HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-25 Municipal Planning Commission (Regular) Minutes COUNTY OF NEWELL NO. 4
MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 25, 2010
The regular Municipal Planning Commission Meeting of the County of Newell No. 4 was
held in the County Office at Brooks, AB on Thursday, March 25, 2010 commencing at
10:00 a.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: M. Douglass, Councillor
W. Daniels, Councillor
J. Harbinson, Councillor
S. Evans, Councillor
A. Eastman, Councillor
B. de Jong, Councillor
H. Wutzke, Councillor
A.M. Philipsen, Councillor
I. Schroeder, Councillor
R. Andrews, Councillor
STAFF: K. Stephenson, CAO
L. Johnson, Assistant Administrator
D. Horvath, Planner ORRSC
A. Wickert, Development Control Officer
S. Simpson, Development Control Clerk
OTHERS IN
ATTENDANCE: S. Stanway, Brooks Bulletin
P. Grigaitis, County Chronicle
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
2. EXCUSED FROM MEETING
All members were present.
3. MINUTES
a) March 11, 2010
P -34/10 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR I. SCHROEDER that the minutes of the March
11, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission meeting be adopted as presented.
MOTION CARRIED
4. CALL FOR POST AGENDA ITEMS
The Chairman called for post agenda items.
5. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
P -35/10 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR S. EVANS that the agenda be adopted as
presented.
Arrived at Meeting
22 Rate payers arrived at meeting at 10:01 a.m.
6. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
a) Permit #3364 Ptn. SW 3 -19 -15 -W4M, Division 5
Rommens Farms Ltd. Smith Trucking Services (Owner Applicant)
Operation of a Fill Dirt Pit
The Development Control Officer provided background information on
the proposed development permit. It was noted that the application
had been previously reviewed and a motion to approve Permit #3364
had been tabled during the Feb. 25, 2010 MPC meeting.
P -36/10 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR J. HARBINSON that motion P -25/10 which reads
as follows be lifted from the table.
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR W. DANIELS that the Municipal Planning
Commission APPROVE Development Permit #3364, for the operation of a
Fill Dirt Pit subject to the following conditions:
This permit is being granted only for the use of the parcel listed in the
application as a fill dirt pit, on lands legally described as SW 3 -19 -15
W4M. Any additional development shall require prior approval of a
separate permit application.
The proposed development complying with:
a) The provisions pertaining to the Agricultural District and all relevant
schedules, as outlined in the County of Newell Land Use Bylaw #1626-
07.
b) All Federal, Provincial and Municipal statutes, regulations, codes and
standards.
c) All Alberta Building Codes, where applicable. If the developer is required
to obtain a building permit, it is his her responsibility to do so, and
furthermore, this permit must be obtained from an accredited inspection
agency.
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission Page 2
d) All Alberta Safety Codes, where applicable. If the developer is installing a
new sewage disposal system, he /she is required obtain a Private
Sewage Disposal System Permit, issued by a licensed, accredited
inspection agency.
e) Any other required permits, including electrical, heating ventilation,
gas and /or plumbing. All permits must be issued by a licensed agency.
And subject to the following conditions:
f) That this development is located as shown on the site plan approved in
this application and submitted February 4, 2010. Any changes to that
plan shall require the written approval of the Development Officer.
g) That the developer submits a reclamation plan to the County within 2
years of permit approval, by February 28, 2012.
h) That the developer obtains a Roadside Development Permit from Alberta
Transportation. A copy of this permit must be submitted to the
Development Officer.
i) Development Notification: the developer shall notify the Development
Officer:
i. prior to the commencement of actual development thereon,
and
ii. upon completion of the development
j) That the developer submits a plan to address potential issues regarding
dust, noise, nuisance, and any other issues identified by the
Development Officer for the site prior to any work being started on the
removal of fill dirt.
Motion P -25/10 Tabled by resolution P -26/10
Voting on Motion P -36/10
MOTION CARRIED
The Development Control Officer noted that the location of the proposed
fill dirt pit had been revised from the original application that had been
circulated. As a result, a revised application had been circulated to
adjacent landowners following the Feb. 25, 2010 MPC meeting. The new
location for the proposed pit was in the NW corner of the subject
property as opposed to the SW corner identified in the original
application. As a result of the change in the proposed location, the
original motion P 25/10 which had been tabled during the Feb. 25, 2010
MPC should be withdrawn
P -37/10 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR W. DANIELS that motion P -25/10 be
WITHDRAWN.
MOTION CARRIED
The Chairman welcomed those attending the MPC meeting and invited
everyone to introduce themselves.
The Development Officer presented background information from her
report. The information included:
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission Page 3
details regarding the site, measures that could be taken by the applicant
to minimize the impact, and the anticipated activity related to the
proposed use. It was noted that the applicant has submitted a
conservation plan which addresses how the issues of dust and noise will
be dealt with. It was noted that the application would not require an
approval from Alberta Environment. The applicant is waiting to receive
formal comments from Alberta Environment regarding the conservation
plan that has been submitted. No structures would be constructed on
the site. Input has been received through the standard referral process
from various individuals regarding measures that could be taken to
address dust and noise concerns. Four letters were submitted after the
first circulation. Additional letters were received from adjacent
landowners following the second circulation. Input has also been
received from the local Alberta Health Services Public Health Inspector,
and a lawyer retained by residents in the area.
The Development Officer reviewed the proposed conditions that should
be applied if the permit is going to be approved.
County Planner D. Horvath reviewed the guidelines and provided
additional comments and clarification pertaining to the application.
The Chairman reviewed the process for making presentations regarding
the application. It was noted that while this is not a formal public
hearing, it is recognized there is a great deal of interest related to this
application and that those wishing to speak on behalf of the majority of
landowners would be given the opportunity to do so. The floor was then
opened for comments and or questions.
Councillor M. Douglass raised a question regarding the availability of
suitable clay within the County of Newell.
E. Foisy, representative for the applicant, replied that clay is prevalent in
the County but the relatively close proximity to Brooks, direct access
onto a non banned Provincial Highway, the type of clay at this site, and
a limited environmental impact of only 3.78 acres make this an excellent
location.
Councillor Brian De Jong suggested the applicant could consider
acquiring clay from the landfill as there is a lot of clay which the landfill
could sell.
E. Foisy responded that they have purchased clay from the landfill in the
past but there is not enough material available to meet their long terms
needs.
Councillor W. Daniels questioned the Development Officer regarding
submissions from adjacent landowners where the signatures have been
omitted.
The Development Officer replied that signatures have to be removed
from a publicly circulated document for FOIP reasons.
Original signed copies were circulated to Councillor W. Daniels.
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission Page 4
Councillor H. Wutzke raised questions regarding traffic counts and the
impact of the operation on the traffic patterns in the area.
E. Foisy confirmed they have reviewed the application with Aberta
Transportation who indicated they are prepared to approve an approach
providing direct access onto Highway 36 at the north west corner of the
property. This would provide access from the site to a non banned
provincial highway. An internal road from the Highway to the edge of
the pit would have to be built. The operation would consist of 5 to 10
trucks a day hauling material from the site.
Councillor J. Harbinson asked the applicant what their timeline was for
the use of the pit.
E. Foisy indicated the initial term is a 3 year agreement, but there are
provisions for the agreement to be extended. He also noted the site
cannot expand beyond that which has been proposed because there is a
power transmission line to the west and an underground pipeline on the
east and south boundary.
Chairman Philipsen invited representatives from the group to address
MPC.
C. Luedtke addressed MPC on behalf of area residents. Comments
provided related to:
the collective responses submitted by the adjacent landowners, the
potential impact this operation may have on the health of the residents
and their right to the quiet enjoyment of their property.
P. Humphreys addressed MPC. Comments included:
Many residents have lived in the adjacent subdivisions for over 20 years.
They have met three times to discuss their concerns which include
additional traffic, misinformation that has been distributed, the impact
this will have on their property values, and the impact of dust on those
who reside in the area and on the golf course operation. The long term
health effects of the silicate dust should be understood before further
consideration is given to the application. A letter from the developer of
the subdivision on the west side of Highway 36 was also read by P.
Humphreys. Comments in the letter related to financial aspects of the
operation the fact that there are other options and locations.
Individuals' rights are just as important as business rights.
G. Demke, owner of Meadows Par 3 Golf Course, reviewed concerns that
pertained to the impact that the dust, noise and nuisance factors would
have on his business operation. It is too close to the golf course, and
people will not golf in those conditions. Mr. Demke reviewed a letter
received from an area resident which discussed the impact that dust and
sand problems related to soil disturbance have had on his personal
property. Included in the letter were comments about the impact that
wind and paint overspray has had on properties located a mile down
wind.
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission v Page 5
R. Luedtke, area resident, submitted three soil samples taken within 500
metres of the site which shows the fine particulate qualities of the
material.
Councillor B. De Jong asked questions regarding comments that had
been raised about dust from other activities or operations in the area
and how it affects the community.
C. Luedtke replied even on calm nights there is particulate from
Lakeside Feeders that is suspended in the air.
The Development Officer showed pictures and described where the pit
was located and distances to the subdivisions and the golf course.
Councillor M. Douglass asked whether all information pertaining to the
development had been provided for the applicants and other interested
parties.
The Development Officer noted there had been an error on the original
map and a new one was distributed with the second circulation.
Councillor M. Douglass raised questions about references to the
Agricultural Operations Practices Act in the letter submitted by the
lawyer representing the area landowners.
County Planner D. Horvath confirmed that this is not an agricultural
operation and as such it is unlikely the Agricultural Operations Practices
Act would have any application in the case of this development.
W. Rommens, owner of the site, addressed MPC stating that they did not
buy the property for this purpose. Their long term plans include
developing the site for Country residential lots on this property. They
would never permit anything that would be contrary to that intended
use.
E. Foisy confirmed he has spoken to many residents in an effort to
address concerns and provide information. As the applicant, they cannot
control wind and the environment, but they can take measures to
control the dust.
E. Sanders expressed concerns regarding the potential impact that the
operation may have on the health of area residents. What may be a
convenient location could be detrimental to the health of the residents.
Councillor W. Daniels suggested that if the material is tested and
determined harmless, the health concerns have been addressed.
A question was raised regarding the options for appeal.
County Planner, D. Horvath summarized the 14 day appeal period and
30 days to hold the appeal hearing as required in the MGA.
P. Humphreys questioned whether the adjacent residents would be
given the opportunity to provide input on conditions that would meet the
needs of the residents.
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission Page 6
County Planner D. Horvath stated that the conditions are applied
approved by MPC but could take into account the concerns of the
ratepayers.
Councillor W. Daniels asked if Brooks Asphalt was involved in the
operation of a gravel pit in the Bow City area, noting that there had
been concerns with the operation of that pit in the past.
E. Foisy responded that Brooks Asphalt has just purchased the pit in
question from Alberta Aggregates.
Councillor J. Harbinson thanked everyone for attending the meeting.
P. Cockerill expressed her concerns regarding the potential negative
health concerns that would arise if the pit was approved and stated she
will move if the operation is approved.
Councillor M. Douglass questioned if silica is so terrible, why isn't there a
lot more information available?
County Planner D. Horvath confirmed that the issues pertaining to silica
are the jurisdiction of Alberta Environment.
C. Luedtke stated that since this development is under 5 acres, Alberta
Environment will not intervene.
E. Foisy stated Brooks Asphalt will not wash their hands of the operation
and that he will take personal responsibility for the operation. If the MPC
wants core samples tested, the applicant is prepared to comply.
Left the meeting
The Delegation and Development Officer left the meeting at 11:20 a.m.
Arrived at Meeting
Cliff Sewall arrived at meeting at 11:22 a.m.
7. SUBDIVISIONS
b) #2010 -0 -016 SE 30- 18- 14 -W4M, Division 5
Cliff Sewall (Owner) (Applicant)
To subdivide a 144.0 acre (58.27 ha) parcel to create 3 lots of various
sizes for light industrial use.
The County Planner provided background information on the proposed
subdivision. It was noted that the County City of Brooks IMDP supports
the proposal.
Councillor M. Douglass asked whether the applicant agreed with the
conditions. Mr. Sewell confirmed he agrees with the proposed
conditions.
V
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission Page 7
P -38/10 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR M. DOUGLASS that the Municipal Planning
Commission APPROVE subdivision #2010 -0 -016, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That all outstanding property taxes shall be paid to the County of
Newell.
2. That the applicant or owner or both enter into a Development
Agreement with the County of Newell which shall be registered
concurrently with the final plan against the title(s) being created. The
Development Agreement may make reference to the provision drainage
and grading plans, roads, landscaping, and fire suppression etc., and
any other matter the County deems necessary.
3. That the applicant or owner or both enter into a Deferred Development
Agreement with the County of Newell which shall be registered
concurrently with the final plan against the title created. The
Development Agreement may make reference to the provision of future
municipal servicing and any other matter the County deems necessary,
along with the payment of applicable Development fees, etc.
4. That the easement(s) as required by ATCO Gas or any other utility
agency or the municipality shall be established prior to finalization of the
application and are to be registered simultaneously with the legal plan of
the subdivision.
5. That, the sewage disposal system required for any developments of the
industrial parcels are to be limited to a pump out system and individual
on -site septic tanks and fields will not be allowed.
6. That the final Plan of Survey to be registered at Land Titles dedicate on
the plan roads for access to the lots (which shall be as illustrated on the
tentative plan of subdivision by Tronnes Surveys), which are to become
public municipal roads. The details, specifications and standards for the
construction of the road as dedicated will be as per the Development
Agreement with the municipality with all costs to be at the applicant or
owners expense.
MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Philipsen recessed the meeting at 11:28 AM.
Chairman Philipsen called the meeting back to order at 1:01 PM.
6. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
a) Permit #3364 Continued
MPC members resumed discussion regarding the application and input
received.
P -39/10 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR M. DOUGLASS that the Municipal Planning
Commission APPROVE Development Permit #3364 and grant approval
for the Operation of a Fill Dirt Pit subject to the following conditions:
This permit is being granted only for the use of the parcel listed in the
application as a fill dirt pit, on lands legally described as SW 3 -19 -15
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission Page 8
W4M. Any additional development shall require prior approval of a
separate permit application.
The proposed development complying with:
a) The provisions pertaining to the Agricultural District and all relevant
schedules, as outlined in the County of Newell Land Use Bylaw #1626-
07.
b) All Federal, Provincial and Municipal statutes, regulations, codes and
standards.
c) All Alberta Building Codes, where applicable. If the developer is required
to obtain a building permit, it is his her responsibility to do so, and
furthermore, this permit must be obtained from an accredited inspection
agency.
d) All Alberta Safety Codes, where applicable. If the developer is installing
a new sewage disposal system, he /she is required obtain a Private
Sewage Disposal System Permit, issued by a licensed, accredited
inspection agency.
e) Any other required permits, including electrical, heating ventilation,
gas and /or plumbing. All permits must be issued by a licensed agency.
And subject to
f) That this development is located as shown on the site plan approved in
this application and submitted February 4, 2010. Any changes to that
plan shall require the written approval of the Development Officer.
g) That the developer submits a conservation and reclamation plan,
approved by APEA, within 1 month of permit approval, by April 30,
2010. A copy of this permit must be submitted to the Development
Officer.
h) That the developer submits a plan to address potential dust and noise
abatement for the site, prior to any work being started on the removal
of fill dirt.
i) That the developer obtains a Roadside Development Permit from Alberta
Transportation. A copy of this permit must be submitted to the
Development Officer.
j) Development Notification: the developer shall notify the Development
Officer:
1. prior to the commencement of actual development thereon, and
2. upon completion of the development
k) That the developer does not begin operations in the pit before 8:00 a.m.
and that the operation is completely shut down by or before 6:00 pm,
Monday to Friday. That the developer does not conduct operations of
any kind on Saturday, Sunday, or any statutory holidays.
MOTION DEFEATED
County Planner, D. Horvath indicated that since the MPC defeated a motion
to approve the permit, reasons for that decision should be clearly stated.
Following a brief discussion it was noted that the primary reason is that the
proposed use is not compatible with existing development in the area.
7. SUBDIVISIONS
a) #2010 -0 -051 NE 31- 17- 13 -W4M, Division 2
Christa Gerald Aleman (Owner) (Applicant)
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission Page 9
To subdivide an approximate 7.00 Acre (2.43 ha) vacant parcel from an
unsubdivided quarter section legally known as NE 1 /4 of 31 -17 -13 W4M
The County Planner provided background information regarding the
proposed subdivision.
Discussion took place regarding access for the proposed parcel. It was
noted that the proposed access is onto Provincial Highway 875.
P -40/10 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR W. DANIELS that the Municipal Planning
Commission APPROVE subdivision #2010 -0 -051, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That all outstanding property taxes shall be paid to the County of
Newell.
2. That the applicant submit to the Subdivision Authority a copy of a sketch
from an Alberta Land Surveyor that certifies the location and dimensions
of the existing buildings and the exact dimensions of the lot to be
subdivided.
3. That access to the proposed parcel be provided off of TR 180.
P -41/10 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR A. EASTMAN that condition three be deleted
from motion P- 40/10.
MOTION CARRIED
Voting on Motion P -40/10 as amended
MOTION CARRIED
8. OTHER BUSINESS
a) Questionnaire Update
County Planner D. Horvath reviewed with MPC, the responses received
to the recently circulated Municipal Development Plan survey and input
provided during the open houses. A total of 312 surveys were
returned, plus 6 were submitted online. Response rates were even
across the county. D. Horvath reviewed a summary of the responses
given by ratepayers. The proposed timelines for approving an amended
bylaw are to incorporate changes into a draft amended Municipal
Development Plan Bylaw for review in early summer and followed by
introduction for first reading in July.
Councillor W. Daniels questioned if the summary report can be placed at
the library.
D. Horvath indicated a digital copy could be made available on the
County of Newell website if desired.
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission Page 10
9. POST AGENDA
10. IN CAMERA ITEMS
There were no in camera items.
11. QUESTION PERIOD
None
12. ADJOURN
Being that the agenda matters have been concluded the meeting adjourned
at 1:43 a.m.
Signed by the Chairman and Assistant Administrator this Day of 2010.
Ard
CFrfreilac
ASST. AD INIST OR
March 25, 2010 Municipal Planning Commission Page 11