Letter to Council

Marianne Cole, President Clearwater County Taxpayers’ Association RR #1 Rocky Mtn. House, AB T4T 2A1 mcmajic@telus.net

Clearwater County Council Box 550 Rocky Mtn. House, AB T4T 1A4 mswanson@clearwatercounty.ca bcermak@clearwatercounty.ca gmehlhaff@clearwatercounty.ca dlougheed@clearwatercounty.ca jnorthcott@clearwatercounty.ca nratcliffe@clearwatercounty.ca bgibson@clearwatercounty.ca

June 16, 2025

Dear Reeve Swanson, Deputy Reeve Cermak, and County Councillors:

At the Clearwater County Taxpayers’ Association meeting on June 11, 2025 a motion was passed that we write a letter to Council with an urgent request to postpone passing the Land Use Bylaw draft until after the up-coming Municipal Election. Rationale for this request are as follows:

1. In the What We Heard Report, Page 8, response to the question, “What is your level of support for the proposed LUB, 48% did not support (38% strongly do not support; 10% do not support), only 31% supported it (12% strongly support; 19% support), and 21% were neutral (15% neutral, 6% unsure). According to those figures over 3 times (38%) were strongly non-supportive while only 12% were strongly supportive. Clearly the general public does NOT approve of this current draft document.

2. In the WWHR Comment Summary significant concerns were mentioned about the regulations, the restrictions, complaint based enforcement, short term rentals, permitting related to land use, seacans, and signage. While there have been some revisions made, there is a significant amount of work left to address these issues.

3. Repeatedly we have heard public concerns that the document is overly restrictive and not user friendly. This was also noted at our PAC/Council meeting on Monday, June 9th with these comments: “We need to simplify the document”, and “We don’t want rules we don’t support.”

In this regard, I draw your attention to the attachments from Ponoka County’s Land Use Bylaw. Clearly, it is much easier to read and less restrictive. First of all the developments not requiring a development permit are visibly listed and then described. Further, the requirements for an application for a development permit are significantly less and easier to read. Another example of the more user friendly Ponoka document is the section on signs which is also attached.

4. In support of postponement, we remind you of the responses to the CCTA survey handed out at the LUB information meetings we organized in Leslieville on March 12th and Caroline on March 18th. Those

responses indicated 88% of respondents (46 out of 52) wanted final approval postponed until after the election. (Note: A summary of all responses from both meetings were sent to Council later in March.)

Support for the delay noted that this document would be dealt with by the newly elected Council so it is only reasonable to have them become familiar with it and subsequently approve the final draft.

5. Finally, the proposed timing of the Public Hearing is most inconsiderate. Farmers are very busy in their hayfields in July and August so the possibility of/opportunity for their participation is certainly reduced. Furthermore, many people are away on holidays at that time.

While a response to the suggestion at the June 9th meeting of holding the hearing the first week in September suggested it was too close to the election, it is worthy to note that early in September would be a month and a half away from the election. Furthermore, with children back in school people are likely home from holidays and farming activities may be somewhat reduced between haying and harvesting.

6. Another disturbing comment that has been reiterated during the LUB review is that it is a “living document” and can be amended at any time. While this opportunity exists, it would be significantly onerous to amend the numerous, troublesome clauses and general format of the document. As an old adage goes, “Better to get it right the first time.”

In conclusion, we sincerely ask that you consider the voice of the people that has clearly indicated:

Ø Lack of support for this current draft

Ø A need to simplify the draft and make it more user friendly

Ø A review of the timing for the Public Hearing, if the process continues

Ø Ultimately a delay in passing the document until after the election

Throughout the review process you asked for, and received, public opinion. You organized, and paid for, public engagement meetings to gather information from your constituents. We now trust that those efforts and costs will be validated as you make a decision reflective of what you have heard.

Yours truly,

Marianne Cole

CC: Rick Emmons, Tracy Lynn Haight

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

We are still here!!! We apologize for this later than usual sending of The Beacon but we were waiting until after the June 9^th PAC/Council meeting so we could report the latest news on the Land Use Bylaw review.  Here it is!!

LAND USE BYLAW REVIEW HIGHLIGHTS

“What We Heard Report”  

This report is a brief summary of information gathered from the various open houses held in Nordegg, Caroline, Condor, Frisco, and virtually from May 4th to May 8^th.  A total of 209 people attended the meetings.  A copy of the report is available from Planning at the County office.  Noted highlights are:

• 48% of the respondents DID NOT SUPPORT the draft LUB; 31% supported it; 21% were neutral.
• The most common comments said there were generally too many regulations, concerns were expressed over enforcement (especially with the complaint based format), and there were unfavorable controls being put forward on signs, seacans and RV’s. 

June 9^th PAC/Council Meeting   

There were distinct concerns with the excessive definitions and restrictive rules/guidelines for development permits.  Specific areas of concern focussed on:

• RV Usage.  This focussed on the number allowed on a property and the length of their continuous use.  Public feedback from the What We Heard Report showed that most people felt 6+ RV’s could be allowed on one’s property and 89% wanted longer than 2 week time limits on continuous use. Discussion at the meeting noted the value of year round usage due to current housing concerns.
• Seacans. In the draft, seacans are only permitted in agricultural, industrial, and public airport districts.  They are discretionary in country residential, country residential agricultural, leisure residence, manufactured home parks, hamlet commercial/mixed use, highway development, community amenities, recreation facilities, and some direct control districts.  They ARE NOT ALLOWED in hamlets, Nordegg Urban Residential, Nordegg Commercial Core, David Thompson Development Nodes, Crown Land, or on Compassionate Care/Health Services lands.  Comments made at the meeting suggested that they be allowed in ALL districts as they are much safer as ancillary buildings used for storage.
• Short Term Rentals.  This is a concern focussed mostly in Nordegg.  A very positive idea was put forward suggesting that a development permit for this be only granted initially for only one year.  Re-application and subsequent approval would be granted dependant on comments received about the facility’s past operation.
• Questionable Development Permit Requirements.  There are still many questions/concerns over the numerous items of information needed for development permits.  These ranged from concerns over landscaping requirements to financial information to design/character of proposed buildings.

Next Steps  

During discussion on a timeline for the process from here, some comments were made to delay things until after the election and it was specifically noted that a public hearing should not be held in July or August as people are on holidays and farmers are busy in the hay fields.  Unfortunately the following tentative dates received majority support:

• June 24, 2025:  Regular Council Meeting.  The latest draft will be presented for First Reading.   At that time Council has the opportunity to pass approval of the document, request some amendments and delay approval, or defeat approval.
• July 24, 2025:  Public Hearing.  Possibly at the Caroline HUB.  The public will have the opportunity to provide opinion/input on this document.
• 2^nd and 3^rd Reading to Follow

We certainly encourage you to attend both meetings and/or send your comments to Council.  While you may not be allowed to speak at the Council meeting, it would be beneficial for you to hear the discussion and comments from Council.  That may help you prepare for the Public Hearing that we certainly hope a large number will be able to attend.

Special Comments from the PAC/Council Meeting 

There were two very notable comments made at the meeting: “ We don’t want rules we don’t support” and  “We need to simplify the document”.

RENEWABLE ENERGY BYLAW 

  At Tuesday’s June 9^th Council meeting there was significant discussion on a Renewable Energy Bylaw.  (Note:  There is a similar section in the proposed Land Use Bylaw as well.)  It is noteworthy to mention that in this document solar installations (which would be more common than wind turbines in Clearwater County) are restricted from development on Class 3 lands which form the majority of our area.  During the discussion concerns focussed on:

• Size of installations needing permits (basically personal use vs. commercial)
• Questionable restrictions on small/personal installations
• Setbacks for large operations for both wind and solar
• Decommissioning rules and requirements for bonds/securities
• Concern with the control held by the AUC (Alberta Utilities Commission).

In the end the bylaw was passed.

UP-COMING MEETINGS:

 

June 24, 2025, 9:00AM, Council Meeting, County Office;    

July 24, 2025, 7:00PM ((Tentative)  Public Hearing, Caroline Hub;     

September 10, 2025, 7:30PM, Regular CCTA Meeting, Leslieville Elks’ Hall;   

October 8, 2025, 7:00PM Municipal Elections Candidates’ Forum, Leslieville Community Hall.

WE WISH YOU ALL A GREAT SUMMER!!!