After nearly a year of development and public engagement, the Agricultural Boundary Design Guidelines were presented to Rocky View County (RVC) council Nov. 24. The document was approved by a vote of 8-1, with Reeve Greg Boehlke voting in opposition.
“This set of guidelines will provide a simple process when preparing an application for redesignation, subdivision or a development permit,” said Tim Dietzler, agricultural fieldman with RVC. “The goal is to try and eliminate conflicts that could occur between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.”
The guidelines are a result of the direction of the Agricultural Master Plan, the County Plan, an identified need for better boundary design and research into edge planning and best practices, said Dietzler. The document was created through support and feedback from the Agricultural Service Board, internal departments at RVC, an external focus group and the public.
“The overall feedback received from this process, particularly with agricultural producers, has been positive, as people recognize that by applying guidelines to non-agricultural development can benefit producers by reducing complaints and impediments to generally accepted agricultural practices,” Dietzler said. “It also benefits future landowners by reducing negative impacts, in order to increase enjoyment of their land.”
RVC Div. 8 (Bearspaw) Coun. Eric Lowther said two points within the guideline worksheets related to potentially negative outcomes, while all other points are “factual.” These points asked for a list of effects the proposed development may have on adjacent agricultural development, such as flooding, pesticide concerns, increased lights at night or increased traffic.
“I think these points don’t really serve the purpose for what (the guidelines) are trying to do, and actually set the stage for a scoring guideline that puts a negative flavour on a proposal coming forward based on what might or could occur,” Lowther said. “These occurrences could happen between any two properties.”
Lowther moved to amend the guidelines to remove these three points, which was carried 6-3 with councillors Lois Habberfield, Jerry Arshinoff and Liz Breakey voting in opposition. The question will remain on the list, but the guidelines will no longer include a list of potential outcomes. According to Dietzler, the information is still included in the body of the document.
“I think this is very well done and I don’t see it as negative,” Arshinoff said. “It advises of potential problems, which is always a good idea.”
Deputy Reeve Earl Solberg moved to approve the amended guidelines and, despite opposition from Boehlke, the motion was passed 8-1.
“I know a lot of work has gone into this and, I believe, a lot of good work,” Boehlke said. “A bit redundant work, perhaps. I think the text that’s used in the County Plan tells the applicant to do this – they do it in Area Structure Plans, they do it in Concept Plans, and most farmers that are doing a first parcel out do a pre-screening of their land, as we’ve asked them to do in the past. It’s another hoop to jump through in what is already considered a highly-regulated municipality.”
