An application presented to Rocky View County (RVC) council on Sept. 23 to redesignate land north of Township Road 262 on the east side of Poplar Hill Drive within the Bearspaw Community, from Residential Two District (R-2) to Residential One District (R-1) was unanimously rejected by council.
The application was submitted in order to facilitate the subdivision of four, two-acre parcels, however, due to the application’s inconsistency with the Bearspaw Area Structure Plan requirements, RVC administration recommended the refusal of the application.
According to RVC administration, this application is inconsistent with the Bearspaw Area Structure Plan (ASP) requirements because the application does not adhere to the policy’s minimum parcel sizes, concept plan submission, and does not meet the servicing requirements of county policy.
Currently, the subject parcel to the north, Lot 1, consists of a single detached dwelling serviced by the water co-op and a private sewage treatment system.
The subject parcel to the south, Lot 2, is currently vacant. Both lots have existing accesses via Poplar Hill Drive.
“Myself and my wife have been living on this acreage since 1980, and we have started a family here, but we are getting old and it’s hard to manage the property,” said landowner Inderjit Wadhwa during the public hearing on Sept. 23.
“Our family is interested in living on the acreage, and we’d like to make smaller parcels to help maintain the property, otherwise there is too much trees and grass.”
Following the withdrawal of a similar request in 2007 to redesignate a portion of the quarter section from R-2 to R-1 to facilitate the creation of 27, two-acre parcels, the applicant Bernard Lamarche and landowners Inderjit and Harpal Wadhwa re-applied to redesignate the subject lands.
The applicant’s previous request resulted in RVC council at the time directing the applicant to provide a conceptual scheme as a prerequisite in order for council to consider further applications, but the conceptual scheme and redesignation applications were withdrawn in 2008.
The new application is also requesting redesignation without a conceptual scheme submission.
Six letters of support dated August 2013 were provided along with one letter of opposition, however three nearby neighbours, who were excluded from the circulation area, were present at the hearing to voice their opposition. Residents of Big Sky Close – immediately north of the subject lands – James Peta, Samantha Wright, and Darrin Durda expressed concerns with drainage problems in nearby properties, and the lack of conceptual scheme for the subject lands.
“Flooding has been a problem in this area,” Wright said. “Directly across Township Road 262, Jewel Valley homeowners have paid thousands of dollars to have water pumped away from their homes over the past few years. The amount of money the County spends on pumping water specifically in Bearspaw is a testament to our water problems. The location of these proposed three properties will only exacerbate an existing problem.”
Area Councillor Al Sacuta made a motion to accept administration’s recommendation to refuse the application.
“We need to know what’s going to happen with the stormwater,” Sacuta said. “At least a conceptual scheme would address these issues and let us know they will be handled, so we can make an appropriate decision to put or not put this kind of a designation on the land. At this point, too much is unknown.”
Councillor Jerry Arshinoff expressed his agreement with administration’s recommendation and indicated his support of Sacuta’s motion.
“I certainly believe that of Rocky View’s many problems, flooding is I think by far the greatest single issue,” he said. “I think the onus is on those who are proposing developments to show that the development won’t cause flooding. If there is a reasonable doubt that the horrendous flooding can be made worse, we shouldn’t even consider it.”
