More than just the approval of 41 lots on 186 acres of land east of Indus was on the table during a Rocky View County council meeting, Feb. 5.
Election donations and appropriate councillor behaviour was questioned during an hour-and-a-half discussion regarding an industrial park subdivision application.
The application was for phase one of Fulton Industrial Park, which included 37 industrial lots, two public utility lots and two municipal reserve lots. At final build out the park is expected to cover 525 acres.
The conceptual scheme and land redesignation were before council and approved in 2010, before the current council took over.
Right after the staff presentation, Councillor Margaret Bahcheli asked if there were any councillors who may be in conflict of interest for voting.
“Has any councillor received any money from the applicant?” she asked, referring to the developers, Resland Holdings Inc.
Deputy Reeve Paul McLean also admitted he had taken money from Resland.
Reports provided on the County website show McLean took $750 from Resland.
This is the second time in recent months that concerns about election donations have been mentioned in council.
During the Bingham Crossing hearing last October, members of the public voiced concerns that some councillors had taken money from the developer and should therefore not vote on the application.
However, Ashdown had the same response he had in October that accepting campaign is legal, and he doesn’t see it as a conflict of interest.
Ashdown noted the amount of campaign donations is public and is available on the County website.
McLean agreed.
“I don’t think this has bearing on this hearing,” said McLean.
As for the application, council was split on whether or not they should approve it. Councillors Liz Breakey, Kim Magnuson, Margaret Bahcheli and Al Sacuta voted against approval.
Their concerns were over the limited servicing in the area, which would require water cisterns and wastewater pump-out tanks, stormwater infrastructure, the use of municipal reserve land, and residents’ concerns about road safety, and the current proposal differing from the conceptual scheme.
Sacuta said, according to his calculations, the nearest fire station was 14 kilometres away, one km more than the maximum allowable for insurance eligibility.
McLean suggested tabling the discussion to gather more information on some of these concerns.
“We need confirmation on the fire protection zone. I don’t like using heresy,” he said, adding he would also like staff clarification on the stormwater management plan, answers to the use of municipal reserve land and a copy of the original conceptual scheme.
Bahcheli said she saw no reason to table the discussion, adding she felt her questions had been answered.
She questioned why he was tabling the motion based off of questions he hadn’t asked.
“It wasn’t all about you or your questions,” he retorted.
“I have some concerns too.”
Sacuta pointed out that discussion wasn’t allowed when a tabling motion is before council and suggested instead that a postponing motion be made instead.
The tabling motion was defeated and Ashdown suggested postponing the discussion to allow staff to gather information on soil conditions, stormwater, fire suppression, municipal reserve land, lot sizing, traffic upgrades and service.
“I think this is an insult to administration,” said Breakey, who said her questions were sufficiently answered. She felt that waiting for more information wouldn’t change her mind on how she would vote.
The postponing motion was also defeated and council voted on the application. Councillors Breakey, Magnuson, Sacuta, McLean and Bahcheli voted against. Ashdown and Sacuta voted to approve. Councillors Lois Habberfield and Greg Boehlke were absent.
McLean said he voted against the application because he felt there was more information required, adding he felt that could have been addressed by tabling the conversation.
Because they were going against previously passed motions, council had to give reasons for voting down the subdivision application. Solberg said he couldn’t support the reasons (as mentioned above).
“I think the reasons given are bogus,” he said, adding he felt they could all be addressed by a postponement.
Breakey called out “point of order” and asked “is it legitimate to insult other councillors?”
McLean said Solberg was stating concerns about the motion and not insulting a particular councillor.
He wouldn’t support the reasons either.
Later, Solberg quipped that mentioning campaign donations could be considered an insult to council.
Ashdown said he didn’t see a reason why the application should be refused and felt concerns raised have appropriate solutions.
For example, he felt that a pump- out and tank would be adequate for servicing the area and noted the remainder of the land could be used for a stormwater backup if needed. Now the application has been denied, the applicant can appeal the decision with the subdivision appeal board committee.
Bradford Chorley, Calgary contact for Resland Development Group, said the company needs more information before deciding on its next step.
He said he doesn’t understand the decision and the reasons given saying they don’t make sense especially since a land use redesignation and conceptual scheme were already passed.
“It seems more like internal division within council than anything else … we won’t make a decision (on the next step) until we can make sense of it,” he said.
