 not fully serviecd - despite the fact the devclopeT sold one of these lots as a serviced lot), about 70 lots are still not sold. Lot size, street width and the lack of parking and storage facilities are the unchangeable factors contributing to buyer resistance, b. As a condition of development, the municipality coulddemand developers of adjacent properties to Blue Heron and White Pellcan Estates to provide parking and storage areas for the exclusive use of those owners/taxpayers. How and when can these shortcomings be addressed if the County does not take a proactive stance when this last opportunity presents itself? 4. The area specified in the proposed. Lake Newell Resort. Area Structure Plan Proposal will not be coridominiumized, nor have any obligation to the current Condo Association at Lake Newell Resort. This may not be of any particular significance. But do realize, it is only this Condo Assoriadon's Board of Directors and Architectural Control Committee that has been able to protect or exert any influence on a preferred resort development to date. How will the County provide for a similar body in these new areas? Again, look at the two derelict duplexes currently within Bl.uc Heron Estates - beware of the 'quick buck" thinking that has plagued this area. Hold all developers to a higher standard and ensure a preferred residential community evolves in your only resort community. Has the County addressed those concerns expressed in 2001 with their proposed land use changes? Are those now in effect? If not, is this proposed Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan Proposal still following the 1996 Land Use By -taw 1004-907 If so: What are Resort Muld- family and. Resort Commercial? The County of Newell Land Use By -Laws defines Resort' areas as follows: 1. RRl a. The purpose of this district is to allow for the establishment of residential development in areas, which constitutes primarily resort settings. 2. RR2 a. The purpose of this district is to allow for the establishment of multi -family development in areas, which constitute primarily resort settings. 3. RC a. The purpose of this district is to allow for commercial development compatible with other resort development. I have not found a definition of "Resort" within the Land Use By-laws. After an earlier subdivision application to create 28 lots for low-cost rental four-plex units I believe some dcfinlnlg of `Resort" is required, It is interesting to note the zoning definition for Hamlets in the Land Use By-laws as follows. 4. Hamlet Residential District (HR) a. The general purpose of this district is to protect the more intensively developed residential areas of the County Hamlets from the problems of incompatible development. It is my understanding that hamlet status eludes residents at Lake Newell Resort because of our condominiumlzed properties. Our population and tax base is somewhat sinrila.r to the hamlets within the County of Newell and should result in some shmilar wording in the Land Use By-laws "to protect the more inrensivet developed residential areas of the County Resott Communities from the problems of incompatible development". At the very least, should this phrase not be added to the three "Resort- land use designations? 1 was disappointed to see in your proposed /and use bylaw chsagns that you've chosen to elitatare rhe phrase ('protect rhe more intensively developed residential amexs. froom the problems of incompatible development") altogether Future residential dcwclopment should be compatible with existing residential development. High-density multi- family housing is not compatible with the existing residential development at Lake Newell Resort. A higher standard should be sought for a "Resort" development. The residential units themselves are more expensive because they are locatedwithin a resort. The residents of. Lake Newell Resort have expended time and money to enhance park and marina areas that provide recreational opportunities to residents and the public alike. Municipal grants have been most welcome in the process of L fake Newell Rcaort is the only rceort within the County of Newell and that the existing land use by-laws are specifically for our arca. Whcn redefining these bylaws be certain to keep the best intercete of the arca at the forefront of your consideration. 2 Of MAY -21-2003 02:11 PM HEMSING,HerbiConnie 403 362 4460 P.02 creating recreational facilities. 'Pride of ownership" is reflected not only on the private lots and in the homes of Lake Newell Resort, but throughout the common property, the EID casements, the municipal reserves and along the roadways. Residents are making every effort to create and maintain a preferred county resort residential community. The County sees the benefit of this with an increased tax base - just compare your tax rate for an undeveloped Rolling HiUs lot with one located at Lake Newell. Resort. We need the help of the County of Newell No. 4 to help preserve the quality and integrity of thdr only resort residential community. Sincerely, Connie Hemsing 3of 3 i s -0ti 6- O-rew• fLl Mi May 20, 2003 Tammy Henry, Planner County of Newell No. 4 Box 130 Brooks AB T1 R 1 B2 RE: Area Structure Plan known as the Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan within portions of section 6-18-14-W4th. Please be advised that we are writing this letter to state that we are not opposed to the development of the land around the Lake Newell Resort but we are very concerned with the parameters of the proposed Area Structure Plan that has been presented. 1. We are opposed to the amount of R2 that has been proposed. 32 % is a very large amount of multi -family housing and we are concerned with the amount of environmental damage that could be inflicted on the lake and area. Also a 4.5% for RR1,,,,,,,,,?? M? 2. We are concerned with the amount of sewage that will be generated by these areas. The proposed sewage line will not handle the addition of that much population. We for now do not wish to pay for another sewage line in the future if this type of housing is implemented. What kind of guarantees will we have that this will not happen? 3. The type of housing, modular, is not an issue. There are some very nice modular homes. We are having a very bad experience with modular housing at this time. We have watched two perfectly good homes lay waste for over two years because a developer didn't come through with his promises. We have been picking garbage blown off these houses over the entire time. Every time we look out our front window, we have to look at these houses. These houses do not give a favorable impression to people who drive out to our area. We are forever explaining to people about these houses. What guarantees do we have that this will not happen again? 4. These people have stated verbally that there will be mostly cottages built on these lots but are we expected to believe these people who are continually operating under the guise of other names when things are not going their way. These are some of the same people who wanted to build 29 four plexes on the west side of the marina. Does this indicate sound planning? No. This indicates that these people are out to make a fast dollar and leave the community, which we rarely see them in unless it suits their purposes. MAY 2 1 2003 County of Nevie!! No. 4 Brooks, Alberta -- • Page 2 May 20, 2003 5. These people have done nothing to advertise and enhance the area. We, the residences of this community have done everything to enhance the public access areas. All the work has been done voluntarily and sometimes at their personal expense due to fact that the people proposing the structure plan have not been good corporate citizens. I recently noted a pull out in the Calgary Herald that was advertising resort type/recreational residences. One would think that coming from Calgary, some of these people would see the value of advertising in a paper such as this. I did notice that Little Bow Park and the Lake McGregor areas were presented with very eye appealing advertisements about the lots that were available there. How do they think they can market additional lots if they are not trying to market the ones that are here already? 6. Maybe the county should look at approving development of other areas when a certain percentage of the other lots have been successfully developed. This way there would not be a bunch of empty lots blowing top soil into the lake, 7. Now is the time for the County of Newell to take a stand on Lake Newell RESORT, a diamond in the rough, and a potential cash tax cow for the County. Sincerely, Bob Tiegs Sandra Kimmel May 21, 2003 Administration Office 362-3333 Fax. 362-4787 Town of Brooks Town Shop 362-3146 Fax. 362-5658 201 - 1st Ave. West Recreation Centre 362-3622 Bag 880 Fax. 362-4416 Brooks, Alberta T1 R OZ6 www.town.brooks.ab.ca Fire/Bylaw Enforcement 362-2331 Email: admin@brooks.ca Fax. 362-4787 County of Newell No. 4 P.O Box 130 707-2 n' Ave. E. Brooks, AB T1R 1B2 Attn: Tammy Henry Planner Dear Ms. Henry: RE: Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan This is in regard to the proposed Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan received by our office. Please be advised that Town Council considered the proposed Plan at its May 20, 2003 meeting and adopted the following resolution: "THAT the County of Newell be advised that the Town of Brooks has several concerns that should be addressed prior to the adoption of the proposed "Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan", in particular: 1. implementing "best management practices" when dealing with storm water disposal within the Plan Area including the provision of a natural buffer zone around the Lake Newell Reservoir. 2. ensuring that provisions to minimize the risk of sewage spills entering the Lake Newell Reservoir are established. This may require the formulation of response plans. 3. considering the need of establishing an independent fire hall under the responsibility of the local community to service potential fire eventualities within the Plan Area. 4. considering the inclusion of population projections in the document. 5. considering the redesignation of part of the NE %4 Sec 6-18-14-4 as municipal reserve or public utility lot in order to allow future access to a Town's pipeline right-of-way. 6. reassessing the need of connecting the resort services to the golf course development (Prairie Sage) proposed to the west of the Plan Area and identified in the "Section 12-18- 15-4 Area Structure Plan". 7. ensuring that provisions for inter -municipal referrals be included in the Plan. 8. ensuring that provisions for plan monitoring be included in the Plan." Page 2 Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan If you require further information, please contact myself at 362-3333 or by e-mail at jreyes@brooks.ca. Thank you for the opportunity to formally comment on the proposed Plan. yours, Jose Rhyes`-W. Planning Officer Cc: Kevin Stephenson Gord Shaw Neil Hollands FAjow\county\2003Uake newel(-ASP(c}doc 3 MAY 2 Q 200 ©Il No. 4 County of N Alberta srppks, May 19th, 2003 County of Newell No. 4 Box 130 Brooks, Alberta T 1 R 1 B2 Attention: County Council RE: GREENWALD INLET DEVELOPMENT John & Robyn Nesbitt 94 White Pelican View Box 113 Brooks, Alberta T 1 R 1 B2 We feel very strongly that the proposed project for the Lake Newell Reservoir Resort not go forward. We have some concerns regarding the proposal and they are as follows: l/ The RR2, multifamily residential, should most definitely not go forward between the current Lake Newell Condo Association properties in Block #1 and Block #4. If this type of development is accepted it will greatly decrease the property value of the existing homes. 2/ With the proposed issue of Cabins, being on the North side of Block #1, again we feel this would decrease the existing property value. 3/ The Campground we are strongly against because of the volume of people coming out to use the campground. This will cause a greater amount of noise, as well as the possibility of more crime in our area. The Kinbrook Park across the lake is supervised by Park Rangers, who would we get to Police this Campground? Also as this lake is used for irrigation purposes, there is the danger to the campers with the mud, and the shoreline is just not suitable for this type of development. 4/ There was no time frame for phases 1 through 5 to be completed. If the developer were truly interested in developing this area, there would have been some type of time frame commitment. Because of our current situation with developers, this is a major concern of ours. 5/ When they did up the Area Structure Plan the whole EID Section was left out, making this an incomplete Area Structure Plan, and how does this affect the proposed sewer line to the Town of Brooks? Page 2... It is not that we are against development in this area. We feel that a golf course would be a great asset, however the idea that RR2, the campground and cabins would be our neighbors is not the type of development that we would like to see. If people want that, they can go across the lake to Kinbrook. Sincerely, John & Robyn Nesbitt (403) 501-3177 DARREL AND EVELYN MURRAY #47 Blue Heron Bay Box 945 Brooks, Alberta T1R 1B8 Tele (403) 362-8645 May 20, 2003 County of Newell No. 4 County Council Box 130 Brooks, Alberta T1R 1B2 Re: Lake Newell Reservoir Resort Area Structure Plan - K3O0 Financial Corp. As concerned residents of the Lake Newell Resort, we attended the Public Open House meeting on May 7, 2003 at Luigi's Pizza and Steak House in Brooks. We have a few concerns about the area structure plan presented at this meeting and feel that a great negative impact would result. The RR2 zoning is something we are totally against. With the large land base to be developed it is very unnecessary to have high density areas. If cabins are desirable as indicated by the presenters at the meeting put them on RR1 designated land and help preserve the natural beauty of this area. We have been around quite a few resort lakes in Alberta and have never seen any multi -family development. I think it would be an absolute shame to allow this here. A portion of the presentation was headed in the right direction. Wider roads, more green space, RR1 - bigger lots. All of these features would really enhance the type of living people are looking for around the lake. Another big concern we feel is that an effort should be put into completing the development of the existing area and lots, instead of opening up more. We moved to the resort and spent a lot of money to enjoy the serenity and beauty of the lake. We do not agree with being surrounded by multi -family high density housing. This idea seems like a way to make a quick buck and no real consideration for the area or the people. We feel that by allowing any RR2 would be a great mistake and have a very negative impact on the resort as a whole. Sincerely DARREL MURRAY EVELYN MURRAY ou�k MAY 2 0 2003 County of Newell No, 4 Brooks, Alberts 05/20/2003 18:56 403-641-2233 BASSANO FEEDS LTD PAGE 02/02 County of Newell Box 130 Brooks, AB. From: Jim Gregory Box 914 Brooks, AB. T1R 1B8 Re. Presentation for the Hearing for Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan: I'm strongly opposed to the proposal of K300 Financial Corporation for the development of the north end of Lake Newell as basically a RR2 project for the following reasons. It would create a high density development in a natural setting. The area does not have the roads to withstand the kind of traffic this proposal would bring.. Inadequate fire protection. What would the developer contribute towards this issue. No public transportation system. An RR2 zoning would greatly depreciate the house values for people who live in Lake Newell Resort and the people across the lake at the head gate. The previous developers of Lake Newell Resort do not have a good track record of finishing off the area. It seems developers want to make a quick profit and then leave and let the County and the residents pick up the tab for any unfinished business. If this proposal goes through, the County must have reassurance in writing that the developer would cover all these issues. Again I want to reiterate that I am against to proposal. Yours truly, Jim Gregory. r Tammy Henry, Planner County of Newell No. 4 Box 130, Brooks, AB T1R 1B2 53 - 3054 Trafalgar Street Abbotsford, B. C. V2S 7X6 May 8/ 03 Dear Planner; We, the owners of E U2 7 and W 1/2 8 of 18-14-W4, being adjacent to the proposed Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan, wish to register our concern. We are totally in favour of the land use change proposed provided that the developer undertakes to protect the owners within his area from injury, or even death, while trespassing on our property where cattle and bulls could do that damage. Furthermore, there has been lots of trespassing in the past to dispose of garbage or to tear around with motorcycles and ATV's. Fences have been broken to do this, letting cattle out to be a nuisance to others and an expence to us. We can expect much more of this ff the proposed development takes place. We therefore request that the County include in its Structure Plan that the Westbridge Land Developments provide and install a six-foot high chain-link fence for the full one mile distance along the west side of our property and the half mile distance along the south side. We request that this letter be read at the Public Hearing on May 22, 2003. Kindly give us a report on the outcome of the Hearing. Yours truly, MAY 13 2003 County ,._ 1. 1! No. 4 Srocs ;, , _--,jrta 05/08/03 THU 09:23 FAX 5010354 RITE AID PHARMACY May 8, 2003 Don Snell Box 1387 Brooks, Alberta T1R 1C3 Phone: 362-7196 Fax: 793-2162 Entail: danell aeich%gL � County of Newell, Re: Written presentation for the Hearing for Lake Newell Resort Area Structure Plan, In reviewing the K300 Financial Corporation's proposed area structure plan I see future problems similar to the existing problems that plague the initial Lake Newell Resort development, namely; 1. Potable water and sewage issues. 2. High density development around a domestic and agricultural water source. 3. Inadequate connector road. 4. Inadequate recreational facilities or fire protection. 5. Potential crime problems. 6. No public transportation system. 7. No comparable development model similar to this plan that has been successful financially in this area for the developer. This is the most important aspect in that it creates the most problems for the community, and the County of Newell when there are foreclosures, etc. The burden for success lies on the developer's shoulders and when that doesn't happen the County of Newell and related parties get to pick up the broken pieces. The only truly successful part of our project that sold quickly were the lake front properties. I do not see enough of these properties in this new proposal to feel that it will be successful for the developer. I feel that the company involved in developing this plan has not consideredwhat has been successful for the development thus far and is putting forth a plan that will have many time consuming problems to deal with for present and future County o!'Newell councilors and administrators. n 2001 May 6, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: My Family And I Have Been Living At The Lake Newell Resort For The Past Few Years, But Myself, I Have Lived At Lake Newell Since Our Family Moved To Brooks In 1967. Since The Time We Moved Here Many Changes Were Made, Some For The Good And Some For The Bad. Being A Person Of Progress And Commitment, I Cannot Say The Development In Greenwald Inlet Will Go Any Which Way But Up In Smoke. If It Was Not For The Families That Reside At The Resort, It Would Have Gone Up In Smoke Also. The Families That Reside At The Resort Are Determined And Committed To Living At The Lake And It Shows By: -Paying Out Of Pocket, To Have Roads Paved, -Maintaining The Undeveloped Areas, -Repairing And Upkeep On The Marina, -And Now Taking On Another Debenture, For The Environmental Study To Put The Approved Sewer Line To Brooks Instead Of Trucking The Sewage To Brooks And Wearing The Road Out. In Receiving A Copy Of The Request To Build And Add Onto The Resort, I Have To Ask Myself Some Questions Of These Developers. - Will The Services In Place Today Handle All The Added Stress Put On The System From Added Development, And If Not Who Is Paying For The Upgrades? - Where Will The Utilities Come From? - Where Will The Waste Go? MIVED� MAY - 8 2003 County of Newall No. 4 Brooks, Alberta - This Is Some Of The Most Prime Realestate In The Brooks Area, The Development Map Shows Multi -Family Residential Properties,(Map Attached) So Why The Lower Standard Of Housing, With The Pack -em -in And Make A Buck Attitude. Today, I Can Look Out My Back Window At 2 Incomplete Duplexes That Were Started 2 Years Ago And Never Finished, And Now Being A Hazard, The County Of Newell Has Erected A Chain Link Fence To Protect The Children That Will Play In This Area And Themselves (The County) Against Any Lawsuits. Out Another Window I See A Crescent Of Empty Lots, Some Are Lake Front Property, Also Not Completed Due To The Developer Running Out Of Money. Now History Speaks For Itself, And These Are Only Two Situations At Greenwald Inlet And The Developers At The Lake Newell Resort. Where Are We Headed With These Developers? Progress Is Good If There Is A True Commitment. I Hope This Is Not Another Dream That Turns Into A Nightmare. Why Could We Not Consider Filling Up And Finishing The 2 Developed Areas That Were Started In 1994 Before Opening Up And Starting Other Areas? Do We Need 9 More Years Of Grief And Havoc. The Track Records Of Past And Present Developers Needs Heavy And Serious Consideration Before Any Decisions Are Made. I Am Sure That The People That Reside At Greenwald Inlet And Lake Newell Resort Are Fed up With These Developers Coming In Without Having Done Any True Homework To Back Themselves Up. In Conclusion, We Are Truly Against This Development Of Greenwald Inlet. Yours truly, Aob And Cyndy Breakell CC: Jack Harbinson CC: Planning Commission County Of Newell 331 ma'am 3111311 R -M �t wn 3 WOd 'r Aroa�wra L MDIA - SnHI NNOHS ANVOMMS SLNYIOL '0'1'3 D NOUV010300Voii ❑ (ONION3d 3sn CNV o OM10wo."V3 ❑ ('0'13) 3AN3S3H 1V1N3VNONIM3 ❑ (8433VdS N3dO 3I'181d IM13S/JilEnd ■ WW BANBS3N lVdIONrO (OTD lvfJwamoo laos3a (W IViLN3OIS3N AlWViillM 1NOS3N ❑ (ww lVi1N301SM I luos3N ❑ 154-303, (T%iiM�Y3W 1Vi01 NO 03s") — • tlW tV10:. 37VIS AINUM 74531 IV D'Ou M NDILYMUNDO Ol 103PODS dO3W3N1 ONV S3N13N NI 3NV NMONS SHOISN31410 TV 00091 t 9NM W f'M'ri 'e0H'At*l'L0 WS WI 'M Pul'90 MS p T1Y oNW'13ddV Son ONT /»gOdOad INWas NVN 'I'ISMaX dO A,LNfIUJ 1d0Id,YIO"03 WINVO 00£x