The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-06-05 Municipal Planning Commission (Regular) Minutes County of Newell MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 22, 2014 The regular Municipal Planning Commission Meeting of the County of Newell was held in the County Office at Brooks, AB on Thursday, June 5, 2014 commencing at 10:00 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Douglass, Councillor A.M. Philipsen, Councillor& M.P.C. Chair L. Juss, Councillor, Vice M.P.C. Chair G. Simpson, Councillor B. de Jong, Councillor W. Hammergren, Councillor T. Fyfe, Councillor K. Christman, Councillor E. Unruh, Councillor ABSENT: C. Amulung, Councillor STAFF: K. Stephenson, CAO L. Johnson, Director of Corporate Services G. Scott, Planner—ORRSC A. Wickert, Manager of Planning and Development P. Elliott, Administrative Assistant Planning OTHERS IN S. Stanway, Brooks Bulletin ATTENDANCE: M. Dumont, Brooks Chronicle T. Elchuk, Evolve H. Doerksen, , Ratepayer A. Froese, Ratepayer G. Klassen, Ratepayer T. Simo, Ratepayer E. Simo, Ratepayer R. Hiebert, Ratepayer 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 10: 00 a. m. 2. EXCUSED FROM MEETING P 51/14 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR B. DE JONG that Councillor C. Amulung be excused from the meeting. MOTION CARRIED 3. MINUTES a) May 22, 2014 Meeting Minutes c P 52/14 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR M. DOUGLASS that the Council Meeting minutes be adopted as presented. MOTION CARRIED 4. CALL FOR POST AGENDA ITEMS The Chairman called for post agenda items. 5. ADOPTION OF AGENDA P 53/14 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR T. FYFE that the agenda be adopted as presented. MOTION CARRIED 6. SUBDIVISIONS a) 2014-0-060 -SW 32-16-13-W4M, To create a parcel approximately 3.06 acres (1.24 ha) in size, from a title of 157.94 acres for residential use The County Planner provided background information on the proposed the subdivision. Councillor B. de Jong asked who would be responsible to move and pay to move the trees. He also inquired which of the two approaches for the parcel was being removed. The County Planner responded that removal of trees was a civil matter and not a subdivision issue. He indicated that it appeared the south approach was being removed, which could affect access into the agricultural portion of the quarter. Since the requirement to remove the approach was an Alberta Transportation condition, the final decision about the approach would be between the applicant and Alberta Transportation. P 54/14 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR G. SIMPSON that the Country Residential subdivision of SW1/4 32-16-13-W4M, to create a parcel approximately 3.06 acres (1.24 ha) in size, from a title of 157.94 acres for residential use; BE APPROVED subject to the following: 1. That all outstanding taxes shall be paid. 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. 3. That any condition of Alberta Transportation shall be established prior to finalization of the application. MOTION CARRIED b) 2014-0-067 -SE 23-18-15-W4M, To subdivide 4.09 acres (1.65 ha) from a title of 150.9 acres (61.0 ha)for commercial use. The County Planner provided background on the proposed subdivision. CL There were no questions from MPC. P 55/14 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR L. JUSS that Commercial subdivision of SE1/4 23-18- 15-W4M, to subdivide 4.09 acres (1.65ha) from a title of 150.9 acres (61.0 ha)for commercial use; BE APPROVED subject to the following: 1. That all outstanding property taxes shall be paid. 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. MOTION CARRIED 7. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS a) DP 3839 - Lot 1, Block 1, Plan 1213430, SW 28-21-17-W4M, Intensification of use, addition of School to the existing Church The Manager of Planning & Development provided background information on the proposed development permit. The County Planner spoke about school regulations under the Education Act. He said that a Municipality is responsible to ensure that safety and building codes requirements are followed and that Alberta Education regulates schools and education. Councillor E. Unruh asked if Alberta Distance Learning set the curriculum for home schooling. The Manager of Planning &Development responded that parents may follow the curriculum set by Alberta Education but they are not required to. Councillor W Hammergren inquired about the status of permits for the existing building. The Manager of Planning & Development responded that Park Enterprises completed the inspections and all permits are current, but they are waiting for the schedule showing architectural drawings of the building. Councillor K. Christman asked what the students do once Grade 8 was completed, considering that the Education Act requires all children to attend school until the age of 16. H. Doerksen replied that after his daughter completed her schooling with the Colony she took extra courses through distance education. Councillor B. de Jong asked if the two school divisions had been circulated the application information. The Manager of Planning and Development replied that the school divisions had not been notified because this was a development decision not an education decision. Councillor M. Douglass inquired if the students would be from within the County or from outside the County as well. In addition, she asked about the student capacity for the school. H. Doerksen responded that all the AMIN students lived within the County. While they expected about 50 students to attend, the facility could hold up to 300 students. Councillor M. Douglass asked which curriculum the school would be using. H. Doerksen responded that they were planning to use a Christian curriculum from the United States. Councillor L. Juss asked where the children were currently being educated. H. Doerksen replied that many of the students are currently being home schooled. G. Klassen stated that he was opposed to the school. He was concerned about the level of education and safety for the students. He commented that the land next to the school is sprayed throughout the growing season. While he has been able to adjust his crop spraying to accommodate church services, it would be difficult to accommodate the school. R. Hiebert was concerned that further loss of children from the Gem School could result in the loss of their school. Councillor E. Unruh asked H. Doerksen if the church group had given consideration to enrolling their children at the Gem school. He replied that the parents have said they want their children in a private school. In response to a concern submitted by an adjacent landowner about the condition of Township Road 21-4, the Director of Municipal Services stated that the deteriorating road condition is not due to traffic from the church site, but from poor drainage. In order to mitigate this issue, the road will require additional work by grader operators and new ditches. The County Planner reminded MPC that their decision about this application is based on development requirements and not education concerns. K. Stephenson suggested that for safety reasons that a Traffic Impact Study should be done. Councillor B. de Jong made a motion to table the decision until responses from Grasslands School Board and Christ the Redeemer Catholic School Board had been provided and a Traffic Impact Assessment had been completed for Township Road 21-4. P 56/14 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR B. DE JONG that the Municipal Planning Commission TABLE Development Permit#3839, until comments from Grasslands School Board and the Christ Redeemer Separate School Board and a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) Report for Township Road 21-4 have been received. MOTION CARRIED LEFT THE MEETING A. Wicket left the meeting at 10:55 a.m. 8. OTHER BUSINESS a) Rogers Communication Tower- NW 31-23-17-W4, Gem ARRIVED AT MEETING A. Wickert returned at 10:57 a.m. LEFT THE MEETING M. Harbicht left at 10:58 a.m. The Manager of Planning & provided background information on the proposed tower. T. Elchuk spoke on behalf of Rogers Communication. Councillor B. de Jong commented about the excellence of the application and expressed how important colocation is to the County. T. Elchuk agreed that colocation was important but noted that in this case there were no other towers in the area to collocate with. P 57/14 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR M. DOUGLASS that MPC APPROVE the installation of a Rogers tower at NW 31-23-17-W4M. MOTION CARRIED 9. POST AGENDA ITEMS There were no post agenda items. 10. IN CAMERA There were no in camera items. 11. QUESTION PERIOD 12. ADJOURN Being that the agenda matters have been concluded the meeting adjourned at 11:05 a. m. Signed by the Chairman and Director of Corporate Services this /1. Day of , 2014. WO ' �;-_ ' 0 Ch.' -• A — Direct.' of soma Services 0 0