COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA May 10, 2016 (to follow MPC Meeting)
Page
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
2.0 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2.1 Additional Agenda Items
3.0 MINUTES
3 - 6 3.1 MINUTES of the regular County Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 26, 2016.
3.2 Questions/ matters arising from the minutes.
4.0 ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
5.0 DELEGATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
6.0 REPORTS
7 - 11 6.1 Bylaw No. 2016/12 – recommendation to give second and third readings to the bylaw for setting the 2016 tax rates and continuation of the minimum tax payable.
7.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS & REPORTS
12 - 14 7.1 Accessory Buildings within the Agricultural District – consideration of a bylaw to require a Development Permit and all permits required by Safety Codes for agricultural buildings exceeding 10m2 (110 ft2).
15 - 18 7.2 Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan – recommendation to give first reading to a bylaw to amend the Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development plan to reflect the recent annexation and to schedule a public hearing for June 21, 2016.
8.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1:30 p.m.
19 - 25 8.1 Bylaw No. 2016/2.01 – a bylaw to redesignate Lot 2&3, Block 6, Plan RN21, NE 26‑ 36‑ 2-5 (Markerville) from Comprehensive Town Centre (CTC) to Low Density Residential District (R-3).
26 - 188 8.2 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan for NE 29-38-28-4 (Division 6) to facilitate the creation of a 39-lot residential
Page 1 of 188 County Council Meeting Meeting Agenda, May 10, 2016 Page
subdivision.
9.0 IN-CAMERA SESSIONS
10.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS
10.1 Reports from individual Councillors for meetings attended since April 27, 2016.
11.0 NOTICES OF MOTION / COUNCIL CONCERNS
12.0 ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 188 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of County Council RED DEER COUNTY April 26, 2016
1.0 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of Red Deer County Council was held in the Council Chambers of the Red Deer County Centre located at 38106 Rge Rd 275, Red Deer County, Alberta, and was called to order by Mayor J.J. Wood at 10:23 a.m.
PRESENT: Mayor J.J. Wood, Deputy Mayor J.M. Bota, Councillors D.B. Church, C.R. Huelsman (attended during the morning session only) R.R. Lorenz and P.J.R. Massier.
ABSENT: Councillor C. Moore.
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager C. Herzberg, Assistant County Manager R. Henderson, Corporate Services Director H. Gray-Surkan, Planning and Development Services Director D. Dittrick, Operations Services Director M. Campbell, and Legislative Services Administration N. Lougheed and L. Thompson.
Planning/Development administration in attendance for development applications: T. Miller, R. Barr, T. March and R. Moje.
2.0 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CC-16-063 Moved by Councillor D.B. Church to approve the agenda as submitted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CC-16-064 Moved by Councillor J.M. Bota to approve the minutes of the April 12, 2016, regular meeting of County Council as submitted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4.0 ADMINSTRATION REPORTS
4.1 Emergency Services and Search and Rescue – Assistant County Manager R. Henderson reported on the recent trip to Malta to participate in and instruct Search and Rescue Training sessions.
6.0 REPORTS
6.1 2016 Tax Rate and Minimum Tax Bylaw – introduction of the bylaw for setting the 2016 tax rates and continuation of the minimum tax payable.
Bylaw No. 2016/12 – a bylaw to authorize the setting of several rates of taxation imposed for all purposes for the 2016 year and to set a minimum tax rate.
CC-16-065 Moved by Councillor D.B. Church that Bylaw No. 2016/12 be given first reading. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MINUTES of the regular County Council Meeting held Tuesday, ... Page 3 of 188 County Council Minutes of April 26, 2016 2
6.2 Agricultural Services Appointments – recommendation to appoint Weed and Pest Inspectors for Red Deer County.
CC-16-066 Moved by Councillor J.M. Bota to appoint Dale Lindmark, Robert Abel, Karen Thomson and Victoria Adolf as inspectors pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Weed Control Act and Section 10(1) of the Agricultural Pests Act, commencing April 27, 2016, until termination of employment. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS & REPORTS
7.1 DCD-9A, Liberty Landing – recommendation to give first reading to a bylaw to amend the Direct Control District #9A by changing Secondary Suite from a Discretionary Use to a Permitted Use and to include Appendix B, Land Use, as a schedule to this District.
Bylaw No. 2016/13 – a bylaw to amend Direct Control District #9A of the Land Use Bylaw No. 2006/6 by changing security suite from a discretionary use to a permitted use and including Appendix B, Land Use, as a schedule to this district.
CC-16-067 Moved by Councillor R.R. Lorenz that Bylaw No. 2016/13 be given first reading with the public hearing to be scheduled for May 24, 2016. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
10.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS Councillors reported on meetings they have attended on behalf of Red Deer County since April 13, 2016.
Recess: 11:10 a.m. Reconvene: 1:30 p.m. with Mayor Wood, Deputy Mayor Bota and Councillors Church, Lorenz and Massier in attendance and Councillors Huelsman and Moore being absent.
8.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS
A listing of the persons who attended and spoke at the public hearing is attached and is considered to be a part of these minutes. The public hearing closed at 1:46 p.m.
8.1 Bylaw No. 2016/8– a bylaw to amend the Divide Hills Area Structure Plan to provide the option for water and sewer services to be provided by communal services.
CC-16-068 Moved by Councillor J.M. Bota that Bylaw No. 2016/8 be given second reading. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Councillor Huelsman did not vote on this motion
CC-16-069 Moved by Councillor R.R. Lorenz that Bylaw No. 2016/8 be given third and final reading. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Councillor Huelsman did not vote on this motion
8.2 Bylaw No. 2016/9 – a bylaw to adopt the District 2 & 42 Major Area Structure Plan for lands located adjacent to the Hwy 2 and 42 interchange.
CC-16-070 Moved by Councillor D.B. Church to amend Bylaw No. 2016/9 as follows: Add the following policies to Section 7.2 of the District 2 & 42 Major Area Structure Plan and renumber this section as appropriate:
MINUTES of the regular County Council Meeting held Tuesday, ... Page 4 of 188 County Council Minutes of April 26, 2016 3
7.2.2 Cost to any alterations and/or appurtenances required to the existing pipelines to accommodate a proposed development shall be borne by the developers; 7.2.3 Upgrades or improvements necessary to implement this plan, including acquisition of land, may be required for the purposes of utilities; 7.2.4 All developments shall adhere to oil and gas pipelines and facilities setback requirements and/or standards where an act and/or regulation as applicable having jurisdiction over it; and that Bylaw No. 2016/9, as amended be given second reading. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Councillor Huelsman did not vote on this motion
12.0 ADJOURNMENT
CC-16-071 Moved by Councillor P.J.R. Massier that the County Council meeting adjourn. TIME: 1:56 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Councillor Huelsman did not vote on this motion
______MAYOR COUNTY MANAGER
MINUTES of the regular County Council Meeting held Tuesday, ... Page 5 of 188 County Council Minutes of April 26, 2016 4
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
Bylaw No. 2016/8– a bylaw to amend the Divide Hills Area Structure Plan to provide the option for water and sewer services to be provided by communal services.
No comments heard or correspondence received.
Bylaw No. 2016/9 – a bylaw to adopt the District 2 & 42 Major Area Structure Plan for lands located adjacent to the Hwy 2 and 42 interchange.
Persons who spoke to the bylaw: David Kaun and Doug Shields.
MINUTES of the regular County Council Meeting held Tuesday, ... Page 6 of 188 RedDeerCounty ,/g. :1/4067.//0,Jo/4 /—— ADMINISTRATIVEREPORT
Date: May 2, 2016
Tu: County Council
From: Corporate Services
Subject: 2016 Tax Rate & Minimum Tax By-law
PURPOSE
To recommend to County Council final approval of the 2016 Tax Rate & MinimumTax by-law by giving the attached bylaw 2"”and 3”’reading.
BACKGROUND
Please find attached the draft by—|awoutlining the total taxable assessments by class for 2016 municipal, educational and seniors housing taxation. in addition the by-law highlights the recommended tax rates for municipal purposes, the provincially prescribed educational rates and seniors housing levy. Thisby—lawalso gives the municipality authority to levy a minimum tax.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant second and third reading of the 2016 Tax Rate and Minimum Tax by-law based on budgetary needs and the change in market growth in assessment. 2. Provide direction to Administration with regards to other possible options for 2016 taxation rates.
DISCUSSION
At the last Council meeting, Councillors gave first reading to the attached bylaw. To my knowledge, there has not been any specific input from the public as of the date of this report. It is estimated that we will need $45M from taxation levy to fund our operating and capital programs for 2016.
Administration is recommending that Council consider the following tax rates.
Protective Services — 0.5000 (same as 2015);
Community Services — 0.4000 (same as 2015); and
Environmental Services — 0.1590 (same as 2015).
The base municipal tax rates are also remaining the same as follows:
Farmland - 7.9460 (same as 2015); Residential —2.6816and (same as 2015);
Non- Residential - 9.9465 (same as 2015).
Bylaw No. 2016/12 – recommendation to give second and third ... Page 7 of 188 As you are aware, the Province requires municipalities to levy property taxes on their behalf based on our assessment values. Those rates have changed from 2015 as well.due to an increase in the total provincial
requisition (up 2.56%). Residential & Farm Education tax rate is 2.4465 [2015 — 2.4667) and Non —
Residential tax rate is 3.5955 (2015 — 3.5248).
Seniors Housing Levy reflects the requisition that we are charged from the ParklandSeniors Foundation. Based on calculations from their requisition, staff is recommending that the Seniors Housing levy rate is
0.0193 for this year (2015 — 0.0200).
By way of a minimum tax, Administration would like to continue to eliminate the tax notices for under $25. We are legislated to levy all applicable property regardless of the amount to maintain equity. A minimum tax levy of $25 will cover the administration costs of providing the Combined Assessment and Tax notice to County property owners.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is Administration's recommendation that the 2016 draft Tax Rate and minimum tax bylaw be given 2"‘and 3”’readings, enabling Administration to levy taxes in a timely manner to fund 2016 budget priorities. J2. Hea r Gray—Surl
Bylaw No. 2016/12 – recommendation to give second and third ... Page 8 of 188 BYLAW N0. 2016/12 (Tax Rate & Minimum Tax Bylaw)
A BYLAW OF RED DEER COUNTY, INTHE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO AUTHORIZE THE SETTING OF SEVERAL RATES OF TAXATIONIMPOSED FOR ALL PURPOSES FOR THE 2016 YEAR.
WHEREAS, the total levy requirements of Red Deer County as shown in the estimates for 2016 are as follows:
MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES: - Debenture Debt 515 615,266
- Various other municipal purposes 75 481 326
GENERAL MUNICIPAL TOTAL $ 76,096,592
ALBERTA SCHOOL FOUNDATION FUND:
- Public — Residential & Farmland $ 8,250,609 - Public - Non-residential (Including Linear) 8,402,400 - Red Deer Opted-Out Jurisdictions - Residential & Farmland 461,677 - Red Deer Opted-Out Jurisdictions - Non-residential 402,072
WHEREAS, the total assessment of land, buildings and improvements are as follows:
o Farmland $ 163,464,360 a Residential land and improvements 3,405,408,410 0 Commercial and industrial lands and improvements 1,424,515,930 c Machinery and equipment 327,480,740 0 Linear 1,003,052,460
- Grant-in-lieu — Commercial and industrial lands and improvements 46,647,760
- Grant-In-lieu — Farmland 157,930
a Grant-in lieu — Residential 5 695 050 6,376,422,640
WHEREAS, the estimated revenue other than from taxation and grants-in-lieu of taxation is: $ 31,602,068
AND WHEREAS, the rates hereinafter set out are deemed necessary to provide the amounts required for all purposes, after making the allowances for the amounts of taxes which may reasonably be expected to remain unpaid.
NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by the MunicipalGovernment Act, R.S.A. 2000, as amended, the Council of Red Deer County enacts as follows:
(1) THAT assessed property shall be classified as residential, farmland, machinery and equipment and non-residential property and that assessed property could include farm residences.
Bylaw No. 2016/12 – recommendation to give second and third ... Page 9 of 188 Bylaw No. 2016/12, Tax Rate Bylaw Paqe 2
(2) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all non-residential property including commercial, industrial, linear and machinery and equipment as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
General Municipal — Non-Residential Property 9.9465 mills on the dollar
THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all residential property and vacant residential property as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
General Municipal — Residential Property 2.6816 mills on the dollar
(4) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all farmland as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
General Municipal — Farmland Property 7.9460 mills on the dollar
(5) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements subject to taxation for the Alberta School Foundation Fund, as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Residential and Farmland — General 2.4465 mills on the dollar Residential & Farmland - Opted-Out Jurisdictions 2.4465 mills on the dollar Non-residential - General 3.5955 mills on the dollar Non-residential - Opted-Out Jurisdictions 3.5955 mills on the dollar
(6) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy a tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Protective Services Levy 0.5000 mills on the dollar
THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy a tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Community Services Levy 0.4000 mills on the dollar
THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy a tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Environmental Levy 0.1590 mills on the dollar
(9) THAT the County Manager be and he is hereby authorized and required to levy a tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings, and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax roll:
Seniors Housing Levy 0.0193 mills on the dollar
Bylaw No. 2016/12 – recommendation to give second and third ... Page 10 of 188 Bylaw No. 2016/12 Tax Rate Bylaw Paqe 3
(10) THAT the County Manager be and is hereby authorized to levy a well drilling equipment tax upon all equipment used to drill wells for which a license is required under the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, in accordance with the tax rates established in the Well Drilling Equipment Tax Rate Regulation.
(11) THAT the County Manager be and is hereby authorized to levy a minimum property tax on the assessed value of all land, buildings. and improvements as set out in the assessment and tax rollat $25.00.
(12) Bylaw No. 2006/35 is hereby repealed on the date of final passing of this bylaw.
FIRST READING: APRIL 26, 2016 SECOND READING: THIRD READING:
MAYOR Date Signed:
COUNTY MANAGER Date Signed:
Bylaw No. 2016/12 – recommendation to give second and third ... Page 11 of 188 May 10, 2016 – Report 7.1 ADMINISTRATION REPORT
Date: May 10, 2016
Memo To: County Council
From: Planning & Development Services
Subject: Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw 2006/6, Accessory Buildings within the Agricultural District
1.0 PURPOSE
To consider granting first reading to a Bylaw to amend the Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw 2006/6, as follows:
• Removing Section 17.1(b) in its entirety:
“Any use, building, structure or operation that is essential to the primary agricultural use of a 20 acre or greater parcel of land that is assessed for municipal taxation purposes as farm land”.
• Removal of Section 17.1(b) will then require all agricultural accessory buildings exceeding 10m² (110 ft²) in size regardless of the property parcel size to obtain a Development Permit from Red Deer County, the same as is required for residential accessory buildings.
And;
• To set the public hearing date for June 21, 2016.
2.0 SUMMARY
• In order to address public safety concerns, Administration would like to propose that all accessory buildings obtain a Development Permit, as well as other discipline permits that may be required through Safety Codes. • An accessory building exceeding 10m² (110 ft²) but less than 360 ft2 does not require a development permit, but does require a building permit with a fee of $100 being applied. • An accessory building exceeding 360 ft2 requires a development permit with a fee of $100 being applied. If a building permit is required, the fee is set at $0.30 per square foot. • Application for a building permit is optional for construction of an agricultural accessory building. However, even if an application for a building permit is not made, County
P:Council Reports/Land Use Bylaw Text Amendments/2016/Accessory Buildings, Agricultural District (1st Reading)
Accessory Buildings within the Agricultural District – consi... Page 12 of 188 administration will work with the applicant to provide advice in relation to Safety Code requirements that may apply (i.e. setbacks).
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
a) To consider granting first reading for a Bylaw to amend the Red Deer County Land Use Bylaw (2006/6) as noted in Section 1.0 of this report
And;
Set the public hearing date for June 21, 2016.
OR
b) Postpone the amendment pending further information; or
c) Deny, stating reasons.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Administration recommends that Council grant first reading to the proposed bylaw amendment as per Alternatives 3 (a); and
Set the public hearing date for June 21, 2016.
Prepared by: Francoise Joynt Development Officer
Reviewed by: Dave Dittrick Director of Planning & Development Services
Reviewed by: Ric Henderson Assistant County Manager
P:Council Reports/Land Use Bylaw Text Amendments/2016/Accessory Buildings, Agricultural District (1st Reading)
Accessory Buildings within the Agricultural District – consi... Page 13 of 188 BYLAW NO. 2016/--
A BYLAW OF RED DEER COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE LAND USE BYLAW NO. 2006/6 WITH AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES.
Pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by the Municipal Government Act, the Council of Red Deer County hereby enacts that Bylaw No. 2006/6, Land Use Bylaw, as amended, be amended as follows:
Section 17, When a Development Permit is Not Required
1. Section 17.1(b) – delete this section in its entirety.
FIRST READING: SECOND READING: THIRD READING:
______MAYOR Date Signed
______COUNTY MANAGER Date Signed
P:Council Reports/Land Use Bylaw Text Amendments/2016/Accessory Buildings, Agricultural District (1st Reading)
Accessory Buildings within the Agricultural District – consi... Page 14 of 188 May 10, 2016 – Report No. 7.2 ADMINISTRATION REPORT
Date: May 10, 2016
Memo To: County Council
From: Planning & Development Services
Subject: Proposed to Amend the Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (Bylaw 2011/16 as amended)
1.0 PURPOSE
To consider granting first reading to a Bylaw to amend the Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (Bylaw 2011/16 as amended) as follows:
Amend Map 1: Land Use Concept (attached as Schedule 1):
• To include the newly annexed lands within the existing Town boundaries. • To indicate all areas within the Town boundary as Existing Town Development • Removal of the short term annexation area from the legend of the map.
Policy Amendments: • Page 9, Section 5.0 Land Use Concept amend the 7th paragraph with the following: strike out the words or phrases to be removed and replaced with the bolded ones.
“Existing Town Development has been identified for the more central portion of the all lands located within the boundary of the Town of Sylvan Lake. This reflects the existing uses and mixed land use pattern. The IDP defers to the Town’s Municipal Development Plan and the direction it provides for future land uses in this area within the existing Town Development Boundary.” • Page 28, Section 8.4.1 Amend this section with the following: strike out the words or phrases to be removed:
“Areas identified for long-term urban expansion and annexation into the Town shall be those lands falling between the Existing Town Boundary and the Potential Future Town Boundary shown on Map 1. Areas identified as short term annexation will form part of an annexation application. All other areas shall not be annexed into the Town. Following an annexation, Map 1 shall be amended.”
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\IDP Sylvan Lake Amendment\IDP Sylvan Lake Amendment 1st Reading.docx
Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Pla... Page 15 of 188 And
To set a public hearing date for June 21, 2016
2.0 SUMMARY
• On April 6, 2016, Red Deer County received a letter from the Town of Sylvan Lake proposing to amend the Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) in order to reflect the recent annexation on the IDP map and its associated policies. • Policy 9.1.2 of the IDP states that the mandate of the Intermunicipal Committee may include discussion and consideration of any proposed amendment to the IDP among one of them. • County and Town Administrations are of the opinion that the proposed amendments are to reflect IDP consistency with the current reality as a result of the recent annexation.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
a. Grant first reading to a Bylaw to amend the Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (Bylaw 2011/16 as amended) with the amendments as noted in Section 1.0 of this report:
and
To set a public hearing date for June 21, 2016: or
b. Postpone first reading; or c. Deny
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Grant first reading to a Bylaw to amend the Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan as noted in Alternatives 3.0 (a).
Prepared by: Richard C. Moje Planner
Reviewed by: Dave Dittrick Director of Planning & Development Services
Reviewed by: Ric Henderson Assistant County Manager
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\IDP Sylvan Lake Amendment\IDP Sylvan Lake Amendment 1st Reading.docx
Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Pla... Page 16 of 188 BYLAW NO. 2016/--
A BYLAW OF RED DEER COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING BYLAW NO. 2011/16, A BYLAW TO ADOPT THE SYLVAN LAKE / RED DEER COUNTY INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WITH AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES.
PURSUANT to the authority conferred upon it by the Municipal Government Act, the Council of Red Deer County hereby enacts as follows:
That Bylaw No. 2011/16, the Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan, as amended, be amended as follows:
1. Map 1: Land Use Concept - Amend this map to include the newly annexed lands within the existing Town boundaries; to indicate all areas within the Town boundary as Existing Town Development; and remove the Short Term Annexation area from the legend of the map as shown on the attached Schedule ‘A’ to this bylaw.
2. Section 5.0 Land Use Concept - Amend the seventh paragraph on page 9 to read as follows: Existing Town Development has been identified for all lands located within the boundary of the Town of Sylvan Lake. This reflects the existing uses and mixed land use pattern. The IDP defers to the Town’s Municipal Development Plan and the direction it provides for future land uses within the existing Town Development Boundary.
3. Section 8.4 Urban Expansion and Annexation – Amend Section 8.4.1 to read as follows: Areas identified for long-term urban expansion and annexation into the Town shall be those lands falling between the Existing Town Boundary and the Potential Future Town Boundary shown on Map 1. All other areas shall not be annexed into the Town. Following an annexation, Map 1 shall be amended.
FIRST READING: SECOND READING: THIRD READING:
______MAYOR Date Signed:
______COUNTY MANAGER Date Signed:
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\IDP Sylvan Lake Amendment\IDP Sylvan Lake Amendment 1st Reading.docx
Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Pla... Page 17 of 188 SCHEDULE “A”
LAND USE CONCEPT MAP
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\IDP Sylvan Lake Amendment\IDP Sylvan Lake Amendment 1st Reading.docx
Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Pla... Page 18 of 188 May 10, 2016 – Report 8.1 ADMINISTRATION REPORT
Date: May 10, 2016
Memo To: County Council
From: Planning & Development Services
Subject: Lot 2&3, Block 6, Plan RN21 / NE 26-36-2-W5M / Comprehensive Town Center / Division 5 / File No. R-16-001
1.0 PURPOSE
To hold a public hearing for Bylaw No. 2016/2.01 a bylaw to redesignate Lot 2 & 3, Block 6, Plan RN21, within NE 26-36-2-W5M, from Comprehensive Town Center (CTC) to Low Density Residential District (R3).
2.0 SUMMARY
• First Reading to Bylaw 2016/2.01 was granted on April 12, 2016. • The subject lands are located on Johnson Avenue within the Hamlet of Markerville. • The two lots are being sold and the new owner wishes to consolidate the properties so that the shop will be accessory to the dwelling on Lot 1. • Lot 1 is zoned Low Density Residential District (R3) and contains the single family dwelling. • The redesignation of Lot 2 & 3, Block 6, Plan RN21 is required in order for the lot to be consolidated with Lot 1. • The proposed consolidation will meet the requirements of the Land Use Bylaw 2006/6 in terms of lot size and the zoning will be consistent with the other residential properties within the Hamlet of Markerville. • This application was referred to internal and external agencies, as well as adjacent landowners, for comments. To date, no comments or concerns have been received.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
a) Grant second and third readings to Bylaw 2016/2.01 to redesignate Lot 2 & 3, Block 6, Plan RN21 from Comprehensive Town Center (CTC) to Low Density Residential District (R-3);
OR
b) Postpone the application pending further information; or
Bylaw No. 2016/2.01 – a bylaw to redesignate Lot 2&3, Block ... Page 19 of 188 c) Deny.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Administration recommends that Council grant second and third reading to Bylaw 2016/2.01 as per Alternative #3.0 a).
Prepared By: Connie Sloan Development Officer
Reviewed By: Dave Dittrick Director of Planning & Development Services
Reviewed By: Ric Henderson Assistant County Manager
Bylaw No. 2016/2.01 – a bylaw to redesignate Lot 2&3, Block ... Page 20 of 188 SCHEDULE “A” REFERRAL TO ADJACENT LANDOWNERS
Dear Landowner:
RE: Re-Designation from Comprehensive Town Center (CTC) to Low Density Residential (R-3)
As an adjacent landowner, this letter is being sent to inform you that Red Deer County has received an application to rezone Lot 2-3, Block 6, RN21 from Comprehensive Town Center (CTC) to Low Density Residential (R-3) to facilitate the consolidation of the subject parcel with Lot 1, Block 6, RN21, to create one larger residential lot, and is subject to review by the Development Authority. The subject parcels are located within the Hamlet of Markerville which is primarily zoned Low Density Residential.
Red Deer County appreciates your feedback at this time. If you have any comments or concerns regarding this proposal, please submit them in writing by quoting File: R-16-001, prior to March 25, 2016. Your comments will be included with the administration report when this application is considered by Council. Please note: Red Deer County Administration is not able to respond, on an individual basis to feedback received. If we do not receive any response from you by the date indicated above, we will conclude that you have no objections to the proposal.
Should you require further information or clarification on this application, please contact our office between 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Monday to Friday at 403.350.2170.
Sincerely,
______Connie Sloan, Development Officer [email protected]
Bylaw No. 2016/2.01 – a bylaw to redesignate Lot 2&3, Block ... Page 21 of 188 APPLICATION DETAILS:
Purpose of Application:
• To redesignate Lot 2-3, Block 6, Plan RN21 from Comprehensive Town Center (CTC) to Low Density Residential District (R-3) to facilitate the consolidation of the subject parcel with Lot 1, Block 6, Plan RN21 to create one larger residential lot.
Proposed Land Use / Lot Description:
• The subject parcels are located within the Hamlet of Markerville. • The proposed use of the parcels is for residential purposes only. • Lot 1 contains a singled detached dwelling; • Lot 2-3 contains an accessory building/shop.
Surrounding Land Use / Environmental Considerations:
• The majority of the lots within the Hamlet of Markerville are zoned Low Density Residential (R-3) excepting 3 parcels which are zoned Public Services District. • These parcels are heritage sites and support such uses as museums and historical buildings.
Statutory Document Information:
• The Red Deer County Municipal Development Plan 2012/26, 4.2.b. recognizes that Markerville is predominantly a residential community.
• The proposed consolidation and existing buildings on the subject parcels will comply with the requirements of the R-3 District as set out in the County’s Land Use Bylaw 2006/6, Part 14.
Bylaw No. 2016/2.01 – a bylaw to redesignate Lot 2&3, Block ... Page 22 of 188 SCHEDULE “B” LAND LOCATION MAP
Bylaw No. 2016/2.01 – a bylaw to redesignate Lot 2&3, Block ... Page 23 of 188 SCHEDULE “B” LAND LOCATION AERIAL MAPS
Bylaw No. 2016/2.01 – a bylaw to redesignate Lot 2&3, Block ... Page 24 of 188 SCHEDULE “D” TENTATIVE PLAN OF SURVEY
Bylaw No. 2016/2.01 – a bylaw to redesignate Lot 2&3, Block ... Page 25 of 188 May 10, 2016 – Report 8.2 ADMINISTRATION REPORT
Date: May 10, 2016
Memo To: County Council
From: Planning & Development Services
Subject: NE 29-38-28-W4 / 53.88 Hectares (133 Acres) / AG District / Division 6 / ASP-15-002
1.0 PURPOSE To hold a public hearing for Bylaw No. 2015/35 to adopt a Local Area Structure Plan (Poplar Pointe Estates) in order to facilitate the future process of redistricting and subdividing a 53.88 ha (133.06 ac) area of Agricultural District (AG) land located within NE 29-38-28-W4M; and
To consider granting second reading for Bylaw No. 2015/35.
2.0 HISTORY • On March 30, 2005 an Area Structure Plan (ASP) (Harvey Heights) application that would allow for 40-44 lot residential subdivision was received for the entire quarter section of NE 29-38-28-W4. • On August 16, 2005 a revised Harvey Heights ASP that reduced the Plan Area and reduced the proposed number of residential lots from 44 to six lots was approved. • On October 11, 2006 an ASP application (Harvey Heights Extension), was received for the remainder of the quarter section that would allow for an 80 lot residential subdivision. • On February 20, 2007 the Harvey Heights Extension ASP was denied as it was deemed “premature relative to completion of the proposed West Central Major Concept Plan that will address future planning for the area, and prior to subdivision development occurring in the area, access to regional water and sewer services is required.” • On August 30, 2012 an ASP application (Poplar Pointe Estates) – Bylaw No. 2012/32, was received for the remainder of the quarter section. The ASP proposed the development of a 31 lot acreage style residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 0.81 ha (2 acres) to 1.21 ha (3 acres). • On June 25, 2013, Bylaw No. 2012/32 was denied. It was determined that the Plan did not comply with the following Red Deer County Municipal Development Plan (Bylaw 2012/26) policies:
Policy 4.1.1 (d) which states that “the subdivision is designed in a manner intended to reduce the overall footprint on the land, therefore minimizing the use of the land,” and
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\ASP 15-002 Poplar Pointe Estates - 2nd Public Hearing\ASP 15-002, Poplar Pointe Estates ASP 2nd PH May 10, 2016.docx
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 26 of 188 Policy 4.1.1 (f), which states that “the development will not fragment contiguous natural areas or have a negative impact on adjacent Environmentally Significant Areas or Important Water Related Features.”
• In addition, it was also determined that the development did not comply with Section 3.4.3 (2) of the Red Deer County and City of Red Deer Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) which required any new ASP applications within the IDP boundaries to be deferred until detailed policies are adopted unless otherwise agreed to by the County and the City. • On January 26, 2015 The City of Red Deer and Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) was amended to clarify the protocol on how new Area Structure Plans would be processed within IDP boundaries. As a result, a new subsection (Policy 3.4.3 (3)) was added which states that “For any application within the Collaborative Planning Area and Agricultural Open Space Area, the City Manager will determine whether the City supports or objects to the application being considered based on the application’s compliance with the IDP and will advise the County Manager in writing accordingly.” • On October 21, 2015 a second, revised Local Area Structure Plan application was received for the same 53.88 ha area included in the original 2012 application. • On December 22, 2015, Bylaw No. 2015/35 was given first reading • On February 2, 2016, a public hearing was held for Bylaw No. 2015/35. Council denied giving second reading to the Bylaw (Council Motion No. CC-16-025). • On February 16, 2016 Council reconsidered Council Motion No. CC-16-025, on the recommendation and advice of legal counsel (CC-16-042); as a result, a new public hearing was scheduled for May 10, 2016.
3.0 SUMMARY • The proposed Poplar Pointe Estates Local Area Structure Plan encompasses approximately 53.88 ha (133.06 ac) of Agricultural District (AG) land within the remainder of NE 29-38-28-W4M. • The subject land is located approximately 6 km west of the City of Red Deer between Highways 11 and 11A, along Range Road 284 where two accesses are being proposed. • The subject land is within the Collaborative Planning Area of the Red Deer County and the City of Red Deer Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP). • The surrounding land uses are a mix of agricultural and residential uses. Harvey Heights country residential subdivision is adjacent south of the Plan Area, and the Poplar Ridge community is located approximately 800m (0.5 mile) to the east. • Approximately 75% of the site is forested while the remaining 25% is cleared and used for agricultural purposes. The topography of the site is relatively flat with some undulating areas within the eastern portion of the site and a natural drainage course to the south. • The proposed Plan indicates an area equivalent to 36.7% would accommodate 39 residential lots, each with lot sizes ranging from 0.40 ha (1.0 ac) to 0.61 ha (1.5 ac) totaling 19.74 ha (48.78 ac). • A large portion of the subject land, 37.5%, is identified as private green space covering an area of 19.96 Ha (49.32 ac). Policy 5.2.2 of the Plan suggests “an agreement for ownership and for maintenance of those lands shall be determined at the time of subdivision. This will likely be the responsibility of either a Homeowner Association or Condominium Association.”
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\ASP 15-002 Poplar Pointe Estates - 2nd Public Hearing\ASP 15-002, Poplar Pointe Estates ASP 2nd PH May 10, 2016.docx
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 27 of 188 • The rest of the site is comprised of municipal reserve and general infrastructure totaling 14.18 ha (35.04 ac). • The plan proposes a walking trail approximately 5,000 linear metres in length. • All roads including the internal subdivision road and accesses to all residential parcels will be designed and constructed in accordance with Red Deer County Standards. • Stormwater management will be addressed through the use of Low Impact Development design techniques as well as conventional best management practices such as stormwater detention ponds, road side ditches, and enhanced wetlands/overland drainage swales. • The Plan indicates that previous hydrogeological studies (1996, 2004, and 2005) include an aquifer evaluation. The Landowner has a water license issued by Alberta Environment which would allow a maximum of 40,000 m3 to be drawn annually to service the proposed residential uses. • Both the potable water and sewer systems are proposed to be provided by the developer as a communal utility servicing infrastructure system licensed by the Province. • Detailed information of the utility services and other technical studies are to be supplied at the subdivision stage of the development. • Administration is of the opinion that the proposed Plan is generally consistent with the County’s MDP (2012): o The protection of agricultural operations and minimizing the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use is a priority (Section 3) ; and o Non-farm residential development in the County is accommodated in Hamlets, multi-lot residential subdivision, and Recreational Residential Developments… the policies of the MDP support multi-lot residential development in a form that enables the conservation and preservation of environmental features etc.. at appropriate locations meeting the criteria set by the MDP (Section 4). • The proposed Plan is generally consistent where it satisfies two of the location criteria set out in the MDP where multi-lot residential may be located; which may be in proximity to a Regional Wastewater Line (Appendix A), and also within an IDP boundary with the City of Red Deer (Section 4.1.1 (a) i. and iv.) • Further the proposed development Plan concept follows the criteria set out in Section 4 of the MDP for Residential Conservation Subdivision: o The County’s MDP policy section 4.1 on Residential Conservation Subdivision is intended to minimize development footprint and retain large portions of land in a natural state. o That the proposed Poplar Pointe Estates Local Area Structure Plan reduced the amount of land to be used for residential purposes. Individual lots being proposed would range from 1 to 1.5 acres (Section 2 – Site Context) showing sensitivity to the topography and environment. This leaves the rest of the land area (approximately 53.3 % or 70.91 acres) essentially contiguous open space in the form of private open space, municipal reserve, and public utility lot. o This modification of the Land Use Concept complies with 4.1.1 (f) in that the development will not fragment contiguous natural areas or have a negative impact on adjacent Environmentally Significant Areas or Important Water Related Features • The exact location of the Regional Line between the City of Red Deer and Sylvan Lake is undetermined at this point, but the general location is, as shown on Appendix A of the MDP. The proposed communal system would be efficient in terms of connecting to a regional line system since there would only be one connection to be made to service the multi-lot residential development.
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\ASP 15-002 Poplar Pointe Estates - 2nd Public Hearing\ASP 15-002, Poplar Pointe Estates ASP 2nd PH May 10, 2016.docx
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 28 of 188 • Locating a multi-lot residential development where there are existing similar developments conforms to the character of the existing uses. • The proposed form of ownership, owned in common, of the Private Open Space presents a higher likelihood that the natural features of the subject land will be retained. • If approved, Administration recommends that the following amendments be included in the proposed Local Area Structure Plan: o Figure C – Adjacent Development: The “Commercial Recreation District” be coloured differently than the Agricultural District and properly reflect this on the map. o Section 3.3 - The Public Involvement: The first sentence be deleted since community consultation does not ensure adoption and implementation of the proposed ASP. The accurate time frame should indicate as to when the public consultation was initiated including the year. Resident comments challenge this section in particular. o Section 5.1 – Proposed Land Use & Design Guidelines: To add a policy that clearly indicates that the type of ownership being proposed is a residential bareland condominium. o Section 6.2 – Internal Road Network: To add a policy that clearly indicates that the ownership of the internal road network will be handed over to the County upon the issuance of the Final Acceptance Certificate. o Section 6.4 – Potable Water: A policy should indicate clearly that the communal potable water system(s) shall be owned in common/condominium. o Section 6.5 – Sanitary: A policy should indicate clearly that the communal sanitary system(s) shall be owned in common/condominium. o Administration also request that confirmation, per Alberta Historical Resources Act, that the ASP has been reviewed by Alberta Culture.
4.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS • The first public hearing was held on February 2, 2016. Administration reported that forty (40) letters were received to express their opinion about the development where: o Twenty four (24) opposed; o Thirteen (13) support; and o Three (3) neither support nor opposed • The letters of opposition expressed the following concerns: o quantity and quality of drinking water; o increased volume of traffic; o potential contamination of the water supply from the proposed communal sewer system; o the ability of the site to contain stormwater runoff; o the loss of environmental features and habitat for flora and fauna; o loss of agricultural land; o potential increase in crime; o lack of local school resource to accommodate new students; o potential decrease in property value; and o the degradation of rural character of the community.
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\ASP 15-002 Poplar Pointe Estates - 2nd Public Hearing\ASP 15-002, Poplar Pointe Estates ASP 2nd PH May 10, 2016.docx
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 29 of 188 • Letters of those in favour are of the opinion that the plan: o will increase the needed supply of acreage lots in the area; o shows open space for wildlife; o spacing is adequate for privacy; and o will help increase student population to support the local school • Notification was sent to stakeholders regarding today’s second public hearing, May 10, 2016, and were advised to re-register their letters if they have previously submitted one. • All letters that have been received or resubmitted in relation to this proposed Plan, at the time of writing this report, have been included as a separate attachment to this report.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES a) Amend Bylaw No. 2015/35 as noted in Section 3.0 and given second reading to the bylaw as amended; OR
b) Grant second and third reading to Bylaw No. 2015/35 without amendments; c) Refer decision on the application for additional information; or d) Deny
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS • Amend Bylaw No. 2015/35 as recommended by administration in Section 3.0 and given second reading to the bylaw as amended.
Prepared by: Richard Moje Planner
Reviewed by: Dave Dittrick Director of Planning & Development Services
Reviewed by: Ric Henderson Assistant County Manager
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\ASP 15-002 Poplar Pointe Estates - 2nd Public Hearing\ASP 15-002, Poplar Pointe Estates ASP 2nd PH May 10, 2016.docx
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 30 of 188 SCHEDULE “A”
LAND LOCATION MAP
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\ASP 15-002 Poplar Pointe Estates - 2nd Public Hearing\ASP 15-002, Poplar Pointe Estates ASP 2nd PH May 10, 2016.docx
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 31 of 188 SCHEDULE “B”
LAND LOCATION AERIAL MAPS
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\ASP 15-002 Poplar Pointe Estates - 2nd Public Hearing\ASP 15-002, Poplar Pointe Estates ASP 2nd PH May 10, 2016.docx
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 32 of 188 SCHEDULE “C”
TENTATIVE PLANS OF SURVEY
\\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\ASP 15-002 Poplar Pointe Estates - 2nd Public Hearing\ASP 15-002, Poplar Pointe Estates ASP 2nd PH May 10, 2016.docx
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 33 of 188 \\rdc-file\Planning & Development\Council Reports\ASP'S & IDP'S\2016\ASP 15-002 Poplar Pointe Estates - 2nd Public Hearing\ASP 15-002, Poplar Pointe Estates ASP 2nd PH May 10, 2016.docx
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 34 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 35 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 36 of 188 Table of Contents 1. Introduction. 2. Site Contex 2.1 Location 2.2 Site Description and Current Land Use Designation 2.3 Adjacent Lands and Proposed Land Use ...... 3. Policy Context ...... 2 3.1 Legislation .2 32 ASP Compliance. 3.3 Public Invoivemen 4. Development Objectives & Policies..... 4.1 Development Goals and Objectives ...... 5. Development Concept ...... 5.1 Proposed Land Use & Design Guidelines 5.2 Open Space Network. 6. Transportation & Servicing 6.1 Accessibility ...... 6.2 Internal Road Network ...... 6.3 Stormwater Management ...... 6.4 Potable Water ...... 6.5 Sanitary...... 6.6 Shallow Util es 7. Implementation 7.1 Proposed Land Use ...... 7.2 Phasing ...... 7.3 Background Studies ......
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 37 of 188 Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan
1. Introduction
Recognition of the natural landscape and environment as the foundational asset of the development is reflected in the care and attention taken in the design of Poplar Pointe Estates. The vision for this community is to minimize the development footprint of buildings and infrastructure. leaving a sizeable portion of the land to preserve the natural features of the Plan Area. Homes are to relate to the land.step with the natural grades, and harmonize with the character of the surrounding landscape. The policies of this ASP willprovide an implementation framework to realize the vision for this community. one that balances environmental stewardship while allowing for residential development.
2. Site Context
2.1 Location
Poplar Pointe Estates (the Plan Area) is located in Red Deer County. just north of Highway 11 and approximately 6.4 km west of the City of Red Deer. Legally described as NE 29-38-28 W4M, the Plan Area is located directly north of the existing Harvey Heights subdivision, north of Highway 11 with access off Range Road 284. Figure A1 illustrates the location of Plan Area, and Figure A2 illustrates the location within the region.
22 Site Description and Current Land Use Designation
The Plan Area is comprised of153.8ha(_-5133.06ac). and zoned for Agricultural Uses. Roughly 138.21ha (:94 ac) is treed.while the remaining area,115.45ha(138 ac) has been cultivated. The topography of the site is relatively ?at. with undulating land towards the eastern portion of the site, and a natural drainage course to the south. The high point within the site is located on the north central portion of the quarter sloping downward to the southwest corner by approximately 20 in. Site features and contours are illustrated on Figure B.
2.3 Adjacent Lands and Proposed Land Use
Surrounding developments include a mix of agricultural and county residential land uses. Directly adjacent to the site is the community of Harvey Heights. Twelve (12) parcels of 2 to 6 acre lots make up the Harvey Heights community. Just east of the site is the subdivision of Poplar Ridge. comprised of country residential lots. Poplar Ridge is one of the largest rural subdivisions in the County. with a school and community centre. The surrounding land uses are shown on Figure C.
The proposed land use for the Plan Area is zoned Countiy Residential with a lot size of approximately 1 acre to 1.5 acres for all lots within the development. This size of lot willenable the developer to remain sensitive to the existing topography of the land and naturalized state
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 38 of 188 T SUBJECT PARCEL
LOCAL AREA STRUCTUREPLAN FIGURE A1 FOR PART or THE PLAN LOCATION N.E. 1/4 Sec. 29—38—28—4 RED DEER COUNTY NOT TO SCALE
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 39 of 188 POPLAR POINTE ESTATES
LOCAL AREA STRUCTURE PLAN _N_ FIGURE A2 FOR PART OF THE PLAN LOCATION N.E. 1/4 Sec. 29—38—-28-4 ‘ RED DEER COUNTY NOT TO SCALE
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 40 of 188 SE 1/4 SEC. 32-38-28-4
2 Plan 9 2 2.355 Plan 952 2888 -5 4 2 1 5 L c K 7 SE 1/4 SEC. 29—.38—28—W4
LOCAL AREA STRUCTURE PLAN FIGURE B FOR PART OF THE SITE FEATURES N.E. 1/4 Sec. 29—38—28—4 RED DEER COUNTY NOT TO SCALE
NWNW1/41/4SEC.SEC.28-38—28—429-38-28-41
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 41 of 188 POPLAR POINTE ESTATES
IOMVSH/PROAD J54 3
LTHIGHWAY 11
FIGURE C ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT EXISTINGLAND USES: LOCAL AREA STRUCTURE PLAN : Country Residential Z Pubiic Services District FOR PART OF THE I: Commerciai Recrealion District :1 Agricuitumi District N.E. 1/4 Sec. 29—38—28—4 RED DEER COUNTY NOT TO SCALE
RANGE ROAD 25 4
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 42 of 188 through the provision of a significant amount of Open Space. Figure D outlines the concept for future land use.
3. Policycontext 3.1 Legislation
The Poplar Pointe Estates ASP has been prepared pursuant to provincial legislation.
In accordance with provincial requirements, the following has been applied: o Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), the Council of a Municipality may, by bylaw, adopt the Plan as a statutory document; - Section 633 (1) of the MGA (Revised Statutes of Alberta, 2000, Chapter M-26), for the purpose of providing a framework for subsequent subdivision and development of an area of land, a council may, by bylaw, adopt an ASP; and - Section 622 of the MGA, requires consistency with the Land Use Policies established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The community of Poplar Pointe Estates also intends to provide a framework for subdivision and development within the Plan Area, in accordance with provincial and municipal regulations.
32 ASP Compliance
This ASP represents a document that is in compliance with the policies, goals and objectives found within the County's statutory documents. These documents include but are not limited to:
- Municipal Development Plan (MDP) 0 Section 4.1, Residential Conservation, speci?cally 4.1.2 0 Section 5, Environmental Stewardship 0 Section 7, Recreation and Open Space o Section 8, Community infrastructure o Section 9.1 Intermunicipal Development plans - Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) 0 Section 2.2. (1), 0 Section 3.2.1 (1), and 0 Section 3.4.3 (1)(a) - Land Use (LU) Bylaw 0 Country Residential (R-1) o Public UtilityDistrict (PU)
3.3 Public involvement
To ensure the adoption and implementation of this ASP community consultation was undertaken. The initialstages of the project involved liaisons with the Harvey Heights residents. Additionally, two community meetings were held regarding the ASP to inform the public of the development. Both the residents and the public were able to express their concerns, provide feedback as well as put forth their ideas for the development.
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 43 of 188 FIGURE D LANDUSE CONCEPT STA S‘ Site Boundary 3.55 HA. Ac.) Country Residenli . 19.74 HA. é1:a3.o548.78 Ac.) Open Space (Municipal Reserve LOCAL AREA STRUCTUREPLAN 3. Private Green Spac . 25.35 HA. (62.66 AC.) _N_ Public Utility Lot 3.35 HA. (5.23 Ac.) FOR PART or THE Roads . 5.40 HA. (13.34 Ac.) Storm We r M g D Naiuralized Wetlands N.E. 1/4 Sec. 29-38-28-4 1 RED DEERCOUNTY NOT TO SCALE NOTE‘ This plan is conceptual and may subject to change.
Allowance
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 44 of 188 4. Development Objectives & Policies
4.1 Development Goals and Objectives
The Poplar Pointe Estates ASP serves to outline comprehensive planning and development of the lands by creating a residential development focused on conservation design. The goals and objectives of Poplar Pointe Estates is a community that will:
o Take advantage of the natural features and topography of the Plan Area, and enhance the unique opportunities that the site has to offer; - Respect local resident interests. the adjacent countiy residential and agricultural uses; - Create a pedestrian friendly community through the design of a local road system and open space network that incorporates multi«use pathways and trails; o Incorporate innovative sustainable initiatives and standards to promote water conservation and energy efficiency; and - Integrate existing natural stormwater drainage patterns into the site design and ensure the implementation of comprehensive stormwater management plan.
5. Development Concept
Inorder to achieve the goals and objectives of this ASP, the development concept focuses on the integration of those goals and objectives into the following five design elements:
Smart Growth: The majority of the quarter section is treed and in a more natural state than other areas of the County. This provides a great opportunity to align the principles of smart growth with conservation design.
Active Living: The concept includes open spaces and trail systems to promote active and healthy living. Along the west boundary of the site. these trails o?er panoramic views of the land and mountains.
Good Transportation Network: The development will utilize an existing and well maintained road network that provides ef?cient and safe access to and from the site. Permanent regional access to the site is from Highway 11A (paved) to Range Road 284 (paved); and temporary regional access to the site is from Highway 11 (paved) and Range Road 284
5.1 Proposed Land Use & Design Guidelines
The total Plan Area is 153.8ha(113306 ac), of which Country Residential, the Open Space Network and Road Network are comprised of. Figure D illustrates the proposed land use concept for the site, and the table below outlines the statistics for the Plan Area. PROPOSED LAND USE HECTARES (HA) ACRES (AC) PERCENTAGE (%) Country Residential 19.74 48.78 36.7 Open Space (Municipal Reserve, 28.71 70.91 53.3 Public Utility, Private Open Space)
Road Network 5.40 13.34 10.0 TOTAL 53.85 133.06 100%
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 45 of 188 Policy 5.1.1 The subdivision layout shown on Figure D is conceptual and is subject to change at the subdivision stages of development.
Upon approval of the Poplar Pointe Estates ASP, detailed design guidelines and regulations will be developed in conjunction with the subdivision application.
5.2 Open Space Network
The Plan Area willaccommodate a naturalized, functional, and attractive open space network that willprovide a system of trails as illustrated in Figure E. Multi-use trails are designed to accommodate a variety of passive recreational activities. There is approximately 5,000 linear meters of multi-use trails in the proposed development.
Local trails may be constructed within Open Space areas andlor contained within right-of-ways on individual residential lots. The planned integration of the stormwater system with the open space network willallow stormwater ponds to become water features and walking destinations within the community.
Policy 5.2.1 At the discretion of the County, Municipal Resen/e land shall be provided at the time of subdivision in accordance with Section 664 of the Alberta Municipal Government Act.
Policy 5.2.2 Private Open Space shall be located throughout the site to facilitate connectivity of multi-use trails for the residents as determined at the time of subdivision. An agreement for ownership and for the maintenance of those lands shall be determined at time of subdivision. This willlikely be the responsibility of either a Homeowner/lssociation or Condominium Association.
Policy 5.2.3 Public UtilityLots shall be located to include the stormwater retention ponds as determined at the time of subdivision.
Policy 5.2.4 Multi-use trails within the Open Space Area. Lots shall be constructed by the Developer.
Policy 5.2.5 Trails shall be constructed to require a low level of maintenance by taking advantage of natural features and materials.
6. Transportation & Servicing
6.1 Accessibility
Access to the site is via local roadways and provincial highways. Provincial Highways 11 and 11A run east-west located approximately 2.0km to 3.0km south and north sides of the development boundaries, respectively. Range Road 284 on the east side of the site is the local access road running in a north-south direction connecting with Highway 11A to the north.
Current intersection access exists off Highway 11 to the south and Range Road 284; however, this access is considered temporary and willbe eliminated due to access management requirements. Accordingly, Alberta Transportation willconvert Highway 11 to a freeway
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 46 of 188 FIGURE E OPEN SPACE NETWORK L_E§_END: ---- Pathway Network 1 Open Space (Municipal Reserve 8: Private Green Spaces) LOCAL AREA STRUCTUREPLAN Public Utility 0 Storm water Management Ponds FOR OF THE PART Q Noturalized weuands N.E. 1/4 Sec. 29-38-28-4- WeNQTE: RED DEER COUNTY ms phan is conceptum and may subject to change. NOT TO SCALE
Allowance
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 47 of 188 standard and access to Highway 11 willtherefore be via an existing local road system to either an at-grade intersection or possible luture interchange.
Changes to the regional road network and the addition traffic associated with the subdivision will trigger road upgrades, as per initialconversation with Alberta Transportation. More detailed discussion with Alberta Transportation (AT) prior to subdivision approval is required to determine all necessary improvements. Servicing studies and a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA)will be provided at the time of subdivision when AT has determined the necessary road improvement upgrades.
6.2 internal Road Network
The points of entry into the site are situated to take advantage of the site's natural high point with unobstructed views to the north and south along Range Road 284. Two points of entry also provides an additional emergency access. Alllots willgain access from the internal road network. Figure F delineates the internal road system.
Policy 6.2.1 The internal subdivision road shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the County engineers at the sole cost of the developer.
Policy 6.2.2 In accordance with the stormwater management plan and County policy, the internal road design shall address stormwater management.
Pa/icy 6.2.3 The internal road pattern shown on the Figure F is conceptual and is subject to change if necessary at the subdivision stages of development.
6.3 Stormwater Management
Stormwater management for Poplar Pointe Estates will be designed as a hybrid system comprising Low Impact Development (LID)strategies and conventional stormwater management best management practices. Stormwater management strategies willinclude the construction of detention ponds located throughout the site and potentially the use of roadside ditches and enhanced wetlands/overland drainage swales. These strategies willensure the quantity and quality of surface run-off.
Policy 6.3. 1 Alterations to the existing pre-development stormwater drainage patterns within the Plan Area shall proceed in accordance with an approved stormwater management plan that comprises best management practices
Policy 6.3.2 A stormwater management plan shall be prepared for the Poplar Pointe Estates prior to subdivision approval.
Policy 6.3.3 Stormwater retention ponds are to be contained withinPublic Utilitylots.
Policy 6.3.4 The location of storrnwater retention ponds and overland drainage paths willbe determined at the time of subdivision, and in accordance to an approved stormwater management plan.
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 48 of 188 FIGURE F ROAD NETWORK
LOCAL AREA STRUCTUREPLAN ' 2 Road Network = 5.40 HA. (13.3 AC.) FOR PART OF THE I QTE‘ 1 ms pm is conceptual and may N.E. 1/4 Sec. 29-38-28-4 subject to change. RED DEER COUNTY NOT TO SCALE
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 49 of 188 Low Impact Development
LIDstrategies are considered to be an effective and environmentally sustainable means to control post-development peak flow rates and runoff volumes as it manages precipitationwhere itfalls by promoting infiltrationsubsequently reducing or eliminating dependence upon a stormwater conveyance system. In order for LlD strategies to successfully manage stormwater flow and volume control, development within the Plan Area will:
Policy 6.3.5 Minimize the existing landform in the subdivision and development concept and minimize extensive stripping and grading.
Policy 6.3.6 Conserve and protect existing natural depressions in the landscape and utilize these natural depressions in the overall design of the stormwater management system.
Policy 6.3.7Wherever possible, maintain the existing vegetation cover.
Policy 6.3.8 Promote the use of LID within the construction envelops, such as the use of permeable surfaces to increase in?ltration and rain barrels or cisterns to retain and recycle stormwater.
6.4 Potable Water
Hydro geological Studies were completed for the site in the past, including an aquifer evaluation (1996, 2004, and 2005). Alberta Environment has issued a water license to the property owner which will allow for 40,000 cubic metre of water annually to be allocated for the development. It was determined that the aquifer can support 96 lots, while 39 lots are proposed for Poplar Pointe Estates.
Policy 6.4.1 The development shall be serviced by a communal water systems. These systems may require licensing and approvals issued by Alberta Environment's under the Water Act and possibly, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.
Policy 6.4.2 The site should be serviced by a connection to a licensed piped-water service provider when available.
Policy 6.4.3 All groundwater sources shall be drilled, pumped, tested, licensed, and approved in accordance withprovincialrequirements.
Policy 6.4.4 The developer, by way of a caveat, development agreement or condition on title, should implement water conservation practices that reduce the amount of potable water needed to support the community. Such water conservation measures should include:
a. Mandatonlwater meters b. Installation of low-flowwater ?xtures (taps, toilets, showers)
6.5 Sanitary
Sanitary services is proposed to be provided by communal utilityservicing infrastructure systems licensed by the Province of Alberta and constructed in accordance with all Provincial
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 50 of 188 and Municipal requirements and standards. Effluent generated by the development willbe collected and treated via a sanitary system.
Policy 6.5.1 Sanitary sewage service shall be provided by a sewage system that provides wastewater treatment to Provincial Standards and Regulations
Policy 6.5.2The sanitanlsystem used withinthe site shall be determined prior to subdivision approval.
Policy 6.5.3 The sanitary system proposed for installation within the site shall meet engineering standards and speci?cations established by the Province.
6.6 Shallow Utilities Shallow utility service includes natural gas. telephone, cable, and electricity. Shallow utilities must be extended from the existing Harvey Heights development at the sole cost of the developer when subdivision occurs. These services willcontinue to be provided by the current service companies: gas service shall be supplied by ATCO Gas and electricity willbe supplied by Fortis Alberta, or other agreed upon companies.
Policy 6.6.1 Provision of shallow utilitiesin applications for Poplar Pointe Estates shall be at the expense of the developer.
7. Implementation
This ASP is intended to serve as a policy guide in order to assess more detailed land use bylaw amendments and subdivisions. In effect, subdivision applications should be developed in conformity with this Plan, and be consistent with policy contained within the ASP. The Poplar Pointe Estates ASP does not supersede, repeal, replace or otherwise diminish any other statutory plan in effect within the Plan Area.
7.1 Proposed Land Use
In keeping with the existing land uses and integrity of the adjacent development, the proposed use for Poplar Pointe Estates is Country Residential. Public Utilityand Municipal Reserve are also proposed uses for the development. Figure D Land Use Concept illustrates the proposed uses for the site. Table 1 outlines the statistics for the proposed site.
7.2 Phasing
Development of the Plan Area willtake place in two Phases. Phase I is anticipated to be approximately 17 lots, and Phase IIwillentail the remaining lots. Figure G illustrates the Phasing Plan. Timing of the plan is dependent on the approval of this ASP and subsequently subdivision approval.
7.3 Background Studies
A range of background studies/reports willbe required to be completed and/or updated at the subdivision stage. All required reports willbe determined by County administration and completed by the developer.
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 51 of 188 FIGURE G PHASING PLAN
LOCAL AREA STRUCTUREPLAN J LEN - — — Phasin sun dor y FOR PART OF THE Coun 7 es! ‘denunn 2 Open Space (mmrczpauReserve N.E. 1/4 Sec. 29-38-28-4 54 Private Green Space) T- Public uumy memo: RED DEERCOUNTY NOT TO SCALE
Allowance
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 52 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 53 of 188 Table 1. Land Use Calculation
Area % of (ha) GDA Gross Area 53.85 Less Environmental Reserve 0.0 Gross Developable Area (GDA) 53.85 100
Residential Uses 19.74 36.5
Municipal Reserve 5.40 10.0
Private Green Space 19.96 37.5
Infrastructure 8.75 16 Internal Subdivision Roadway 5.40 100 Public Utility (Stormwater & Naturalized Wetland) 3.35 6
Table 2. Population and Residential Land Use Calculation.
Area Density Dwelling Persons Units per du (ha) (dulha) (du) (avg) Population Single Detached 19.74 0.72 39 2.6 102
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 54 of 188 Red Deer County - Bylaw No. 2015/35
Poplar Pointe Estates ASP - 2nd Public Hearing
NE 29-038-28 W4M - Hydrogeology
Prepared for 734175 Alberta Ltd,
Prepared by hydrogeological consultants ltd. (HCL) M3)’2015 1.300.661.7972
HCL Project N04:16-0189.01
Date
The Assoc of Professional Engineers and Geoscientisls o1A|berla(APEGA)
©2016 hydmgeological oonsultarls ltd.
groundwater consulting fears— HC
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 55 of 188 734175 Alberta Lid., Red Deer County - Bylaw No. 2015/35 Po ar P inle Estate A P - 2nd Pub in H -D38-28 4 - dro eola 16-0189. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction" 1.1. Project Description 1.2. Purpose ...... 1.3. Scope ......
2. Background.. 2.1. Mr. Clissold. 2.2. General Hydrogeology ...... 2.3. Previous Work....
3. Results 3.1. Aquiier Extents and Variability ...... 3.2. Waterwell Construction 3.3. Water Well Maintenanc 3.4. Area Water Leveis.....
4. Interpretation.
5. Conclusions
6. Signature Page..."
7. Bibliography
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A — Water Act and Regulation Summary
Appendix B —- PowerPoint Presentation
groundwater tonsnlring égyears— HCL environmenulscienzes
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 56 of 188 734175 Alberta Ltd , Red Deer County - Bylaw No. 2015/35 Page 1
- P r P in E A ublic Hearin NE Z9-038-28 W4M - H dro old I » l89.
1. Introduction
1.1. Project Description
The area structure plan (ASP), tor the proposed development in NE 29-O38-28 W4M, is being reviewed by Red Deer County. The main concern relates to groundwater availability in the general area. and concerns raised over
lack of groundwater for some water wells. The ASP is 9 kilometres east of Sylvan Lake (index Map, Page 8 — 3 in Appendix B).
1.2. Purpose
Roger Clissold of Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. (HCL) was retained to review the local hydrogeology and to provide background for the Public Hearing to be held on May 10, 2016. The main locus oi the presentation is to discuss reasons for variations in water well yields in the general vicinity oithe proposed development.
1.3. Scope
Mr. Clissold will review hydrogeological data in the area of study (AOS). WhlChis a 5-section by 5-section area centred on 29-O38-28 W4M, and will prepare a PowerPoint presentation with supporting text; a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is in Appendix B.
2. Background
2.1. Mr. Clissold
Mr. Clissold is a member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) and the Principal Hydrogeologist with HCL. Mr. Clissold has been involved with hydrogeology in Alberta since 1961 and has been with HCL since the company's inception in 1969. HCL has completed several 10s of hydrogeological studies in the Red Deer area over the last 45 years, including the Regional Groundwater Assessment for Red Deer County in 2005.
2.2. General Hydrogeology
The main aquifers in the area of interest are sandstone and fractured shale deposits in the upper bedrock; the upper bedrock is the Dalehurst Member of the Paskapoo Formation. The Paskapoo Formation is a continental deposit and the sandstone units that are part of the Formation were deposited in ?uvial channels. Because the deposits are in ?uvial channels, individual sandstone layers do not generally have large a lateral areal extent.
2.3. Previous Work
There have been at least four regional studies that include the area of interest: (1) Edmonton—Calgary Corridor. Groundwater Atlas (Alberta Government, 2011); (2) Regional Groundwater Assessment (HCL, May 2005): (3) Hydrogeology of Red Deer and Vicinity (Gabert, 1975); (4) Hydrogeology of the Red Deer Area (LeBreton, 1971). In addition. there have been at least seven completed studies related to proposed developments in the ADS. A list of the more relevant studies is in the Bibliography section of this report.
I groundwater Kollsul?iig fgyears* HC envlronmeiitalsrierices
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 57 of 188 734175 Alberta Ltd.. Red Deer County - Bylaw No. 2015/35 Page 2
Poplar Pointe Es ales ASP — 2nd P 9 lg Hearing NE mag;-2g WAM . H 1§Ql89 01
3. Results
3.1. Aquifer Extents and Variability
There are 581 water wells in the AOS, 177 of which are within 1,600 metres of the licensed water wells in NE 29- 038-28 W4M. Sufficient data are available from 248 water wells to determine an apparent long-term yield of
individualwater wells. Of these 248 values. 221 were used to prepare the map on Page B — 5. The map shows three relative yield areas. The yellow coloured areas on the map are the areas where there are limited quantities ofgroundwater available; in these areas, the apparent yields are less than 20 cubic metres per day (m3/day). The green coloured areas on the map are the areas where moderate amounts of groundwater are available:in these areas. the apparent yields are between 20 and 150 m‘/day. The third and final area is coloured blue; in these areas, apparent yields are greater than 150 m“/day. The symbols on the map are the 221 control points used to create the map; the colour and the shape of each symbol is based on the apparent-yield value for that control point.
3.2. Water Well Construction
The water wells in the A03 have been drilledover the last 100‘ years. Over those years. the qualifications and the capabilities of the water well drillers and their equipment have changed signi?cantly. A properly completed water well is one that has surface casing to the top of the main aquifer and has a completion intervalthrough the
aquifer, as shown in the ?gure on Page B - 6. However, not all water wells are completed properly. One type of water well completion that has been used in the area is one in which the surface casing extends to the bottom of
the water well, as shown as Water Well A on the figure on Page B — 7. This type of completion is very inefficient, since groundwater is only able to enter the water well through a very small area at the bottom of the casing. A
second type is illustrated on the figure on Page B — 7 as Water Well B. In this type of completion, the completion interval is not through the aquifer. This type of completion is also very Inef?cient and can severely restrict the entrance of groundwater into the water well.
3.3. Water Well Maintenance
The AlbertaAgriculture publication “Water Wells That Last For Generations” indicates that water wells should be “Shock Chlorinated" once or twice per year (Module 6 [Alberta Agriculture and Forestry]). Shock chlorination is used to control the most common bacteria in water wells. These are iron-related bacteria (IRB) and sulfate- reducing bacteria (SRB). Although not a cause of health problems in humans. these nuisance bacteria may coat the insideof the water well casing, water piping and pumping equipment, creating problems such as - Reduced water well yield 0 Restricted water flow In distribution lines - Staining of plumbing ?xtures and laundry - Plugging of water treatment equipment - "Rotten egg” odour. - Increased corrosion of the metal parts of the well and distribution system”
The reduced yields are a result of chemical and microbiological accumulation in the open areas of slots or
screens, as shown on the figure on Page B — 8 in Appendix B.
3.4. Area Water Levels
There are no data available from observation water wells in the A08. However, water levels measured in the two licensed water wells on the NE 29-038-28 W4M are slightly higher today than they were 10 years ago.
groundwater consulting lgyears7 HCL envirnnmental
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 58 of 188 734175 Athena Ltd., Red Deer County - BylawNo 2015/35 Page 3
: AP-2n P l H nn N — W4M-H -189.01
4. Interpretation
There are records for 177 water wells within 1,600 metres of the two licensed water wells on the proposed development in NE 29-03828 W4M. Of these 177 water wells.only six are recorded as having been drilled and completed after the testing of the licensed water wells on the NE 29-038-28 W4M. Between October 2006 when the licensed water wells were tested, and April 2016, the water levels in the licensed water wells have remained essentially unchanged. This means that the groundwater being used by at least 171 water wells for 10 years has not affected water levels in the aquifer in which the two licensed water wells are completed. Therefore, it is unlikely that a water supply for the equivalent of 39 water wells will negatively impact the existing water wells.
The present apparent water well yield data clearly indicate that the hydraulic characteristics of the aquiter vary throughout the A08.
The water wells in the AOS have been drilled over the last 100‘years and methods for drilling and completing water wells have changed signi?cantly over that time; additionally, many different water well drilling contractors have been involved. Therefore, it can be expected that some water wells may not have been properly completed.
Not all water wells need shock chlorination. However, some water wells do need maintenance to prevent water well yields from decreasing with time. For these water wells, the observation that there is insufficient groundwater available from the water well is usually very sudden, even though the decreased yield has occurred over time. In these cases, the water well owner will often look for recent nearby changes as the cause of the water well problem. when in fact the situation has been developing over a long time.
5. Conclusions
The aquifer testing of the licensed water wells in the NE 29-D38-28 W4M indicated that diverting the licensed volume of groundwater will not negatively impact area water wells. Since there have only been six new water wells drilledand completed since the licensed water wells were tested. and because there has been no decline in the water level in the aquifer, there is every reason to believe there is suf?cient groundwater available for the existing water well users and for the proposed development.
Local issues with existing water wells in the general area of the proposed development are most likely a function of variability within the aquifer. the completion of water wells and/or the maintenance of water wells. The present data clearly indicate that there is sufficient groundwater for the proposed development and the existing groundwater users in the area around the proposed NE 29-038-28 W4M development.
6. Signature Page
Assisted by:
%% it
David Maclntyre, B,Tech., C.E.T. Principal Hydrogeologist Senior Environmental Technologist
groundwater zniisiilting lgyears* HC envlrnnmeiitalscieiites
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 59 of 188 734175 Alberta Lld., Red Deer County - Bylaw No. 2015/35 Page 4
in e Estates A P - 2nd Pubic H n — 8— W ~ H dro eolo 15-0189.01
7. Bibliography
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. Water Wells That Last for Generations, Publication available on the web at the lollowing URL: http:/lwwwt agrxcguy abgl?departmentldeptdocs.nsf/allAywgAQ4
Alberta Government. 2011. Edmonton-Calgary Corridor, Groundwater Atlas. ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta.
C|lS50ld, R. J. 1968. The Groundwater Regime Near Red Deer, Alberta (Determined from Mapping Naturally Occurring Surficial Phenomena). [AGS Open File Report 1968-05] [L046165]
Gabert, G. M. 1975. Hydrogeology of Red Deer and Vicinity, Alberta. Red Deer Area. [QE 186 R415 no. 031] [L049893]
Hardy Associates (1978) Ltd. August 1979. Report on Drilling and Testing of a New Groundwater Well at Poplar Ridge Estates. Red Deer, Alberta. Appendix A. Red Deer Area. 33-038-28 W4M. [
Hardy BET Limited, December 1989. Pump Test Analysis. SW 36-038-01 WSM. 36-038-01 WSM. [L013428]
Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. March 1996. Ray Stewart, Poplar Ridge, NE 28-038-28 W4M. 96-112
StewSubd. Poplar Ridge. (unpublished contract report — March 1996) [83AD5 .R4D4 1996/03] [96-0112.00]
Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. April 1996. Don Plunkett. Proposed Subdivision. Poplar Ridge - County of Red Deer. NE 28-038-28 W4M. (unpublished contract report —April1996) [96-0120.00]
Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. June 1996. Ross Harvey. Proposed Country Residential Development. Red
Deer. SE 29~038-28 W4M. (unpublished contract report — June 1996) [96-0160.00]
Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. October 2000. Peter & Marion Giesbrecht. Red Deer Area. NE 2«O39-28 W4M.
(unpublished contract report — October 2000) [83A05 .R4D4 2000/10] [00-0170.00]
Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. May 2005. Red Deer County, Part of the Red Deer River Basin. Tp 034 to 039, R 21 to 28, W4M and Tp 034 to 039, R 01 to 04, W5M. Regional Groundwater Assessment. 83A [03-0186].
Le Breton, E. Gordon. 1971. Hydrogeology of the Red Deer Area, Alberta. Red Deer Area. [QE 156 P7 no. 71- 01] [L007659]
Province of Alberta. Water Act. Water (Ministerial) Regulation. Alberta Regulation 205/1998 (with amendments up to and including Alberta Regulation 185/2015). ©A|berta Queen's Printer.
Province of Alberta. Water Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, Chapter W-3. Current as of December 17. 2014. Of?ce Consolidation. ©Alber1a Queen's Printer.
Province of Alberta. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Potable Water Regulation. Alberta Regulation 277/2013 (with amendments up to and including Alberta Regulation 63/2015). ©A|ber1a Queen's Printer.
Tokarsky, 0. September 1994. Water Supply for 2 Proposed Lots at High Ridge Properties. Red Deer Area. NE- 28-03828 W4M. [83A05 .R4D4 1994/O9] (L078799]
/ d l ' fgyears—- HCL §L“£?..”.$§iL?°3ZZ£I§
Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 60 of 188 Appendix A — Water Act and Regulation Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excerpts from the Water Act 1.1. Section 23(3) ......
2. Excerpts from the Water (Ministerial) Regulation 2.1. Part 7.... 2.1.1. Water Wells.
3. Excerpts lrorn the Alberta Government Guide to Groundwater Authorization"... 3.1. Parameters for Groundwater Quality Analysis...... 32. Recommended Minimum Length of Aquifer Test for Maximum Water Diversion
groundwater consulting yd'n * igyearsHCL ...n-...... n.im...m M Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 61 of 188 734175 Alberta Ltd,, Red Deercounty - Bylaw No. 2015/55 Page A - 2 - d P ar' NE 290332 WAM . up eol 16-01 1. Excerpts from the Water Act Water for household purposes is de?ned in Section 1(1)(x) of the Water Act as “the use of a maximum oi 1250 cubic metres of water per year per household for the purposes of human consumption. sanitation, fire prevention and watering animals. gardens. lawns and trees;" 1.1. Section 23(3) “(3) ll.on or alter January 1. 1999, a subdivision of land of a type or class of subdivision specified in the regulations is approved under the Municipal Government Act, a person residing within that subdivision on a parcel of land that adjoins or is above a source of water described in section 21 has the right to commence and continue the diversion of water under section 21 only if (a) a report certified by a professional engineer or professional geoscientist, as defined in the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act, was submitted to the subdivision authority as part of the application for the subdivision under the Municipal Government Act, and the report states that the diversion of 1250 cubic metres of water per year for household purposes under section 21 for each of the households within the subdivision will not interfere with any household users. licensees or traditional agriculture users who exist when the subdivision is approved, and (b) the diversion of water for each of the households within the subdivision under section 21 is not inconsistent with an applicable approved water management plan." A licence is required per Section 49(1) of the Water Act “Subject to subsection (2). no person shall (a) commence or continue a diversion oi water for any purpose" “except pursuant to a licence unless it is otherwise authorized by this Act.” IiI/ .. rt mntAt .l grniiridwater consulting igyears— HC erivtranmentzlsdences Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 62 of 188 734175 Alberta l.ld., Red Deer County - Bylaw ND.2015/35 Page A - 3 ointe Estat s AS - 2 d arin -D3828 W4M - H r 2. Excerpts from the Water (Ministerial) Regulation 2.1. Part7 2.1.1. Water Wells 2.1.1.1. Water well sire specifications “44(1) The drillerand the owner of a water well must locate the water well site so that (a) the water well is accessible tor cleaning, treatment. repair, testing, maintenance and inspection, (b) the area immediately surrounding the water well may be kept in a sanitary condition, (0) surtace water does not collect or lorm a pond in the vicinity ofthe water well, and (d) the water wellis at least 3.25 metres away lrom the nearest building. (2) No person shall locate a water well in a pit." 2.1.1 .2. Distance Irom sources of contamination “46(1) No person shall locate or drilla water well for the diversion ol groundwater, other than saline groundwater, closer to a thing described in Column 1 of Table 1 than the distance specified in Column 2 of Table 1. (2) If the diversion 01water from a water well is licensed for municipal purposes. no person shall locate or drill the water well closer than 100 metres from anything listed in Column 1 of Table 1." Table 1 Column 1- Minimum Column 1 - Source of Substance Distance Required Watertight septic tank or sewage holding tank 10 metres Subasurface weeping tile effluent disposal field of an . 15 metres evaporation mound Sewage effluent discharge to the ground surface 50 metres Sewage lagoon 100 metres . . Above ground storage tanks containing petroleum 50 mares substances d l ' fgyears—— HCL EL$.".."..‘§§L?°."§Z.'lC';‘ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 63 of 188 734175 Alberta Ltd., Red Deer County - Bylaw No. 2015/35 Page A - 4 EQDJNPointe Estates ASP - 2nd Public Hearing NE29~O38-28W4M - H drwedl 2.1 .1 .3. Construction Requirements “47(a) the water wellmust be constructed so that surface water or substances can not enter any aquiten" (c) “the water well must be constructed so that the casing extends (i) not less than 20 centimetres above the pumphouse floor or the established ground surtace, and (ii) at least 60 centimetres above the highest flood record in the area, it the water well is not to be equipped with a watertight cap;" (g) “in the case of a diversion ol groundwater trom a water well that must be licensed.the water well must be (i) constructed in a manner that does not result in multiple aquifer completions. (ii) constructed with an open hole with a slotted or screened section that does not exceed 7.62 metres if distinct water-producing units are not present, and (iii) sealed the full length oi the annulus from the ground surface to the top of the aquifer using suitable cement, grout. concrete, bentonite or equivalent commercial slurry, or using clay slurry, impervious water well cuttings or impervious overburden materials;" 2.1.1.4. Schedule 3 Camps do not require a licence under the following condition. “(1)(a) a diversion of water ol up to 1250 cubic metres per camp per year for the purposes ol human consumption, sanitation, fire prevention and other uses related to the camp;" htt ww bert a/documentsFt s/1998 205 of groundwatercollsulting %’Years T erwlrnnmentalstlenrex Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 64 of 188 734175 Alberta L Red Deer County BylawNo. 2015/35 Page A - 5 Po an’ 1 - a’n NE2 - - daeoi I6- 3. Excerpts from the Alberta Government Guide to Groundwater Authorization 3.1. Parameters ior Groundwater Quality Analysis "W usr OF PARAMETERS rori anounnwnsn 0UAI.l'I'V ANALVSIS l- aGa’p"'W-"if — ~ __ : . D; . Bi:atDanie?4CU) suumaisoj Cabonaie(CO}G1bride ToxaiD'ssc~edsoI 3.2. Recommended MinimumLength of Aquifer Test for MaximumWater Diversion APPENDIX4: Minimum Recommended Length of Aquifer Test and GOVGIHMOM Information Required for the MaximumWater Diversion/Drainage °' “"""’ ' Dally Pumping nan Number Maximum Yearly mumat Pumplnn and Dbsawznom information at Day: Water ?equlurnanl Recovery Period at Anlicyaied Munltartng Ruqulred under Maximum Pumnlmz?ll! Sit! suction 1 unio 10 m‘/day 365 3650 Nr‘ 2 0 2 hows‘ 0 2 I (2200099) (BOC|,000|gi (or|orIgst)anda|isast90%reoavsly 223 (L5 Ignml 2.2.0 (N to (M) 2 2.10 > ii} In 35 m‘/day appicani to aopiicant io emu 24 o 24 hams in Aliel soclm 2 i220ozo17o0I9odJ eniev i0rio0Q€(iBMalieast90%reow€'Y (I 5 to!) 3 lgom) > 35 in as m-may applmni lo aopiiczii in mm 24 a 24 Ims 1 Alioisecim 2 mooIo 14.300 low) we (or imam am .1! um:sues.remvery (5.3 It?10.0 190"“ > 65 |c 265 rv?day awicani I0 anoiomlto mini 43 o 45 hours i-2 Ni oi secim 2 i4.3oc1osa.5oa enter [or longer) am at least Km) 90% recover)! (in u to -to 0 gm; ) 285 m’/MY Eminent(0 OwicaliI0 miet 72 v 72 hours I-2 M at Section 2 enter iorlongertandaileasi 31% vs(wVUY ‘Insomecases. mom worrnauonor some:aquie: tests may berequirad. LEGEND: n = nlliolu m>:cubic m?m = 220 Imrwiai?llions lgpd = Imporlul glliom Do!any ) = greater than Inpm = imporial gallons por minute hit environment. ov.ab.c info/Iibrar 8361. df groundwater mnsumng iygyears7 HCL environmental Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 65 of 188 Appendix B — PowerPoint Presentation Contents 1. Title Slide 2. Index Map 3. Variable Water Well Yields...... 4. Aquifer Characteristics (Exlents and Variabiliiy).... 5. Water Well Construction - Properly Completed Water Well 6. Water Well Construction —|nef1icientWaler Well Completions 7. Wale! Well Maintenance.... 8. Questions d ltl ydmgeclug tel — flgyears 3L‘l'.'3L."..?§§L‘1"."2'l..2f urslkan: HCL im Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 66 of 188 734175 Albarm Ltd ed Deer Counly - B law No 2015/35 Page E - 2 1. Title Slide Water Wells and Varying Yields Red Deer County Bylaw 1015/35 » 2 '1 Public Meeting Poplar Poinle Es(a(e5ASP - NE 29-O38-28 W4M May 10. ZOI6 Prepared by Rager Clissuld.Principal I-Iydragecloglst HydrogeologicalConsultants Ltd. groundwatettonsulting ,1, eobglcal lg)/ears— HC enviranmennlsdencas :.;‘i,,.m Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 67 of 188 734175 Alberta Ltd Red Deer Counly - BylawNo 2015/35 Page E - 3 2 n A 2 I 2. Index Map Index Map ,...,..u? * Red Deer County .v.- w... alum *Pwpos:d Devzlopmznl gmunawuermnsumng , — mm éyears HCL rnvimnmenhlsdences f;‘f.,n,,m 1 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 68 of 188 34175 Alberta Lld,, Red Deer Counly - BylawNo. 2015/35 Page B - 4 -. u nu A -,= 3. Variable Water Well Yields Variable Water Well Yields > Aquifer Characteristics > Water Well Construction > Water Well Maintenance groundwamconsulung yuvngeobg 1 lg)/ears1 HC ....a...... m.ls=a...=.s Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 69 of 188 754175 Alba Page?-5 4. Aquifer Characteristics (Extents and Variability) Aquifer Characteristics |ExLents and Variability) nnuww R 1I.wm ‘i groundwater (ansulting ?ears— HCL environmental sciences Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 70 of 188 734175 Alberta Lld., Fled Bee 1 County - Bylaw No. 2015/35 Page B - S . E - - -. . : 5. Water Well Construction — Properly Completed Water Well Water Well Construction (Properly Completed Water Well) »’\(|lllff‘! groumlwiler consulting mgeoman fgyears— .m..n...... mm.....s HC arsurarvslm Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 71 of 188 Page 3 - 7 6. Water Well construction — Inefficient Water Well Completions Water Well Construction [Inefficient Water Well Completions) Cased to bottom of water well Below the aquifer A B ‘ 4 x lti ll: lg)/ears— HC L 3I.°v'.-'.'I,n'.'.T.§L‘.°l'=’l"....'.'i' . Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 72 of 188 734175 Alberta uu Red Deer County - Bylaw No, 2015/35 Page 9 - a - - - . E .- - . v - 7. Water Well Maintenance Water Well Maintenance Plugged slots or screen gmunawamcansumng yqrogeologwcal fgyears— ..m...... e....m...... HC arsd'an's1::! Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 73 of 188 ad Deer Coumy - Bylaw No. 2015/35 Page B-9 L 8. Questions Questions? groundwzkl tunsul?ng ycvogeoxogmn —— HCL envlvanmenul sdenzes ?ears trsulialvs nu Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 74 of 188 Red Deer County 38106Rge.Rd.27S V RECEIVED Red Deer County. AB T45 2L9 Nuv30 2015 Red Dee’ Attn: Richard Moje C°“’"Y rmo'[email protected] Dear Sir: Re: Your File ASP~15—002Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan In reply to your letter dated October 30, 2015, i wish to provide a letter ofsupportto 734175 Alberta Ltdfs application for an Area Structure Plan on the NE % Z9-38-28-w4m. I humbly request that the county considers the proposal for new lots in Poplar Ridge Estates. I grew up on a farm in Poplar Ridge and deeply desire to be back in the area. Our family is very large with 15 grandchildren and 10 great grandchildren. There are NOhouses in the area available that will hold our numbers. We also have a paraplegic grand daughter and need a house layout to allow access for her. For this reason , we want to build and no suitable lots are currently available. As well , I have worked with Poplar Ridge School for a local charity event and have never been in a more amazing school (and thru this charity, lam in many schools in Red Deer and area) Poplar Ridge School needs to be ?lled to capacity and as people move off farms and away from the county I fear numbers will not sustain the school. I saw this happen to River Glen which I attended. More kids need the opportunity to attend this outstanding county school! Thank you for sharing this letter with our county counselors for their consideration. Sincerely, Val lensen P. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 75 of 188 Red Deer County 38106 Rge. Rd.275 Red Deer County, AB T45 2L9 Attn: Richard Moje rmo'[email protected] Dear Sir: Re: Your FileASP-15-O02 Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan In reply to your letter dated October 30, 2015, I wish to provide a letter of support to 734175 Alberta Ltd.‘sapplication for an Area Structure Plan on the NE %29-38-28-W4M. m{\ &\ Armdform Name _) /\| P\§~\\) Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 76 of 188 November 23, 2015 Red Deer County Planningand Development Services Department Subject: Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan File:ASP-15002 Landowner: 734175 Alberta Ltd. Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing in response to the proposed Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan. I live directly adjacent to the proposed project, NE 29-38-Z8-4 Plan 0525642 Block1 lot 8 (Harvey Heights)and fully support this plan. There are very few lots availablein this area for people who wish to build on an acreage. Thisis a nice open Area Structure Plan with lots of treed green space for wildlife.Theexisting trail system is great for walking, snow shoeing and cross country skiing. The lots are nicely spaced apart for privacy. Thiswill hopefully help to increase the student population for the Poplar RidgeSchool also. Thank you Greg Armstrong Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 77 of 188 RedDeer County 38106 Rge. Rd‘275 Red Deer County, AB T45 219 Ann- RichardMaje rmo [email protected] Dear Sir: Re: Your FileASP-15~0OZPoplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan In reply to your letter dated October 30, 2015, I wish to provide a letter of support to 734175 Alberta Ltd.'s application for an Area Structure Plan on the NEK Z9-38~Z8—wAm. »\ '~7;.~;¢ Am.v\s*vwa Name address Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 78 of 188 Red Deer County 38106 Rae.Rd. 275 Red DeerCounty, AB -‘ mm 3 RECEIVED 1' Altn: RichardMoje 1 ‘fl3U2015 5m£94'd—°?‘£§ Red Deer County Dearslrz 1! Re: Your FlleASP-15-O02Poplar Point: Estates(HT:Structure Plan I I In reply to your letter dated October 30, 2015, 5wl h to pravlde a letter ofsunport to 734175 Alberta Ltd.'s application for an Area Structure Planonth NEK 29-38-Z8-w4m. J { N NINE .3 _...... ,...._._ _.._....§4._._.L__ ‘ address ta ll M [B 39vd 3/\3/\avr‘¢ DBIJBLDEEBD vZ3IB BBBZ/E2/I76 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 79 of 188 Red Deer county 38106 Rge. Rd, 275 RedDeerCounty, AB T45 1L9 r é ~' 30 ZUES Atln: RtchardMo]: I rmc g_grdcaung.:a Red Deer County DearSlr: rV Re: YourFileASP-15-O02Poplar PolnteEstam NJ:Structure Plan In replyto your letterdated Octoberao.2015, I wlqhto provide a letter ufsuppon to 734175 Alberta Ltd}: anpllcatlon for an Area structurePlanon Ihn‘NE)4 29-as-23-warn. addruss % Z8 33%! 3A3/\EiVH t7Bt=BLvE€Bv VZ118 BBBZ/SZ/9B Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 80 of 188 Red Deer County 38106Rae.Rd.175 RedDeer County, A8 T45 2L9 Ann: Richard Moi: NUV30 21715 § Red Deer County 7 Dear Sir: Re: Vour File ASP-15-002 Poplar Pointe Estate: AreaStructure Plan In reply to your letter dated Oztaber 30, 1015, I wlspto provide a letter ol support to 734175 Alberta LId.‘s application for an Area Structure Planon thagNE‘A7.9-38-2!-warn. Pmraq W l+A£vL=,~I 5 NaM! __ . > address 50 39Vd 3A3/WVH PBVBLDEEBV 933W BEBE/EZ/D9 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 81 of 188 NancyLougheed Subject: FW: Poplar Pointe Estates -----Original Message————— From: Darlene Allen [ Sent: May-O4-16 3:11 PM To: CAO Subject: Poplar Pointe Estates I am a homeowner, that resides at Mountianview Estates, RDCounty. I wish to express my concerns on the proposed development of the Poplar Pointe Estates Area: (1) I am concerned with the stress that has been put on the water tables in these areas since more and more developments are occuring and this is our only source of water. (2) Another major concern for me is huge increase in the volume of traffic on the narrow, but well maintained RRand TWP. roads. Thankyou for looking at my concerns. Darlene Allen Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 82 of 188 Nancy Lougheed Subject: FW: Re The Proposed Poplar Pointe Estates From: Jim Allen [mai|to] Sent: May 4, 2016 7:08 PM To: CAO Subject: Re The Proposed Poplar Pointe Estates My name is Jim Allen, I reside at Mountain View Estates Red Deer County. We have lived at this address for 15-years, we love the area and this is where we plan to retire. We moved out of Red Deer city because we could no longer tolerate high density population. We were looking for a nice quite area, with a large yard and nature at our door. Found this spot in Mountain View Estates. Iwould like to state my total rejection of the proposed “Poplar Pointe Estates”. Have several concerns when increasing the population; Effect on the wild life. Increased noise. Increased traffic. The effect on the water table. (is Red Deer County ready to put in a water pipeline)? Also with increased population there is more crime. You let this contractor have his way, what next is in store for us like a shopping mall and condos! I think Red Deer County, is a fantastic place to live and I want to keep it that way for years to come. Please do not take away my dream location, this is my home. Thank you. Jim Allen Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 83 of 188 R E C El V E D April29, 2016 MAY0 3 2015 To: Red Deer County Council Members and Administration Red Deer County From: S. Bailie, Poplar Ridge Resident Re: Bylaw 2015/35 Poplar Polnte Estates ASP My fundamental question with respect to this development proposal is: HOW MUCH RISK IS RED DEER COUNCILAND ADMINISTRATIONWILLINGTO EXPOSE TAXPAYERS TO??? From discussions with Alberta Government representatives and trom a review of the Government of Alberta legislation. it is my understanding that it is the responsibility of a municipality to ensure that - for all approved developments - adequate water Is available. Although this requirement is not speci?cally outlined the February 2, 2016 AdministrationReport, I expect that the Red Deer County Administration and all Red Deer County Councillors are aware of this requirement. As, Iam sure, Red Deer County Administrationand Councillors are also aware, there Is risk to Red Deer County (the taxpayers) in approving a multl-lotresidential development that relies on a licensed well for water supply: although the developer Identi?es a license for 40,000 cu meters (8.8 milliongallons) of water annually until 2031, the water access rights under water licenses are subordinate to residential water wells and to licenses previously issued. Consequently: 1. The County must ensure that water is available firstly to residential wells (existing and future). 2. The County must ensure that water is available secondly to previously issued licensees. 3. The County must ensure that sufficient residual water is available for this subdivision. Each and all of the existing (and future approved) residential wells in the area of the proposed development have annual rights of 1,250 cu meters (275.000 gallons) of water that must be met priorto meeting all license rights. The previously approved large concentration ofun-serviced multl-lotresidential development in the Poplar Ridge area creates an enormous guarantee of water that the County must ensure is available. With an estimate of over 300 residential water wells in this highly populated area, over 375,000 cu meters (82.5 milliongallons) of water must be available annually in perpetuity. Prior to the issuance of the licence that the developer obtained for the proposed development, other non- explring licenses related to sections of land in the area were issued and supersede the rights attached to the Poplar Points license. This includes a license for 1.4 milliongallons of water annually (6,634 cu meters). Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 84 of 188 'Whenis it Appropriate to Reguire an Area to be Serviced??? The Alberta Government requires that municipalities ensure the availability of adequate water for allapproved development. Population Comparison of PoplarRidge area with Serviced Villages and Hamlets in Red Deer County 5'"":z,;°°B k, moo Deibume, aao sou , Po ge soc > 400 Einora,313 Sm“ mew’ Benalto,175 no 153 Lousana,4s D I I 2 What Has Changed Since 2007??? The February 2, 2016 RedDeer County Administration Report states that "On February 20, 2007, the Harvey Heights Extension ASPwas denied as it was deemed "premature relative to completion of the proposed West Central Major Concept Plan that will address future planning for the area, and prior to subdivision development occurring in the area, access to regional water and sewer services is required." Neither of these conditions have, to date, been met. The water licensefor this development was issued in 2006: it was in place when the 2007 ruling on development on NE 29-38-284 was made. No changes have been made to the license since Issuance. Why would RedDeer County Administration advise Council to support a development that does not meet previously established criteria? TheAdministration Report references the previous decision but does not provide reasoning for recommending against it. Why would Councilsupport a development that does not meet previously established criteria? Population (based on 2011 census) Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 85 of 188 April29, 2016 RECEIVED MAY[13 2018 Red Deer To: Red Deer County CouncilMembersand Administration County From: R. Ballie,Poplar Ridge Resident Re: Bylaw2015/35Poplar Pointe Estates ASP I have outlined a list of questions that must be considered in your evaluation of Bylaw 2015/35. How Big is Big Enough??? When does it become necessary to develop a Major Area Structure Plan to ensure managed growth? How muchdemand shouldbe placed on the precarious water supply in the Poplar Ridge area? is it appropriate to have such a disproportionately large concentration of multi-lotresidentialdevelopment in one area? Multi ot Residental Subdivisions in Red Deer Count based on 2011 census Woodland Hilr ” aaImmlar_aa.a'ss Canyon Hei¢pg_s_;,92" when Should CouncilAdhere to its MDP??? The February 2, 2016 Administration Report cites compliance with speci?c sections of the MDP. However, it does not address the following: 1. RedDeer County: MDP goals and objectives indicate that growth shouldbe directed to existing hamlets. 2. RedDeer County's MDP states that "approval of multl-lotresldentlal developments unable to connect to existing or planned servlcesmgenerally will NOT be supported.” Why would RedDeer County recommendthe support of a development that does not adhere to these directives? Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 86 of 188 Given the significant guarantees of water quantity that the County has already provided along with the highly variable characteristics of the Paskapoo water formation from whichthe Poplar Ridge area draws its water, the County may, in approving this development. expose itsell to excessive risk and liability. The County’s MDP states that "approval of multi-lot residential developments unable to connect to existing or planned services...generally willnot be supported." Adhering to thisguidance would eliminate the identi?ed risk exposure. The February 2007 unanimous denial of a development proposal for the same parcel of land appears to appropriately reject the identi?ed risk: previous Council outlined a requirementof accessibility to regional water and sewer services prior to subdivision development occurring. Municipalities can — and have been - sued when issues arise with respect to inappropriately authorized development. The February 2, 2016 Administration Report does not outline any legal action related to the Poplar Ridge area. However, Red Deer County has been listed as a defendant in at least 2 lawsuits for inappropriate development in the Poplar Ridge area that we could ?nd. No records of settlements oould be found. Iam not aware of nor does the February 2, 2016 Administration Report identify any signi?cant changes, that have occurred in the Poplar Ridge area subsequent to the adoption of the MDPor subsequent to the recommendation made February 20, 2007. As a taxpayer, who is ultimately responsible tor all municipal costs, I question the reasonability of the County Administration'sFebruary 2, 2016 recommendation to grant second reading to this Bylaw as it: 1. contradicts the MDP, 2. contravenes recommendations previously made by Council, and 3. Exposes the County to excessive and unnecessary risk. As such. I hope that Council will reject County Administration's recommendation and deny this development application. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 87 of 188 yzoa, $7?‘//-5‘ R E [V E D E C . ?7,4E/A‘/l/ Esz /c ‘NOV272015 _Re_d’Deer (_3oLl[1_ty i _._£.?m..__?W — - . ..__.___:- ‘k ---——:jm‘V?g '” A .A%%'.4—@,,Q._ /I‘ L ‘- ~ » _ »_-Z?../51? _ _ _‘,-‘___$g~_3_ .7 4 ______% @ao£Zm@;@.%@_ — ___ I r ._ .. ...,.___,,AC’§§.zLC.Q/.‘nS..i»~ “._::._‘_i7’:Zj—?‘/2,1?”A4‘¢;%¢m?Za’f.:;?Wx7’i".”Zw.e:«:_’7Z’m».~ __ _ 4¢¢6(,LL2’__3_&a_//o,1;_ »ew I./fa§jv€w43é_A,>éé+<>§cA:% % M z7JZ9pa_aegvzzv»5znL7_Az9_""‘e’ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 88 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 89 of 188 Richard Moje From: Nancy Lougheed Sent: Tuesday, May3, 2016 8:08 AM To: RichardMoje Ce: LindsayThompson Subject: FW: Poplar Pointe Development From: Tina Eickner(ma Sent: May 2, 2016 9:14 PM To: CAO Subject: Poplar Pointe Development May 2, 2016 Dear Red Deer Council Members and Administration. Re: BYLAW N0. 2015/35» PoplarPointe Estates Local Area Structure Plan for NE 29»38»28-4 As residents of PoplarRidge Estates.we have several concerns about the proposedPoplarPointe Development. I. It is our understanding that the MDP‘s goals and objectives include “to direct new residential growth to existing hamlets“ and “to reduce the non-agricultural developmentfootprint outside of existing hamlets in the County“ (P. 17, Goals and Objectives of the MDP 2012) The Poplar Pointe Plan is not on lands adjacent to a hamlet and increasesthe non-agricultural footprint while reducing the agricultural footprint. This appears to violate the goals and objectives of the MDP. 2. We need a Major Concept Plan. Multi-lot residential zoning is already predominant in the Greater Poplar Ridge Area (Poplar Ridge, Westridge, Mountain View, Harvey Heights) with nearly 1/3 of Red Deer County’s total subdivision lots/population concentrated in the area. With the proposeddevelopment,the projected population of the Poplar Ridge area is large relative not only to other subdivisions but compared to serviced areas in the County. This high concentration of population and the fact that on—siteservicing is requiredleads to concerns of water and waste. This should prompt completionof a Major Concept Plan before any further developments are approved. The AdministrationReport of February 2, 2016. states: " In 2007, the Harvey Heights Extension ASP was denied, as it was deemed premature relative to completion of the proposed West Central Major Concept Plan that will address future planning for the area, and prior to subdivision development occurring in the area. access to regional water and sewer services is required." Nothing has changed to this regard to warrant approval of this development. 3. We need a regional water and waste system before any other developments are considered. 1 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 90 of 188 The MDP states that “approval of multi~lotresidential developmentsunableto connect to existing or planned services... generally will not be supported.“ (P. 17 of Residential Developmentof the MDP 2012) Although Red Deer County maps indicate an extension of services from Red Deer City to Sylvan Lake, the Plan, as presented, does not indicate an intention to connect to these services. Thus, it appears that support of this Plan would contradict what is generallyrequired. The MDP states that “the County shall not approve developmentthat will negatively affect groundwater quality or quantity." As previously stated a major concern about this developmentis the on-site water and sewer system in an already heavily populated area. Existing residents are naturally concerned how this might affect their water both in quantity and quality. It is our understanding that upon approving the plans for such a development,the Municipality assumes the responsibility to mitigate any negative effects that it may have on existing water supply as well as those of the development. As a taxpayer in this Municipality we are worried about such a liability. In conclusion, our concerns revolved around the need for a Major Concept Plan to help develop the district in a way that will positively affect the County and its existing residents, and to put a stop to any multi»lot residential developmentsuntil a regional water and sewer system is in place. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns. Sincerely, Russell and Martina Bickner Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 91 of 188 RY-:“(: . I , ;vv;2 . § 29 2026 Poplar Potnte Estates local Area Structure tor NE 29-38-28-4 l Red Deer County J Attn: Red Deer County Councillors This letter's purpose is to state my "opposition" to the ahnve mentionedarea and Bylaw No. 20lS/35. 1,Jim Brinkhurst, reside at , and I'm against this Structure Plan. My main concern is regarding the use of "ground source water" that will be requiredfor this development.l have not seen any studies or evidence that would indicatewhetherthis development can be supported by ground source water and the impactit could have on existing homes in the area. If the supply of ground source water was signi?cantly reduced,then existing residentswould face signi?cant costs to acquirenew sources for water. I would like to see council honor the long term land use master plan.that clearly identifies where residentialdevelopmentwould be supportedand approved in the county. This ensures current and future land owners clearly understand what kind of developmentis possibleon certain parcels of land. I ask that council refuse this request based on stated areas of concern. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 92 of 188 To: Red Deer County Subject: Poplar Pointe Estates Local Area Structure for NE 29-38-28-4 Attn: Richard Moje This letter's purpose is to state my "opposition"to the above mentionedarea and Bylaw No. 2015/35. 1, Shaun Brinkhurst, reside at . , and > I'm against this Structure Plan. My concern is for the "water" issues that will be caused by this developmentin our area. There are many issues that can be otherwise discussed but I feel that our "water" and the problemsthat willcome uith such a development are real. They are valid and extremely concerning and should be taken into advisement as members of this community and area. I ask the council to refuse this request based on stated areas of concern that are valid for the familiesthat reside in this community. Respectfullyyours, izgumel?gs Shaun Brinkhurst /"‘\ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 93 of 188 To: Red Deer County Subject: PoplarPointeEstates Local Area Structure for NE 29-3S-28-4 Attn: Richard Moje This letter's purpose is to state my "opposition"to the above mentionedarea and Bylaw No. 2015/35. l, Travis Brinkhurst, reside at and A l‘m against this Stnicture Plan. My concern is for the "water" issues that willbe caused by this developmentin our area. There are many issues that can be otherwise discussed but I feel that our "water" and the problems that will come with such a developmentare real. They are valid and extremely concerning and should be taken into advisement as members of this community and area. I ask the council to refuse this request based on stated areas of concem that are valid for the families that residein this community. Respectfully yours Travis Brinkhurst Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 94 of 188 April 26. 2016 FROM: ' Deb Brodersen i [5 [315 led Deer (,og “‘-——«——.__, RollNumber Plan ilk Lot Planning 8. Development Services 38106 Range Road 275 Red Deer County AB T45 ZL9 RE: File#ASP-15-002 Landowner.734175 Alberta Ltd. Poplar Pointe Estates Dear Mr Moje, This letter is to voice my concernsfor the subdivisionapplication for an area Structure Plan for lands within the NE 29-38-28~4.Myconcerns are as follows. -the drainage from the new development is uphill from existing development and the effects on potable water, septic contamination in the aqui?er and water quantity. - traffic safety concerns withthe narrowroads and nonexistent sidewalks, There are serious safety situations turning onto and getting off of Range Road 284 at both highways 11 and 11a. - sufficient ambulance and ?re protection coverage. I believe that a development of this magnitude could neverhappen in order to keep within the best interest of neighboring land owners whileensuring that all regulations and policies would be followed correctly. Sincerely, ? (Ll?LVI'L0—+ Deb Brodersen Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 95 of 188 ' l hard Mole From: Nancy Lougheed Sent: Tuesday,May 3, 2016 6:04 AM To: RichardMoje Cc: LindsayThompson Subject: FW:BylawNo. 2015/35 From: Bonnie [ma' o:[email protected]] Sent: May 2, 2016 7:23 PM To: CAO Subject: Fw: BylawNo. 2015/35 I would like to advise that I am opposed to the proposed Bylaw No. 2015/35,Poplar Pointe Estates residential development. Some of the concerns I have are for the increased traffic whichcan bring more speeding and disregard for pedestrians, of which we have a very large number of walkers, Jogger and chlldren in the area. I also am concernedabout the effect it will have on our water supply. Respectfully submitted; Alexander Brown Red Deer County, AB Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 96 of 188 Richard Moie From: Nancy Lougheed Sent: Monday, May 2,2016 4:01 PM To- RichardMoje Cc: LindsayThompson Subject: FW:BylawNo. 2015/35 From: Bonnie [mailr Sent: May 2, 2016 3:54 PM To: CAO Subject: Bylaw No. 2015/35 I would liketo go on record as being apposed to the proposed Bylaw No, 2015/35, Poplar Pointe Estates residential development. I have several concerns about this issue but foremost is a fear for our water supply diminishing as we are in one ofthe nearby developments. I also feel this is viable farmland that should not be developed for residential housing. Concerned citizen; Bonnie Brown Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 97 of 188 /71“/V59,-20/5’ D R E C EIV E . NOV30 2015 ‘ /—?/amm~?4Z‘w/'f;:g:*,;*%%, ‘ [ Red Deer County /PM 4”“ ’d‘;“"‘’“**31% ~/A//_=o27'-'5s>«,z5»-4.' w4<~ ' ’45"°“ /6’~o\é>.z : . Du/L. 4465,” l 5756e "0" 72 ..%¢ 0..//ow/‘r-z ‘ M4 5 atlas /C*L«4%”L7;ao.o.I2pLCé7e, we mam .¢ Mk W 052/£a_¢,Z<, /{£7 6"/Iu.’/L mm .4a.¢.~,x;,MJ‘/5/L Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 98 of 188 April 27"‘,2016 Red Deer County Planning & Development Services 38106 Rge Rd 275 Red Deer County, AB T45 ZL9 Re: Poplar Pointe Estateggggposed development Once the February 2”‘,2016 decision was made to not allowthe developer to continue with plans for Poplar Pointe Estates, I thought how wonderful it was that County Councilmembers had listened to the fears and concerns raised by residents. How shocking to get notice that the decision was reversed because Council had received a letter from the developer... not a threatening one, just a “poor me” one! How did his letter threaten anyone and cause the reversal in the decision? Once again I have to voice my strong objections and concerns. Likemany residents, water is the main issue. ourwell is very poor and when we have guests we have to remind them not to flush every time they "go”. We go into an almost panic mode if large numbers end up here. We have talked to several residents who fear for their water too. Our well output had decreased when DiamondEstates was built. We consider ourselves to be aware of the water situation and great water stewards. We collect rain water for any plants and our garden. I pay for and haul water during hot and dry summers. We are always aware of the quantity of water our well produces...certainIy not a great selling point if we ever go down that road! Traffic on our road is already a nightmare and Idread to think how it willbe with increased vehicles fromthe proposed subdivision. We elected County Council members to support and listento our concerns. I fear that is not happening in this case. We should not be preparing for a second public meeting just because a decision was reversed through pressure. I attended the community meeting and neither Jim Wood nor Christine Moore stayed for the public meeting. They both made it quite clear that they could only inform us about the County process, which as members of County Council is their job to do. There was absolutely no bias on their side and Ican't understand why County is not listening to the residents who were at that meeting and are saying the same thingl I am totally against this proposed subdivision. I can only hope that County Council listens again intently to the voices of the residents. if the development goes through then the developer makes his money and walks off. We are left to deal with any and all repercussions arising from it. cfléédé, ,, ohn E. Charles Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 99 of 188 April25”‘,2016 Sue Charles Red Deer County Planning & Development Services 38106 Rge Rd 275 Red Deer County, AB T48 2L9 Re: Poplar Pointe Estates proposed subdiv ion Once again I am writing a letter of objection to the proposed Poplar Pointe Estates subdivision. I had strongly objected in February and my concerns remain the same. I don't know how emphatic residents have to be about the lack of water in this area as well as the non-bias actions of Mayor Wood and Councillor Moore. l have talked with many who live in the Poplar Ridge Estates as wellas West Ridge Estates who have voiced their concerns and their fears over losing what water they have. The area is already saturated withdevelopment. Every household has a water well and septic system. There is going to be some contamination occur. The proposed communal well and septic system only compound the issues. We have been here since June 14"‘,1979 and have livedwith continual growth occurring. Our well’s output is less than one gallon per minute and had dropped when Diamond Estates was developed. Our fear is that with 39 more houses, even witha communal well, the pressure on the aquifer only increases and threatens the existing area wells. I could go on to talk about traffic, crime and nature. But water is the main worry for everyone. Since the County of Red Deer is responsible for any and all approved subdivisions, I assume that means the County is also responsible for any issues that arise from an approved subdivision and willnot leave residents in the lurch. Particularly when residents opposed the plan. I am dead set against this proposal and can only hope that County Council members see the concerns that residents continue to raise. ,.w"747%t;azé:e/ Sue Charles Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 100 of 188 November 20, 2015 on/w l Red Deercounty Red Deer —““ Count'y'Jl Planning and Development Services “ 38106 Rg Rd 275 RedDeer County, AB T452L9 Attention RichardMoje (Hand Delivered) RE:File3 ASP-15-002 Landowner: Poplar Ridge Estates Dear Mr. Moje; we are writing this letter to express our opposition to the above mentioned subdivision, which will run adjacent to our property. We moved to this acreage in July of 2013 and were thrilled to see our property bordered to the North with a famers hay field. We looked at several homes within the county and chose this one over the others because of the view, the field and the fact that we had less neighbours and more privacy; all were reasons for us moving fromtown to the country, A subdivision of this size is going to make a huge impact on the quality of life that we moved here for and we feel greatly affected by this proposal. The traffic from the 39 proposed lots is going to be substantial. You are looking at upwards of 80 more vehicles with daily commute using range road 284 that happens to run right in front of our home. Not only would we feel the impact from the increased traffic on the range road but we would also have all those vehicles driving past our home to enter the subdivision on the proposed entry road. This is certainly not what we had in mind when we purchased our home in the country. Our property would be greatly affected by a subdivision likethis. It also makes it very much less desirable if we were to sell and when that happens the value tends to drop as well. If you have ever tried to turn onto highway 11Aoff 284 in the morning or around the dinner hour it can be downright dangerous. The hillthat traffic descends on from the west makes it extremely hard to turn out safely. That being said coming from MA headed east it is terribly dangerous to slow down and turn onto Rg Rd284 with no turning lane. Eachtime I make that turn I hope that the person behind is for one, paying attention and two is able to stop during unfavorable conditions. Adding the strain of 39 new residents to an already busy and dangerous road situation is not needed. Highway 11 is just as busy, although there are two lanes it is not uncommon during peak times to wait on 20 or more vehicles to pass before it is safe to pull out. Adding more infrastructures and creating more traffic flow coming off rg rd. 284 onto either highway is just adding the potential for more accidents on our already busy highway systems. I see in section 6.1 of the Structure Plan it indicates that: Additionaltraffic associated with a new subdivision willtrigger road upgrades as per initial conversation with Transport Alberta. These kinds of statements are made all the time and sound great but having them all come to fruition is sometimes another matter. I think we all could come up with several road projects that are promised but have years and years of delays because they fall short of being the most important or the funds are not there to support them. We have young children and being so close to the road, we are very uninterested in seeing an increase in traffic that the subdivision would produce. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 101 of 188 We are of course concerned with the water issues as are many I am sure when we are responsible for our own water source as acreage owners. It says in section 6.4 of the structure plan that Alberta Environment has issued a water licence based on testing done in the past. Our concerns with this are that you simply can't know for sure that our water will not be affected in the future. if a few years from now we are all facing water pressure or quality concerns who willbe there to make it right? You don't have to look far to find stories of folks who have had their water flow or quality jeopardized by development. By the time these issues sometimes come about the developer is long gone and residents are left fiscally responsible. I want to know if the County is going to guarantee the pressure, quality and flow of our well as an existing resident if a subdivision of this size were approved. It is my opinion that the Poplar Ridge area has more than done their part in helping the county with their development plans. With all the water difficulties that residents are already experiencing I think it would be irresponsible of the county to add another 40 homes to this scenario. As existing acreage landowners, we are asking council to protect our interests until proper infrastructure is brought this way. There are Deer, Moose, Coyotes and Hawksthat we have seen all through the years wondering and flying about in that field. There is becoming less and less Agriculture land for these creatures as it is and we worry where willthey go if we continue to develop all the remaining Ag land? The developer can claim his due diligence by adding green space and natural areas, but whenyou add 39 residential lots the wildlife is either forced onto area highways or become a nuisance in people's yards. Either way I believe our county needs to be on the side of retaining Agriculture land especially in this Poplar Ridge area that is already so heavily populated with residential properties. My children attend the Poplar Ridge Elementary School and as far as I can see and have heard they are at higher capacity then they have seen in many years. My daughters grade three class has 28 kids. My son's class is also large with 27 kids and the kindergarten class has 34 kidsthis year. in the years past we have often seen smaller grade six classes as some of the families chose to start school in Sylvan Lakea year earlier. It is my understanding that Fox Run School in Sylvan Lakeno longer has grade six as of next year and has moved that grade back to the public elementry schools. Thisdecision was brought on by that school busting at the seams as well.What that means for Poplar Ridge is that kidswillbe staying here forgrade six and in which case willsee increased numbers again. From what I see in that school there are few spaces to put new classes ifthe need were to arise. In my opinion increasing this area's population more by adding further development is going to affect the quality of education that that school is able to provide by overcrowding an already busy school. In the Structure plan it indicated that the ASPcan only be successfully adopted and implemented if it has considered the values of the community. It goes on to say that the initial stages of the project involved liaisons with the Harvey Heights residents. As I review Appendix Athe public engagement it has some residents whom no longer live here and some that it states are in favour have copies of previous letter of opposition to the development the last time it was proposed. We had noidea when we purchased our acreage that there was any previous attempt to develop the land to the north of us. We were told by the realtor and the lawyer that we had an easement and utility right away on the north side of our property and that we were unable to build anything permanent or have any livestock animals on that easement. We only learned over the last while from neighbours about the plans the landowner had for this property. In the two and a half years we have lived here, never were we advised either by the county or the landowner/developer of the intention to build a subdivisionhere until now. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 102 of 188 We understand the landowners desire to make profit from this property but we as acreage owners next to it feel we must communicate our extreme unrest with the proposal. I am sure if the land surrounding the developer's home were up for such change he too would make his concerns known. Thank you for your time and consideration to this letter outlining our objections to this subdivision development. Sincerely; Tracy & Rhonda Davidson Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 103 of 188 November20,2015 R E C E IV E D Red Deer County NUVZ5 2015 Planningand Development Services Deer C mm‘y 33105 Rg Rd 275 Red Red Deer County, As T4S2L9 Attention RichardMoje (Hand Delivered) RE:Filefl ASP-15-002 Landowner:734175 Alberta Ltd. Poplar Ridge Estates Dear Mr. Moie; We are writing this letter to express our opposition to the above mentioned subdivision, which will run adjacent to our property. We moved to this acreage inJuly of 2013 and were thrilledto see our property bordered to the Northwith a famers hay ?eld. We lookedat several homes within the county and chose this one over the others because of the view, the ?eld and the fact that we had less neighbours and more privacy; all were reasons for us moving from town to the country. Asubdivision of this size is going to make a huge impact on the quality of lifethat we moved here for. The traf?c from the 39 proposed lots is going to be substantial. You are looking at upwards of 80 more vehicleswith dailycommute using range road 284 that happens to run right in front of our home. Not only would we feel the impact from the increasedtraf?c on the range road but we would also have all those vehiclesdriving past our home to enter the subdivisionon the proposed entry road. This is certainly not what we had in mind when we purchased our home in the country. if you have ever tried to turn onto highway 11Aoff 284 in the morning or around the dinner hour it can be downright dangerous. The hillthat traffic descendson from the west makes it extremely hard to turn out safely. That being said coming from 11A headed east it is terribly dangerous to slow down and turn onto KgRd 284 with no turning lane. Eachtime I make that turn I hope that the person behind is for one, paying attention and two is able to stop during unfavorable conditions.Adding the strain of 39 new residents to an already busy and dangerous road situation is not needed. Highway 11 isjust as busy, although there are two lanes it is not uncommon during peak times to wait on 20 or more vehicles to pass before it is safe to pull out. Addingmore infrastructures and creating more traffic ?ow coming off rg rd. 284 onto either highway isjust adding the potential for more accidents on our already busy highway systems. I see in section 6.1 of the Structure Plan it indicatesthat: Additional traffic associated with a new subdivision will trigger road upgrades as per initial conversation with Transport Alberta. These kindsof statements are made allthe time and sound great but having them all come to fruition is sometimes another matter. I think we all couldcome up with several road projects that are promised but have years and years of delays because they fall short of being the most important or the funds are not there to support them. We have young childrenand being so close to the road, we are very uninterested in seeing an increase in traffic that the subdivisionwould produce. Thereare Deer, Moose, Coyotes and Hawks that we have seen all through the years wondering and flyingabout in that ?eld. There is becoming less and less Agriculture landfor these creatures as it is and we worry where will they go if we continue to develop allthe remaining Ag land? Thedeveloper can claimhis due diligence by adding green space and natural areas, but when you add 39 residentiallots Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 104 of 188 the wildlife is either forced onto area highwaysor become a nuisance in people's yards. Eitherway l believeour county needs to be on the side of retaining Agriculturelandespecially in this Poplar Ridge area that is already so heavily populated with residential properties. My childrenattend the Poplar Ridge Elementary Schooland as far as I can see and have heard they are at higher capacity then they have seen in many years. My daughters gradethree classhas 28 kids. My son's class is alsolarge with 27 kidsand the kindergarten class has 34 kidsthis year. in the years past we have often seen smallergrade six classes as some of the families choseto start schoolin Sylvan Lake a year earlier, it is my understanding that Fox Run School in Sylvan Lake no longer hasgrade six as of next year and has moved that grade backto the public elementry schools.Thisdecisionwas brought on by that school busting at the seams as well. What that means for Poplar Ridgeis that kidswill be staying here for grade six and in which case willsee increased numbers again. From what I see in that school there are few spaces to put new classesif the need were to arise. In my opinion increasing this area's population more by adding further development is going to affect the quality of education that that schoolis able to provide by overcrowding an already busy school. We are of course concernedwith the water issues as are many Iam sure when we are responsible for our own water source as acreage owners. It says in section 6.4 of the structure plan that Alberta Environment has issued a water licencebased on testing done in the past. Our concerns with this are that you simply can't knowfor sure that our water will not be affected in the future. if a few years from now we are all facing water pressure or quality concernswho willbe there to make it right? You don't have to look farto ?nd stories of folks who have had their water flow or quality jeopardized by development. Bythe time these issues sometimes come about the developer is long gone and residents are left fiscally responsible. In the Structure plan it indicated that the ASPcan only be successfullyadopted and implemented if it has considered the valuesof the community. it goes on to say that the initialstages of the project involvedliaisonswith the Hartley Heights residents. As I review Appendix Athe public engagementrit has some residents whom no longer live here and some that it states are infavour have copies of previous letter of opposition to the development the last time it was proposed. We had no idea when we purchased our acreagethat there was any previous attempt to develop the landto the north of us. We were told by the realtor and the lawyer that we had an easement and utility right away on the north side of our property and that we were unable to build anything permanent or have any livestock animals on that easement. We only learned over the last while from neighbours about the plans the landowner had for this property. In the two and a half years we have lived here never were we advised either by the county or the landowner/developer of the intention to build a subdivision here until now. We understand the landowners desire to make pro?t from this property but we as acreage owners next to it feel we must communicate our extreme unrest with the proposal. Iam sure ifthe land surrounding the developer's home were up for such change he too would make his concernsknown. Thankyou for your time and consideration to this letter outlining our objections to this subdivision development, Sincerely; Tracy & RhondaDavidson Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 105 of 188 Richard Moie From: Nancy Lougheed Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 8:11 AM To: Richard Moje Cc: LindsayThompson Subject: FW: Poplar Points From: Sent: April 30, 2016 10:42 AM To: CAO Subject: Poplar Points Hello. Iwould like to add my name lo the list ol residents who 'oppose“ the proposed development of Poplar Poinle, We are EXTREMELY worried about lhe waler supply on our acreage as Ills and don't know what we'lldo if it drops any further ...... This guy doesn't live in the area and he has no ailachment to us or Red Deer County other than $S$$$$$ Regards, MarvinDesormeau Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 106 of 188 Red Deer County, Alberta T45 ZB5 May 3, 2016 Re: Bylaw No. 2015/35— Poplar Pointe Estates LocalArea Structure Plan for NE 29-38-28-4 Dear Red Deer County Planning and Development Department, This letter is to inform you that we are OPPOSEDto the proposed Bylaw No. 2015/35to rezone and subdivide the 53.8 hectare parcel NE 29-38-28-4 to create a country residential development. As residents in the area, we have many concerns with this proposal: water and sewer management, increased traffic volume, increased litter, negative effects on wildlifeand decreased property values. We have chosen to raise our family in the county to enjoy the natural environment and the low density population. The creation of a new subdivision in the area will have a significant negative impact on us. We are strongly opposed to this proposed bylaw. We appreciate your attention to our concerns, Jean Doyon & Melanie Beebe Red Deer County residents Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 107 of 188 am/A0 e/mo-4"” ”""’”f 7”A:mm7'?gzlf/fuu.WK c.;M7»/ amfwts /7444PM ?zuzz, $6,, .2A.4,4m ?aw A/5 :m—52—:22. w_:,L w%M W77“”7”““7‘4”‘””@"” zmwm gm? % MW7*/“W-‘”‘”7“7 [Zia/I‘./65¢ ,a.uLa&. /ta/»,¢.¢., ,w. /21.a.7‘/M?uéd/“O/9” /out /4/.x»ow - - z /p/u»£(2,,,¢,L 12 an 11¢ /z$%144/I,a(?./4,6 A ‘aw/z\WV/wm4(W ‘£‘*— 047 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 108 of 188 7.”/:wug7M mwwqw *‘’*f‘“’”’‘*'”“* M ‘W?/7/€.{A¢4Z4- <5:/57’Pnlfwx/£714“Pmzz{am am c,:é44,¢é(,Lt,?aw /I/E 2442-22» /, /ham 924, «»:«?«wws5m;¢%””W77W‘”‘”7“7 «9{¢a7®W¢<,/53{»L/MM.?@/Z/'%‘/’¢("é'/ /1/4-d¢&.ébvM/¢0L€a»:.¢v?(Vi’&’?”'4//?éoj/942’!Waajm,/,5;/é&4,u«7<»a»7x7cg7 / /??oéj. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 109 of 188 Nancy Lougheed Subject: FW: Red Deer County v————OriginalMessage‘--— From: Joan Flewell Sent: May 4, 2016 9:42 PM Subject: Red Deer County Red Deer County Planning & Development Dept. Attention: Richard Moje - Re: Proposed Area Structure Plan. Fileif ASPO-15-002 — LandOwner 734175 Alberta Ltd. (NE~29-38-28W4)Bylaw No. 2015/35 Dear Sir, It amazes me that I am needing to write this letter again after battling the same situation a few times overthe past several years. I cannot express to you how strongly I oppose the new development proposed for the Harvey Heights Extension (Poplar Fointe Estates) We have lived here for almost 30 years and the water situation has always been a major concern for us. The little things that most people take for granted cannot be done at our acreage such as 6 people showering every morning before school or work, we never water our lawn and we use rain water we've collected to water our trees and flowers. Simple things like 6 people flushing several times a day and don't even get me started on trying to do more then a couple loads of laundry back to back. We have learned how to live this way and we do it because we love this area and have no desire to relocate! The thought of more homes, more water consumption, more traffic, more noise, more people which possibly leads to more crime - it just can't happen because our quality of life becomes lower and that is unacceptable! Ido know several water wells are pulling water from the same aquifer and these aquifers are replenished through rain doesn't look great for water - have you looked out your window lately? It is dry!! The farmers are already worried! It these aquifers to be refilled. I can not see a single benefit to this awesome community expanding. I understand the folks trying to developed this area are looking at it as a business venture but their profit places an extreme loss to the many families who are already living here and have been for years! There is also mention ofa sewage treatment facility and I willtry to fool no one with any scientific knowledge but it seems pretty straight fon/vard that this is not the way to go if there is even a slight possibility of any public health CDHCETFI. I don't understand how developers try to do this every few years when the county knows nothing has changed. Thank you for yourtime. Joan Flewell Red Deer County, Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 110 of 188 Nancy Lougheed Subject: FW: Poplar Pointe Estates —————0rigina|Message----- From: Vince Flewell[maiIto:vinceflewe|l@ic|oud.com] Sent: May 4, 2016 9:16 PM Subject: Poplar Pointe Estates Red Deer County Planning & Development Dept. Attention : Mr. RichardMoje ) - Bylaw No. Re : Proposed Area Structure Plan. Fileii ASPO-15-002-LandOwner 734175 Alberta Ltd. ( NE—29-38-28W4 2015/35 Sir. In response to your Public Notice. I am writing to express that we most strongly object to this proposed ASP/further development in the Harvey Heights Extension (Poplar Pointe Estates). with limited we have lived at for 30 years, the perfect place to raise 4 daughters. Than this happens. We have lived water. we had water all this time. Not sure how many pumps we have replaced. The girls have been trained to conserve to our a limiting device put on the last time. We are huge rain water collectors with 7 huge 1000 litres tanks connected eaves troughs. And they want to drill more well. Sounds like a no brainer to me. The droughty years we have had & looks like willcontinue to have, don't lookgood forthe aquifers. We are also very concerned with the addition of a sewage treatment facility. Regardless ifthe proposed sub—division underlying uses individualseptic systems or a communal system, the problem is the same. There is shallow sandstone a mistake, or a most of the area and is identified in the water well drilling reports for Harvey Heights. Allwe need is sewage mechanical failure (delivery line rupture from the acreage to the proposed facility) and there will be raw in serious health concern. contact with a very permeable sandstone. DANGEROUS.This has the potential to become a are to There should be no further development in or around Poplar Ridge until regional Sewer & Water lines available the developers. your life your TRAFFIC,is crazy. it has steadily increased on the Poplar Ridge road, R.R. 283 & R.R.284. You are taking in hands when you go for a walk, jog or a bike ride. narrow roads The traffic during peaktimes to & from the industrial sub—divisioneast of us is definitely more than these were made for. Range Road 284 has had a rough time. Some one in the county office needs to go for a drive. town between Red Deer Backin May 1986, we had no idea 30 years later that the County would let developers build a many & moose as of late. & Sylvan Lake.Seriously we move out here to get out of town. By the way haven't seen deer How big is big enough. someday we hope to have Grandchildrenhanging out, playing volleyball and jumping on the trampoline like our daughters did. Poplar Ridge is a great place. We strongly oppose any further development in this area. Poplar Pointe Estates. Vours Truly Vince Flewell Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 111 of 188 Richard Moie From: Nancy Lougheed Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8:10 AM To: Richard Moje Cc: LindsayThompson Subject: FW: Proposed Poplar Pointe Estates From: TONYFORD Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 7:51 PM To: Info Cc: Dave Dlttrick; Ron Barr; Treena Miller;Christine Moore Subject: Proposed Poplar Pointe Estates Dear Councillors PROPOSED POPLAR POINTE ESTATES AREASTRUCTURE PLAN on NE 29-38~28 W4M I recently signed a petition indicating my opposition to this proposal. While not against development, per se, there are aspects of the proposed development that are of real concern. Itis my understanding that the new lots willnot have septic systems similar to those of other residential properties in the area. Rather, there willbe "communal utility servicing infrastructure systems". More information is needed on the nature of such a system. How will it function and what will it look like? Who willmanage and maintain it once the developer has sold all the lots? What willbe the cost to homeowners of maintenance? Who willbe held responsible for malfunctions and contaminationclue to spills/leaks? The proposal states that "effluent generated by the development willbe collected and treated via a sanitary system". How and where will it be stored after collection? What will be done with grey water and solids that are produced after chemical treatment? Myconcern is for the safety of our water supply, the land itself and our air quality. Examples of similar sanitary systems should be studied to ascertain their efficiency, safety, maintenance costs and any problems related to ground and water 1 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 112 of 188 contamination, as weli as how they operate in our extreme weather conditions. As a concerned homeowner, Ithank you for your attention. Sincerely Ronelie Ford Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 113 of 188 April27,2016 Dear Red Deer Mayor and Council; Re: Poplar Pointe Estates local area structure plan Poplar Pointe Estates Plan! I'm writing to state my strong opposition to this its potential impact on the water, (wells & I'm against any further development in this area because of land. sewage) the school, increases to the traffic and the loss of agricultural Rober't4Gain Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 114 of 188 Dear Mr. Richard Moje I am submitting this letter in regards to an application for an area structure plan for lands within the NE 29-38-2844 your file #ASP-15-002 landowner 734175 Alberta Ltd. I would like to stress our concerns and disapproval about this development project. We just purchased our home August 05 2015 and had no idea nor was it disclosed to us about a possible subdivision to be developed on lands behind our property. After discussing this matterwith some ofthe neighbors it was brought to our attention that this was not disclosed to them either. Hadwe known this we would have chosen a different location as the privacy our property offers was one ofthe selling features. We moved here from a neighborhood that had a high volume oftraffic that travelled well over the speed limit. We have two small children under the age of 3 and after giving it a lot ofthought we decided it was in our best interest to relocate which was why we chose Harvey Heights. It is a quiet, family friendly area with minimal residential traffic. Thiswas a very large purchase as well as an investment and we feel it will depreciate the value of our home and make it a less desirable neighborhood to live in. Acreage/country living is supposed to be peaceful and quiet and having a new subdivision developed willincrease the traffic, noise and possible crime just to name a few concerns. We are veryfortunate to have such a good clean water supply as it is very rare in most cases on acreages. More residential properties will deplete ourwater supply. Thisyear the Poplar Ridge School has reached its maximum allowance of students in some ofthe grades. The kindergarten class has had to be split into two as it was 4 students over its limit, and those kids still have 5 years of attending classes there. How is the school supposed to accommodate more children when it is almost at full capacity? What about the wildlife? Ruining more oftheir habitat could possibly force them to wander closer to the highway resulting in more traffic accidents. The infrastructure in the area cannot handle the addition of several new septic fields, this being brought to the attention afterthe poplar ridge subdivision was completed. Septictreatment plant.....who willbe maintaining and operating this system? I'm assuming tax dollars will be paying for this. Most importantly Ithink the biggest concern are our roads. Rge Rd 284 is in desperate need of maintenance and repairs not to mention it is narrow without any shoulders which is a safety concern. Highway 11A is extremely dangerous to approach from RR284 as it does not have a merge lane in either direction and is single lane traffic. There is also a large hillto contend with. Then there is highway 11 which also does not have a merge lane and has 4 lanes oftraffic which I might add travel well overthe recommended speed limit of 110 kms/h.At any given time ofday both of these highways are extremely busy, especially 11A. Both ofthese highways certainly 11A would require major reconstruction to accommodate the extra traffic, failing to do so could only result in an increase of accidents or worse, fatalities. After reviewing the proposal on the Red Deer County website (poplar point estates) of the future development, signed letters need to be requested with the information that was provided on the last Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 115 of 188 page ofthe proposal to clarify what the residents said and what they were in support of as those comments were not pertaining to this proposal. Please seriously consider our concerns as well as the other submitted letters regarding this project. We are strongly not in favour of this development, Thank you, Sheldon Griffith Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 116 of 188 11) 1 5 ltiiii April 26. 2016 FROM‘ Paul Gyori l-kegUs ercotinty RE: File #ASP-15-002 Landowner. Poplar Pointe Estates Sir. area Structure plan for lands This letter is to voice my disapproval for the subdivisionapplication for an withinthe NE 29-38-28-4 drop of at least 4 From the northend of NE29-38-28-4to the SE 29-38-28-WAMthere is an elevation my property has hayed metres to the south. My biggest concernis sewage The farmer to the south of hay approximately 6 to 10 that particular piece of ground for years, As of 2012 he has been unable to the ground 200 feet acres from what he assumes is a spring. Icannot believe a spring is popping out of bottom of our sump pump from my property. The basement to our home is in 9 feet of sandstone to the no testing or definite proof ola and we have never had water in it since building in 1997 Since there is fields the north side of the spring, I strongly believe this could be sewage seepage from the septic on visible to see the area affected hay?eld. When driving East from Sylvan Lake on Highway 11 it is very Please see enclosed aerial photo of the affected area. Heights. After the meeting of Feb 2 2016 A major concern is Range Road 284 on the north side of Harvey signs that road as well as the when I returned home the county maintenance crew had placed caution on the traffic has increased south side of Highway 11a. Since Range Road 284 was upgraded to pavement significantly where the mayor and Regarding the meeting that took place Jan 31/2016 relating to this proposal for the hearing and councillor attended brie?y, they only informedus of what we had to do to prepare they left immediately, therefore there no opportunity for any bias discussion. is needed. This application has been turned down twice, thereforeno further discussion Regards, Paul Gyori (‘VOA/\S\\ A Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 117 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 118 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 119 of 188 i Nouzmts?egqgousCD‘ %?@EW373;1@%;;7§497§ SJ Fn?érwzro n :::EiSmq:£%§gszzg;e: I 4L»vL§o@?psLeaLou_Ei ]E:c;§_»‘f’»@/;£umnR:nJ35@_c:u_r I iaalt’/eosL?irJiJczo6e"Zj/Q_7’_’£?¢:.zsn7.=_?,Ag;;,;j_§ l Qzl?l?/~€)€f./.Oi’IZ"6 Ln5v(,v}Ar2%4Ja{_\e57%—.-_— (=~C6’¢."@gy;Q2.g_r\,a{_4 I .¢B/oA—&'Qd£m5w£/_l.?1/:liL?~(i’L_ .J Fmfgoffig?§. L -241“_LE*7“ 0;-31157’ I Qare9'{ \\\‘.\ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt\\\{\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 120 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 121 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 122 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 123 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 124 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 125 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 126 of 188 ‘J 7,‘ ,: ,WVavt.’—\0.{:_@ __-, 77 ll €.é.gQ,A6, MLQL_b\x3C.gf(.isQQAL, .‘ L __g.i»Ls,a:;:soLi;nEM” % . @d.1€3eL\JoaH:z7,{\cam a2Fz<91_n XsLS QQOQ/(of\»41g{ Li;2A,%g9L(,L_¢Lq£‘%MbHg 5}‘ {£j@__(4(,~:;¢f('7Lu)«9uV(?I 7 ’“;‘_;e,_Mg”;4a7¢%(4%/5-4;I (%/zg 6*‘ 1 :3‘M \ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat...E‘EE%» Page 127E ofQ 188§ if February 2, 2016 RedDeer County Mayor, Dear Sir, lam writing this letter to let you knowthat we are against the new development at Poplar Point Estates and the reason for that is that I already got impacted on a negative way when Bahanachuckbuilt the house for hisson in the field behind my backyard. Shortly after Bahanachuckbuilt that house my acquirer changed, from having nice soft water it went to hard horrible water plus for the first time we had coliforms in our water. We had to buy a filter because it started damaging my dishwasher, washing machineand it was not safe to drink as it had too much calcium. This happened with only one house being built behind my backyard, I can just imagine how negatively impacted I am going to be by having 39 houses further up from my house. I am afraid we are not going to have enough water since the weather is getting warmer and we don't have enough snow or rain anymore compared to a few years ago. Please don't approve that development ifyou want our vote. Sincerely, Estherand Doug Hopland Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 128 of 188 Red Deer County April 26, 2016 Planning & Development Dept. 38106 Range Road 275 Red Deer County, Alberta T452L9 Attention: Mr. RichardMole Re: Proposed Area Structure Plan. Filenumber ASPO-15-002 — LandOwner 734175 Alberta Limited. (NE~29» 38-28W4) Proposed Bylawto adopt POPLARPOINTESESTATESLOCALASP. My name is Hudson A. Hunt. I livea on the south end of Poplar Ridge and have been there since 1997. For the record lam against the proposed Area Structure Plan. The Proposed Poplar Pointes sub-division like most of the neighboring sub-divisions is located on a local geographical high point in elevation. Glaciationhas provided us with some excellent and in some places very picturesque views. Glaciation has also given the area a unique geologic feature. The feature is that the upper most sandstone members of the Paskapoo Fm. are very near surface in most of the area, The drilling reports provided by the developer for his water diversion application, show that the sandstone is very close to surface and in one report states it is water bearing. Thesesandstones are porous and very permeable. when the sandstones are overwhelmed with fluid they willflow. They act just likea conduit or ifyou like a pipeline. People in the central and southern part of Poplar Ridge got a lesson some years ago about how this sandstone can move water, Most of the homes are built on top of this sand stone layer. And backin the day there were not requirements for weeping tile around homes and sump pumps. What happened was we received somewhere between 3 to 5 inches of rain in a very short time. This rain percolated down and hit the sandstone layer. The water volume was high enough that the water could not move vertically quick enough through the sandstone so it flowed through. The water ran down clipfrom North to South. It took about a day and then suddenly every one with cracks in there basement floor started a continuous mopping operation as the charged up sandstone underneath their homes began to flow. People with sump pumps with tell you they ran 24 Hrs a day until the flow subsided. Our homes are not the only thing on top of this sandstone. Our septic fields are also on top. Years ago I asked a local politicianto come and lookat an anomaly in the area. in the south end of the ridgethere is side hillthat's been breached by road construction and on the hottest days in July and Aug. When everything is bone dry and there is no run off. You can find wet area, a seepage from the breached side hill.The effluent is brown, translucent and sometimes has a sheen to it. The politician Ishared this information with advised me he had passed the information onto the proper authorities. I heard nothing back from the politician. I later contacted the County office directly where l suggested some surface water runoff testing should be completed in the area. This request not dealt with. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 129 of 188 Some time ago an articlewas printed in the Calgary Herald. This article stated that the Department of the Environment has been monitoring the FecalCount in the Elbow Riverand Glenmore Reservoir and the Fecal Count was steadily rising and has been positively tracked back to the Country Residential Developments West of Calgary. imagine that. Even in Calgarythe Nasty Stuff runs downhill. What goes in must come out. With 200 plus acreages allowed 1250 M3 per year, we have the potential to be already discharging in excess of 250.000M3 / year on top of a shallow # 1 member ofthe Paskapoo Formation. The fact is, because of our unique geological situation, the Country ResidentialDevelopments in this area might already be negatively effecting the environment here in Red Deer County and the Red Deer River. Here is the scary thing. The 2001 Waterline report states the following. The Aquifer systems underlying the proposed Poplar Ridge Development MAV be protected from shallowsurface contamination by the natural Geological conditions...... The author did not say the reservoirs are protected. They say MAY be protected from surface contamination. That is no guarantee. Now let's talk about sewage. We are being asked to entertain the idea of a some kind of SEWAGE TREATMENTFACILITY.We know absolutely nothing about the proposed sewage treatment facility or process. l am sure the facility will be built to the best known standards. It may or may not have a certain amount of retention time or storage. The lines connecting the homes to the plant willbe CSAapproved, and built to the most up to date standards. The system will come with lots of documentation all signed, sealed, and stamped by Professionals of all types. Here is the problem. EVERYTHINGBUILTBYMAN WILLSOME DAVSCREWUP. You can have state of the art Engineering and the absolute cutting edge of man's technological ability. And some day because of poor manufacturing, poor installation, poor maintenance, manufacturing flaws, engineering flaws, or because it is operated by human hands...... SOMEDAYITWILLFAIL FOOD FORTHOUGHT. The AERreports that between 1990 and 2012 there were 17,605 pipeline incidents. 15,609 were leaks. 1,116 were strikes with no release and 880 were ruptures. The developer want to place this raw sewage system in close proximity to the shallow #1 sandstone. His own reports show the sandstones are present. The Waterline Report proved the it 1 sandstone was a prolific reservoir to the south. We have established acreages and farms, downhill and down clip from the proposed sewage treatment. Its not a case of "If its going to leak" It's a case of "when is it going to leak". We are not talking about an inconvenience ifthere is a failure. We are talking about a serious Public Health scenario. How can the developer guarantee us that there will never be a leak, spill, mechanical failure or a human error in operating this sewage treatment facility. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 130 of 188 Does anyone remember Walkerton Ontario. 2 trained municipalemployees screwed up while operating a potable water system. 7 people died and thousands were sickened. Now the council is going to entertain both a communal water system and a sewer system. ALLTO BERUN BVCONDOMIINIUMOWNERSIII Municipalities are already in talks about water and sewer lines to service Sylvan Lake. it will be a reality in time. Sewage Treatment is not a N1MBY(not in my back yard) issue. Sewage Treatment is a serious public health issue. l am asking the Mayor and council, if at allpossible, to issue a moratorium on any further development in the Poplar Ridge Area untilthe water and sewer lines to Sylvan Lake are a reality, and available to developers. Thank you for your tim clpatience. Hudson A. Hunt Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 131 of 188 Red Deer County April26, 2016 Planning & DevelopmentDept. 38106Range Road 275 Red Deer County, Alberta T452L9 Attention: Mr. RichardMoje Re: ProposedArea Structure Plan. File number ASPO-15-ooz~ LandOwner 734175 Alberta Limited. (NE—2.9—38-28W4)ProposedBylawto adopt POPLAR POINTES ESTATES LOCALASP. Myname is Mason Hunt. I live at _ on the south end of Poplar I ’ A Ridge. I am 20 years old and have lived in PoplarRidge for 19 years. For the record I am against the proposed Area Structure Plan. In the Poplar Pointes Area Structure Plan document dated November2015it states the following. Alberta Environment has issued a water license to the property owner which will allow for 40,000 cubic meter of water annually to be allocated for the development. 1have examined the license and this is correct, 40,000 cubic meters is the Maximum Annual Diversion per year. The document then states the following. “It was determined that the aquifer can support 96lots, while 39 lots are proposed for the Poplar Pointes Estates". We are not quite sure what the developer was driving at here. The hydrogeological Report submitted with his water diversion application states. "A twenty year safe yield per well of at least 173m3/day is noted showing that one well could supply up to 50 lots" None ofthe smoke and mirrors really matters. What matters is that 4o,ooo m3/year divided by 1250m3 /year / lot is equal to 32 lots Maximum. NOT 39 AS PROPOSED. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 132 of 188 4o,ooo / 1250 = 32 Lots. This matter should go no further and the development must be turned down on the basis that the developer and his agents have applied for more lots than are available in his water diversionlicence. If they can't do simple math how can they be trusted to run a communal water system or worse some kind of communal sewage treatment system. This is proof they cannot be trusted! The PoplarRidge,Mountain View, Westridge developments are over 30 years old and have the legal right to pull 250,000 M3/ year of water out ofthe known aquifers. These are the same aquifers that the developer now wishes to use. Peoplehear have been suffering from diminishing volumes for a long time. I am also very concerned about the number of septic systems using the upper layers for disposal purposes. The volume is too high. How long before we have a wreck and someonesseptic ends up in someone's well? Your road systems were not built to handle the volumes they do now and nothing will change in the near future. The bottom line is more people means more traffic. As stated by the RCMP office who spoke the last time this was proposed. "More people means more crime”. The ditches hold the evidence of alcohol and drug abuse. The question is “ how big is big enough" Your jobs are not to create hamlets, villages and small towns. No more development should take place until regionalwater and sewer lines are available to the developer. Yours truly Mason Hunt Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 133 of 188 Red Deer County April 26, 2016 Planning & Development Dept. - 38105 Range Road 275 Red Deer County, Alberta T45 ZL9 Attention: Mr. RichardMoje Re: Proposed Area Structure Plan. Filenumber ASPO-15-002— Land Owner 734175 AlbertaLimited.(NE-29-38-28W4) Proposed Bylaw to adopt POPLARPOINTESESTATESLOCALASP. My name is Wendy Hunt. I liveat 8: on the south end of Poplar Ridge and have been there since 1997. For the record I am against the proposed Area Structure Plan. Today, the biggest issue I have is potable water. The majority of the residents of Harvey Heights are very concerned about their water wells. Some are new to the area, their realtors gave them well pump reports prior to purchase. Once they moved in they did their own pump output tests and found that the well capability was significantlyless than Reported. A long»time resident has watched his well deplete from an initialpump tests of + 25 gallons / minute. He recently had his well tested by an oil company. He now has a maximum rate of7 gallons] minute. This is still a very usable well rate but it proves that something Ischanging In regards to the reservoirs in the Harvey Heights area. These wellsare a very short distancefrom the licencedwell to be used in the proposed communal water system with an allowance for 40,000 M3 per year. Thecased depths of producing wellsand the licencedwell indicate that they are producing from the 2 lowermembers of the Paskapoo Fm. As do the majority of wells in Poplar Ridge area. Please remember this. The Geological Survey of Alberta states that in the area west of RedDeer, the 2 lower sandstone members oithe Paskapoo Fm. Are broad, continuous, and connected. I believe this council has an obligation to protect the current rate payers at Harvey Heights, Poplar Ridge, Mountain View and West Ridgeareas. The original Hydrogeological Report is now 11 years old. New acreages have been developed very near the developer's well that was drilled back in 2005. Under Section 27 of the Water Act it states that current domestic users have priority over Licenceddiversions. I believe that its imperative that prior to any consideration being given to this ASPthe County of Red Deer, must demand that the developer conduct a new aquifer evaluation including static interference testing of all the current wells in Harvey Heights. In conjunction with this testing, there must also be an in depth Engineering study completed to ascertain the effects of 30 years of water use from the older developments has had on the reservoirs. Any future testing should be completed by an Engineering company chosen and agreed upon by the acreage owners, county and developer. The costs should be borne by the developer. This test must be of a long enough duration and volume to draw down the pumping reservoir to simulate what willbe happening if the proposed development is built and operating at Maximumcapacity. Thisrate should be at the Maximum capability of the well or a Maximum DailyLicenced Rate of 200 M3 / day if capable. Allarea residents have made major investments. The purchase and development of their acreages is probably single biggest expenditure of their lifetimes. But without water you really have nothing. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 134 of 188 Thebottom line is we must protect the all current acreage owners. The developers Hydrogeological Report goes to great length to indicate that development and use of the aquifer willnot dramatically change the volumes available to the south. Thetrouble is DRAW DOWNISNOTIN ONEDIRECTION.Production of the well is notjust going to affect the people to the south. There are nice graphs showing calculated drawdown versus distance from the well. Yes we are concerned about the current users in Harvey Heights but no one has considered the following: The average age of the Poplar Ridge development is now about 30 years old. Between Mountain View, West Ridge,and Poplar Ridge there are some 200 homes. Eachacreage is allowed 1250 M3 per year. The math indicates that there could be as much as 250,000 M3 per year already being drawn out our reservoirs. We have been pumping likethis for 30 years. I hazard a guess that the drawdown that we are causing is already affecting the area west of us. But the HydrogeoiogicalReport does not consider this. And we believe they don‘! want to. Our reservoirs are replenished through rain water and melting snow. Thesedroplets must percolate slowly down through soils, clays, and sands to reach the reservoir, and this literally takes years. It's very hard today to be a climatechange denier. Facts are facts. The best scientists in the world agree that Global Warming is happening and we are facing much hotter and drier future. Thequestion is of course what is going to replenish our reservoirs, Allthe Hydrogeological Reports are based on pump tests with a calculated maximum draw down. The whole process is based on the reservoirs being continually replenished. Butno one considerswhat happens to the producible water when the re-charging of the aquifers decreased. Last week in the RedDeer Advocate an article stated that we have just sufferedan 85% reduction in snowfall. Now scientist does state that the RedDeer River water shed in the near future will see slightly higher rain volumes. The problem we are to suffer longer periods of drought followed by severe weather. We will not be seeing the nice long gentle rains that soak in to replenish our reservoirs. We willsee severe thunderstorms with large volumes of run off that do little to re-charge our aquifers. i am now going to step backin time and willdiscusswater wells in Poplar Ridge and a unique geological fact. Over the years a lot oftime has been spent reviewing the well data of allthe properties in Poplar Ridge area. We then asked the people in the area to share their well history with us. Many people came forward and we were able to establish 2 problem areas within the sub-divisionwhere 9 home owners described their well capability as very poor and they frequently ran out of water. Another 30 simply stated their volumes are low. We discovered that since a small development was put in on the western edge of the original development that Z landowners claimed when the new wells came on stream, that their own wells began to produce sand and they no longer consumed their tap water. We are aware that some of these problems may be mechanical in nature, but not all of them. If it was bad then I sure it has not improved with time. In 2001 there was another ASPproposed, The developers spent a lot of time and money proving up potable water. It culminated in a Report by firm called Waterline. The report focusedon 2 well tests. The Report proved that there was and is currently a very proli?c welllocated at the Poplar Ridge Tree Farm. The problem for the developers is that Waterline included very good mapping of the upper sandstone reservoir. Thismapping proved that the upper sandstone being utilizedin the prolific wellwas not available a reserve n the proposed sub-divisionor in the remainder of Poplar Ridge. As a matter of fact, the sandstone in question is only about 2 M or 6.5 feet deep in the North West corner of the same quarter section. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 135 of 188 Please note that the area in question is right across the road from Harvey Heightsand kitty corner from the proposed Poplar Pointe development and the data is consistent with the developers drilling reports in Harvey Heights. Thisupper sandstone is porous and very permeable. But, it is not a reservoir where most of us live. Most of the acreage owners have been proactive. Children have been educated as to the 2 minute shower versus the 10 minute shower. People are collecting and re-using final rinse water and using it to wash the next load of clothes. Owners have installed flow limiting equipment on there well inlets. They use low flow shower heads .Some have installed cisterns to collect rainwater for domestic use. These things are done at our expense because we care about the resource. Previous councilsand administrations created these large sub-divisions. Current and future councilshave a responsibility to protect the current taxpayers who are utilizing this precious ground water resource. There are far too many unknowns. There should be no further development in this area until the regional water line is a reality and made available to the developers. Vours Truly, /?/ Wendy Hunt Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 136 of 188 2016 04 27 Plarmingand Development Department Red Deer County, Alberta To Whom It May Concern; Re: ProposedPoplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan NE 29-38-28W4directlynorth of Harvey Heights w1'thaccess off Range Road284 I am writing to express my oppositionto the above notedproposedsubdivision.I have been a residentof Westridge Estates since 1999. My top three objections,in descendingorder,are water quantity/qualityissues, waste water/septicconcerns and property value decreases. I am certainmany peoplewill address those issues in detail. is I willmove on to traffic safety, especially as it relates to pedestrians.Increasedtrafficvolume already an issuehere that willonly get worse and this willbetmly exacerbatedby thirty nine new residences,eachwith two or more passenger vehicles. Many of us like to walk on the Townshipand Range Roadsfor exercise.The amount oftra?ic has increaseda lot in the time we have been here andsome of it de?nitely goes faster than it usedto. Whenthe Departmentof Transportationeventually (at some yet to be detenninedfuturedate) closes the RR 284 and HWY 11intersection,and modi?esthe RR 284 and HWY 11A intersection,traffic will be funneledalong TWP RD 384. Most of that traffic which wants to go north onto HWY 11A will avoid the school zone on R 283 and speedwest until it can swing north on R 284, creating more safety concems with walking along TWP RD 384 and RR284. There are other intangiblebene?tsof ruralliving such as some loss of animalhabitatthat will happenif thisestates plan is allowedto proceed,We happento enjoy seeing deer, moose, fox, andfoxbed coyotes and porcupinesin our yard. It is quitesomething to have seen deer, moose down at timesand have a nap in our backyard! The Red Deer County News from April 2016 listed the top 10 “Top of MindIssues" that local residents feel warrant the most attention.Interestingly, five of these issues line up with my ProposedPoplarPointe Estates concerns:roadconditions, planninganddevelopment,watershed management, in?astructure management, and restoring/protectingfannland. Thankyou forreviewing my concerns. Sincerely, Eéiabe??/Lam) Elizabeth Hunter _ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 137 of 188 2016 04 27 Planning and DevelopmentDepartment Red Deer County, Alberta To Whom It May Concern; Re: ProposedPoplarPointe Estates Area StructurePlan NE 29-38-28W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with accessoff Range Road284 I have been a residentof Westridge Estates for almost 17 years. I am writing to expressmy oppositionto the proposedsubdivisionthat addsnothing of value for existing residentsin this area whilecreating a number of concerns. This situation calls for interventionfor a number of reasons. A non-inclusivelist contains the following issues. Sufficientpotablewater is of paramount concern. Without sufficient water, we have nothing. There was a communitymeeting on 20l6 01 31 at the PoplarRidge Hall. Severalresidents presentedanecdotalevidence of a signi?cant dropin theirwell water productionin recent years. Othersspokeof sand in theirwater following developments.Thirty nine more homeswill result in a significant draw on an already lowered water supply. Installing meters (Proposal Policy 6.4.4 a) is not the answer. Residencesandfarmsneed water andthose of us who are already here should not have our lifestyleand property valuesput at risk because someonewishes to proceedwith further development.Mr. H Hunt advisedCounty and Councilin a letter dated 2015 l l 26 that the Departmentof the Environment geologistsbelieve that the three heavily usedaquifers in thisarea are continuous and connected.Peak water period use can thereforeimpactany of the area’s multiplesubdivisions’residences. limits that I have great difficulty believing t.lratif the proposednew homes do reach water meter theiraccess willbe shut off for the rest of that month or the rest of that year. Water shortages willcause frictionwithinhomes andhostility between neighbors. Additionally, the developer‘s proposalexplicitlyacknowledges in Policy 6.4.2 thatthe “site shouldbe servicedby a connectionto a licensedpiped-waterserviceproviderwhenavailable". Eachresidence The secondbiggest property value risk has to do withwaste water/septicissues. is a signi?cant amount of has its own septicsystem now, some older, some newer. As it is, there the general waste/septic for theearthto dealwithfrom the large number of existing homes in and water contamination. area.Thirty nine new familiesadd a signi?cant risk of septicrun off area that is susceptiblein a Mr. Hunt has previouslyadvisedthereis a lot of groundin this the soils. negativeway to overpopulationbecause of the type/compositionof andtheproposedwaste trunk 1had occasionabout 8 years ago to discusssepticsystems line doesseptic?elds andalso with a between Sylvan Lake and Red Deer City with a company that through, there is no planto provincialofficial.I was advisedthat even when the line is put to it in 30 years’ time. includeour area in that line. At best we might get connected Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 138 of 188 LakeandCounty I recently followedthis up with Provincial, City of RedDeer, Town of Sylvan tnmk lines of RedDeer officialsto determineifthere is a timeline change and I didnot find that member are any closer to reality now thanthey were then. Basically, there is an 8jurisdiction is commissionfor a water line and another one for a septicline. Any such“improvement” dependenton theprovincecontributing considerablefunding and] cannot see that happeningin the foreseeablefuture, especiallygiven the economy andthe needto balancefundingwithother high need projects. Additionally, I was informedthat no trunk line right of way has been identi?edyet and no land has been purchased.On top of that, no ?nal and binding agreement is inplace with the City of Red Deer and so the line(s) might comethrough between Highways ll and 11A,or the water linemay endup goinga differentdirectionaltogether, from SylvanLake to Innisfail. existing Even if we were to get connectedto sucha trunk line, it would be at considerablecost to individualproperty owners. Theacreage type residences east of HeritageRanch in Riverview each Park that got annexedby the City‘ofRed Deer had to foot a huge connectionbillof $45,000 (in 2009 dollars) for water and sewer hookups (http://www.albertalocalnewscom/news/local/Riverviewresidents backing petition.htrnl?mobi1 emrue). My water and sewer systems are paid for and my sewer system is only a few years old so I have no desire to be forced into an extravagant bill so some developercan make money. The decrease in property values is my third concern. Thirty nine new acreages placedon the marketcannot do anything but lowerour propenyvalues, turning thisinto a lopsidedbuyer’s market.Peoplewho wish to move to this area can do the same thing most of us who already live noted that here did — wait untilan existing hornegoes up for sale. One communityhall presenter there are roughly 250 homes in the immediate area witha populationnearing 700. This is a lot of concentrationwith severalacreagtgsubdivisionstouching up against each other. Finally, I am disturbedby the politicssurroundingthis subdivisionproposal.The developergot theMayor as well as the Councilorfor our local Area 6 kickedoff the hearing committee, claimingthey may have had prior knowledge of local residents‘concerns.But is that not what they are elected to obtain? Red Deer County is a small place andI find it hard to believe that none of the other councilors have not had discussions or otherwisebecame aware of the issues beforethe 2016 02 02 hearing. Theseare the only two municipalpoliticiansthat Area 6 residents can vote for, or against, at election time.So this means that Area 6 residentsare now in a taxation without representation situation!!!All the other councilors who sat through the 2016 02 02 Hearing and heardeverything remaineligibleto vote on the new Hearing. Those of us opposedto this plan have to contact the county and askthat our original lettersbe broughtforward,or we have to writeandsubmitnew letters. Also,many of us attendedthe 2016 02 02 hearing and made a verbalpresentation.Some peoplehad to take time off workto do this and now we have to re—makeour presentations. Sincerely, , “gym"-7 4315“Cl‘ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 139 of 188 Richard Moie From: Darcy Kamieniecki< l Sent: Monday, December7, 2015 2:49 PM To: Richard Moje Subject: Re:?le #asp—15A0O2 To whom it may concern: I am sending this email in response to the letter i received from the county regarding the poplar ‘"'>“== Pointe estates area structure plan. I live at’ _ _ _ I have a very serious concern regarding this new proposed development. Currently, i have a wellon my property and it only pumps approximately lgallon of water/minute. I do not want any further building in our area which could compromise my water flow any further. Please do keep me informed regarding any public consultations‘ Regards, Darcy Kamieniecki Sent from Yahoo Mailon Android Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 140 of 188 Fl Subj’ Date: April29, 2016 at 1 33 PM To me Red Deer county Council, rmwmmgreaming mepmru... ma... om». ceterae etrru-hire nlen lnr Mr ogeaaezs-4 My name Is Gary Lasstr I live at I am tolally agaIns\ any more development in this area oi the county tor the loilowing reasons 1 water, wells in the area are sultenng somehomes in the area are down lo 1 gallon per mlnme it more wells are allowed, some residents may have to resonto clslerns and the possiulity orhaving to buy and have potable water trucked in. 2 septic systems, the possibility ol so many septic fields pollutingour ground wa|er. 3 school crowding 4 Drsrupting oi wrldliie. 5 Crime 5 QUALITYOF LIFE, our lamriychose Poplar ridge lor the quahly at livehave, we moveoout here In 1995 to enjoy rhe quiet peacelul way 0! Me, what your NOW Irying (0 do 1510(um Ihts area into another Iown‘v’!7Why would you do that? Red Deer COUHWis very large so why not daveiop in a vacant area why expand our area which is already al iis max, Ihls makes no sense lo rnei and I am sure rl you lived out here you would leel the same way we have seen over the years tramo almost double Poplar Ridge and area is now at we hundred residents That is more than a lot ol smail lawns. Closing remarks, please Ihlrlk about where you live right now.you prooaoly love the neighbour hood, so what it i wanted to tear down the house non to you and pmin a 24 hour gas staiion . would you be happy? People moveto areas because ol the neighboul hood and the Ille style so please don'| change ours Please do not let any more development intothis alea! Do 11somewhere else. Thank YOU. Sincerely Gar assu Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 141 of 188 Flom Carl L Subject Lener Date Aplll 29, 2016 at 12 43 PM T0 7 To me Red Deer cuunly calmer», I'm wllllng tegardlng mepvoposed Poplar Poinle Es1aIes slmclure plan lor NE29—ae~2a-4 ~~- ' My name ls coral Lassu, l we at: w I am Iotally against any more ...... ,.r.r.,...... r. ,, ,.r m6 lollowlng reasons. 1 waler, wells ln mearea are sullermg. somenamesIn the area are down lo 1 gallon per mlnute ll more wells ale allowed, some vesldenls may have In leson lo cislerns and mepassibillty ol havlng Io buy and have potable waler trucked ln 2 Sepllc syslems, meposslbillly of so many sepllc lields pullulingaur glound waler a school cvowdlng 4 Dlsrupllngof wlldllfe 5 crlme 5 olralny al lrle, oul larruly chase Poplar mlge 1ormequalllyol Me here. we have seen ovel meyears lram; almost double. Poplar Rldge and area ls rlow al soohundred Iesldents That rs moreIhan a lo: ol small towns Tlafhc >5 crazy‘ Roads suller damage lrom sa much uafllc Pol?oles, cracked and buckled pavement Please do no:lel any more developmenl lnlo Ihls areal Thank You, smcsrely Coral Lassu ncu uccl uuuuly senl (lam mylFad Cori L Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 142 of 188 April 25, 2016 Francis and Margaret Lavoie RED DEER COUNTY Planning and Development Services Legal Desc: NE 28-38-28—4 Land Owner; 734175 Alberta Ltd County File ASP-15-002 Subject: Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan We wish to update our comment on this proposed signi?cant expansion to the Poplar Ridge community. County Council has in recent years considered and denied similar applications. Some councilors will recall residents raising strong opposition to such proposals; meetings were held, objections raised, a petition submitted. The concerns for this application vary little from past proposals. They are: depletion of water supply, vehicular traffic levels, density of population and loss of natural habitat along with the rural setting. Regarding water supply; resident surveys for previous development proposals have indicated problems for homes in the adjacent Section 28-38-28-4 especially in dry periods of the summer months. There is little doubt that with time depletion of water in one aquafer will lead to a draw on adjoining ones. with the proposed location being on the opposite side of Poplar Ridge to Red Deer, the majority of resulting traffic to town will pass through Poplar Ridge via TWP Road 384 (Poplar Ridge Road). Thirty nine new households and at a conservative estimate of 250 added, to and from, trips per day, the projected traffic increase is signi?cant. On our own we frequently see residents walking, jogging, and cycling, at times with children and pets. The county roads were not meant for higher volumes of traffic and sewing residents in their recreation activities too. The Poplar Ridge Road, on which we live, is a strong case in point. Not coincidentally for residents on TWP Rd 384 there are excessive speeds and signi?cant noise to contend with. The source can be cars, trucks, motorbikes, snowmobiles or quads whose drivers enjoy the thrills of speed and sound. The incidence of this will increase with USE. What Council should also consider is that the success of this proposal will lead to a renewed desire among previous landowner applicants for the same consideration. There exist already some two hundred and ?fty households. We have chosen our living spaces on the basis of quiet country living. with repeated development those qualities have been chipped away at. It seems this proposal and its population increase will take us a step further. If development carries on, when will it stop? Our wish is that the proposal be not approved. Sincerely, Francis and Margaret Lavoie Poplar Ridge Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 143 of 188 Red Deer County April25, 2016 Planning & DevelopmentDept. 38l06 Range Rd. 275 ‘I. Red Deer County. AB T4S2L9 " Attention: Mr. Richard Moje Re: ProposedArea Structure Plan. File NumberASPO-15-002— Land Owner 734175 Albena Ltd. (NE-29-38-ZXW4) — Bylaw No. 2015/35 Dear Mr. Moje: In response to the Public Notice, we are writing to express that we most strongly object to this proposedASl’/ further developmentin the Harvey lleights Extension(Poplar Pointe Estates). Red Deer County needs to carefully consider the necessary infrastructure upgrades that will be required priorto approving this development. These upgradesand concerns are as follows but not limited too; 1) The Poplar Ridge Elementary School is exceeding enrolment capacity for the kindergarten class (it has been split), grade 2 is large and cannot be split as the school does not have the capacity to do so. With the demographicof the existing homes shifting back to young familiesthis burden to the school will increase without further development. Additional homes in its catchment area would mean even more students that would burden the school and its quality of education. An increase to the Student-to- Teacher ratio would hinder the positive,small-community school atmosphereand high- quality of education offered at present. An overcrowded,under-staffed school would negatively impactstudents, teachers, and parents. Portable classrooms are an inadequate solution to overcrowding and are a result of poor planning and funding models. A new school certainly will not be built, and expansion is un|i.kely to be approved. 2) Statistics have proven that higher density developmentscan increase crime rates. Policing rates may need to be increased. 3) Our current road system was not designed for the volumes of vehicles we currently see on our roads. Heavy commercial and commuter traffic that uses our local roads for access to and from the Burnt Lake Industrial Sub-divisionare short cutting the lights located at highway ll by FasGas by going do\vn TWP 384 and disbursing from there in all directions. This current practice is currently very unsafe given the road engineering and road safety measures currently in place. We have witnessed peoplepassing us or other vehicles at high rates of speedtreating this township road like a highway. Further increase to traffic would be very detrimental. Road and road safety infrastructure would need to be improved. 4) There are already too many residents that suffer from low water volumes from their wells. Increasing more homes/wells pulling water out of the same reservoirs is adverse. Who will assist current residents if this becomes a problem? Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 144 of 188 5) We are very concerned with the possibility ofseptic system seepage getting into our ground water supply as a result of increaseddensities. Again if our water becomes unusable who will provide the compensation / solution? 6) Any planto force current residents to switch to communityprovidedwater and sewage systems is unwanted as it would increase our property taxes and utility expenses. 7) Contrary to what the developerstated in public, value of homes in the area will Lt increase but willdecrease. Homes such as the ones currently in the area are sought after as they are considered estate homes. Implementationof higher density homes will certainly detract from this appeal causing current home values in the area to fall. We hope that Red Deer County is carefully weighing the decisions/ consequences that will be a result of this proposeddevelopment. Neither the developer nor the County can outline much of a bene?t to the existing area as a result of this proposeddevelopment. Higher density developments are better suited where infrastructure has been planned to support density increases. This area is obviously not suited for developmentwithout prior infrastructure improvements. Both the developerand current residents have arguments of selfish motive) we do not precludeourselves from that. However we hope that we have outlined some of our concerns that reach beyond sel?sh motives that are worthy of your time and consideration. Thank you for addressing our concerns and objection to the developmentplans proposed for PoplarPointe Estates. Yours sincerely, ., , /1 K, 7/2;¢;;,//60; /’ o ,4 Diana Len uk '/Cory Don Reeve Patricia Reeve (4 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 145 of 188 March 22,2016 To: Red Deer County Attn: Richard Moje Re: County file Number/\SP-15-O02 Poplar Pointe Estates Development Dear Richard: I am writing to you to express several concerns with the proposed development behind my family's home. We are residents of Harvie Heights and will be directly affected by this development and we have yet to be contacted by this developer about this plans for this application. I found a linkto this development on your website which posted all of the residents personal information, I have the understanding one of my neighbors contacted you regarding this and expressed her displeasure and I see today it has be whited out. The following is a list of concerns I have and would expect the county to address them. 1) Lots sizes- This being the second development on this quarter why are you moving to smaller lots sizes? Our current development is approx. 3 acres sizes as well as Poplar Ridge, Mountain View, West Ridge, Poplar Ridge West comprised of roughly 350 homes. Now you want to go against the current development in the area and introduce city style housing in an acreage community. City style lots are the exact thing that everyone does not want, hence why we chose to live in the county and not the city. 2) Water use- I know there is a test well in place but have you asked the adjacent land owners about their available water? I know the farmer to the East of this location has to have three wells just to water his livestock. 3) Sewer- From the article on your website it states there is to be an onsite sewage treatment plant, where is the treated water released too? What about the sewage smellfrom the pumping station as the one on HWV2A at Spring brook or 30 ave in Red Deer give off pungent odors. How can you assure my family that this does not disturb our community? 4) Out dated Documents as stated I have never been asked to attend a public meeting about this development nor has anyone contacted us at home. Thedocument on your website which states that all residents have no issues with this development is out dated or fraudulent as I have spoken with all our neighbors and they have stated they have given no such approval. I would advise the County to check into this further. 5) IDPand MDP- the last time the development was not approved it did not meet the IDPor the MDP, does it comply with these documents now? I would advise you recap the meeting minutes for the last meeting. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 146 of 188 6) Traffic-With the potential of adding another 100 homes to the area and the closure of the HWY11 access in the future where is this extra traffic expected to go? Ifeach home has two vehicles that is an addition 400 movements each day on roads originally made for framing machinery. You are going to push the additional traffic down the Poplar ridge road which is already over used. I would ask that you please consider how this development is constructed, keep the acreage life style intact. I'm not opposed to further development but keep the current community feel in place as this is what has drawn all of us to the county. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns, Todd McPeek Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 147 of 188 March22, 2016 To: RedDeerCounty Attn:RichardMole re: Poplar PointAreaStructure PlanBylawNumber2015/35; County FileNumberASP-15-002 Asa residentInHarvey Heightsdirectlyadjacentto the proposed subdivisionIhave concerns. with lots in the area all being from3-5 acresthe proposed plan changes the neighborhood. Ifeelwe are Ina very friendly areawhere everyone knowsyour name. BringingInthat many familyhomes Ifeel will change the dynamics Inour area whichis a concernto me. We moved out ofthe city to raise our childrenIna relaxed quiet environment. Thatwillallbe gone with this scaleofdevelopment. Ecstatlcaliythe area alsodramatically changes. To put a significantslxedneighborhoodnext to a neighborhoodof very few with large lots is likeputting a trailercourt next to a prestige neighborhood In RedDeer. Ido not feel RedDeerwoulddo Itso why wouldwe allowItinthe County. Excusethe analogy but Ithinkit paints the picture ofhow Ifeel. Veswecouldhavemoved to a more remote areaasto mitigate the possibilityof suchproposalsbut as my husbandisa long term sewing volunteeron the RedDeer County FireDepartment we wanted to stay close enough for himto respond Ina timely fashion. As the representatives ofthe County residentsI hope you willthinkabout the personalImpact such a development has on us. Icannot directly speak on behalfofother community residents but lfthe time wastaken to listento concernsIstronglybelievemany wouldhave the same concerns. Idid not speak to my concernsabout traf?c, road Infrastructure, wateror crime.lam hoping the councllorswilltake these realitems Intoaccount whenlooking out for the residents. Thankyou fortaking the timeto listento my concerns. Itruly hope you willtake them Intoconsideration when you make a decisioneffectingmany livespersonally. Sinc rely, Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 148 of 188 Jan. 31, 2016 RE:Poplar Pointe Estates Development Proposal Red Deer County To Whom It May Concern; I am a resident of Poplar Ridge Estate and I have some concerns on the proposal future development noted above. I moved into the Poplar Ridge area 2 years ago. We have lived on an acreage for the last 15 years, in part, for the country lifestyle living, being away fromthe hustle and bustle ofthe city and being able to enjoy the outdoors without the degree of problems that exist in higher populated density areas such as cities and large towns. When we looked at the Poplar Ridge area 2 years ago, we did have a concern with the amount of acreages already in this area and the impact that could have on what we were looking for in an acreage. Since we purchased our home, we have been happy. Now with this proposal to add more acreages to an already crowded area, I am very concerned on a numberof issues with it. A few of my concerns are listed below: 1) Property values: What willthe impact be on the value of my property? We spent a lot of money to purchase my home 2 years ago to get into this location to ?t in my family needs. Iam concerned that additional properties willbring my property value down. 2) Property taxes: With this new proposed development, there will be additional requirements from the county to maintain roads, policing, waste/garbage pick-up, etc. I know the comment is the new residence will have to pay those additional costs!! I also know from my many years of acreage livingthat current residence also help pay for those additional costs resulting in our taxes going up. 3) Crime increase: With additional residences in an area comes the potential for increase in crime, which requires additional policing requirements (mentioned in #2]. 4) Water source: I understand that the proposal includes providing a common water source from 2 wells coming from the same aquifer that our individual well current draws from. With the high concentration of people already in the area, some people are seeing their flow rate drop and the quality of their water worsen. I am concerned what the impact from this additional develop will be on our water source. The last testing done on those wells were in 2005. There needs to be more upvto—datetesting done for this size of development to understand what the potential impact willbe on the aquifer that we all draw from. How long could it be before we all have to start hauling in water from somewhere else? Who will have to pay for that cost? It won't be the county, we the residence willhave too. I am concerned on the value of my property down the road if we begin to have water flow or quality issues as a result. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 149 of 188 5) Septic: I understand that a water treatment plant will need to be built to treat the sewage as those residence will not be able to install septic fields. What willthe ?nancial impact be to the county residence to have to build, maintain, update, etc. of this facility. How willthe disposal of the treated sewage be managed and financed? How will run—offbe managed, odours from run- off he managed, etc.? 6) Traffic: With more people living in the area, there is increased traffic. These roads are not designed for high traffic volumes, we already have weight restrictions of 90% year round with additional reductions on a lot of our county roads during the spring and summer. With the additional traffic, will there be greater weight restrictions resulting in higher transportation costs for us residences for our own development on our properties? Asa new resident, l have already had to incur signi?cant additional costs to do work on my property. I could see those costs go higher or the road surfaces would need to be upgraded at costs to us as property owners in the county. Its either that or the quality of our roads would deteriorate at an accelerated rate. 7) Naturalized Wetland: Reading the "AreaStructure Plan” for the Poplar Pointe Estate proposed development on the Red Deer County website, it notes that the Phase 1 & 2 developments are within a designated "Naturalizedwetland area". Thisis a natural area for wildlife such as moose, deer, coyotes, birds. With the concerns around the environment and the impact to natural areas such as this, see that the developer recognizes this but still wants to develop this area. I would also ask the county why they would potentially support this proposal as they should be the ambassadors for the environment in the jurisdictions they manage. Are there not any more appropriate areas for a development such as this? These are a few of the concerns I have with the proposed development and as a result, unless I can have clarity on these I do NOT support this initiative. Best regards, Dean Preele Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 150 of 188 Jan. 31, 2016 RE:Poplar Pointe Estates Development Proposal Red Deer County To Whom it May Concern; I am a resident of Poplar Ridge Estate and l have some concerns on the proposal future development noted above. I moved into the Poplar Ridge area 2 years ago. We have lived on an acreage for the last 15 years, in part, for the country lifestyle living,being away from the hustle and bustle of the city and being able to enjoy the outdoors without the degree of problems that exist in higher populated density areas such as cities and large towns. when we looked at the Poplar Ridge area 2 years ago, we did have a concern with the amount of acreages already in this area and the impact that could have on what we were looking for in an acreage. Since we purchased our home, we have been happy. Now with this proposal to add more acreages to an already crowded area, I am very concerned on a numberof issues with it. A few of my concerns are listed below: 1) Property values: What will the impact be on the value of my property. I spent a hell ofa lot of money to purchase my home 2 years ago to get into this location to fit in my family needs. l am concerned that additional properties willbring my value down. 2) Property taxes: With this new proposed development, there will be additional requirements from the county to maintain roads, policing, waste/garbage pick—up,etc. I know the comment is the new residence will have to pay those additional costsll I also know from my many years of acreage livingthat current residence also help pay for those additional costs resulting in our taxes going up. 3) Crime increase: With additional residences in an area comes the potential for increase in crime, which requires additional policing requirements (mentioned in #2). 4) Water source: I understand that the proposal includes providing a common water source from 2 wells coming from the same aquifer that our individualwell current draws from. With the high concentration of people already in the area, some people are seeing their flow rate drop and the quality of their water worsen. l am concerned what the impact from this additional develop will be on our water source. The last testing done on those wells were in 2005. There needs to be more up-to-date testing done for this size of development to understand what the potential impact will be on the aquifer that we all draw from. How long could it be before we all have to start hauling in water from somewhere else? Who will have to pay for that cost? It won't be the county, we the residence Will have too. I am concerned on the value of my property down the road if we begin to have water flow or quality issues as a result. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 151 of 188 5) Septic: I understand that a watertreatment plant willneed to be built to treatthe sewage as those residence will not be able to install septic fields. What will the financial impact be to the county residence to have to build, maintain, update, etc. of this facility. How willthe disposal of the treated sewage be managed and financed? How willrun»off he managed, odors from run~off be managed, etc.? 6) Traffic: With more people living in the area, there is increased traf?c. These roads are not designed for high traffic volumes, we already have weight restrictions of 90% year round with additional reductions on a lot of our county roads during the spring and summer. With the additional traffic, will there be greater weight restrictions resulting in higher transportation costs for us residences for our own development on our properties? As a new resident, I have already had to incur significant additional costs to do work on my property. I could see those costs go higher or the road surfaces would need to be upgraded at costs to us as property owners in the county. It's either that or the quality of our roads would deteriorate at an accelerated rate. 7) Naturalized Wetland: Reading the "Area Structure Plan" for the Poplar Pointe Estate proposed development on the Red Deer County website, it notes that the Phase 1 St 2 developments are within a designated "NaturalizedWetland area". This is a natural area for wildlife such as moose, deer, coyotes, birds. with the concerns around the environment and the impact to natural areas such as this, see that the developer recognizes this but still wants to develop this area. I would also ask the county why they would potentially support this proposal as they should be the ambassadors for the environment in the jurisdictions they manage. Are there not any more appropriate areas for a development such as this? These are a few of the concerns I have with the proposed development and as a result, unless I can have clarityon these I do NOT supportthis initiative. Best regards, Marlene Preete Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 152 of 188 /7.4/W/uj/uc7/,2 ND DL:\/1:70/3/W);/Q7 >2 N’! D12weRTM _ January 31, 2016 To whom It May Concern, in regards to the development of the proposed Poplar Pointe Estates Structure Plan. Based on the water table and supply for this area further development and wells can not be justified. Above ground sewage lagoon willnot improve the area or the water purity and Ido not support any further expansion of this area. Thank you V L:37?7L:3 P09 ‘\CM" R’X\3Cn/E Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 153 of 188 /9'm,U;uj;u¢; /qmo D1.3\/Eu?/?f’7A5/kJ‘T DEP/—\R/lVV\l?‘\3’l_ January 31, 2016 To whom It May Concern, In regards to the development of the proposed Poplar Pointe Estates Structure Plan. Basedon the’ water table and supply for this area further development and wells can not be justified. Above ground sewage lagoon willnot improve the area or the water purity and l do not support any further expansion of this area. Thank you (1&M~3>“?’\°aA@/QW\dR“L<)3,Q*5010550 \mlr ‘V *\ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 154 of 188 April 26"‘,2016 Ernie Repas Planning & Development Services 38106 Rge Rd 275 Red Deer County, AB T48 2L9 Re: Poplar Pointe Estates subdivision proposal I am strongly opposed to this subdivision. A major concern is water. Another subdivision willonly add to this problem. I have been dealing with the Red Deer County for almost 2 years with regards to my septic field and am getting nowhere. I hope that the residents’ concerns regarding this proposed subdivision have better luck than l have had. Yours truly, Ernie Repas Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 155 of 188 April 26"‘,2016 MyrtleRepas ?n. ’ R Planning & Development Services 38106 Rge Rd 275 Red Deer County, AB T48 2L9 Re: Poplar Pointe Estates subdivision proposal I am strongly opposed to this subdivision. Although we have great water we would hate to see it decrease because of the addition of this subdivision. Water is a main concern for me. Yours truly, Myrtle Repas /$7)" Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 156 of 188 April 26, 2016 Re: Poplar Pointe Estates Proposal To: Red Deer County lam writing this letter in grave concern regarding the proposal of the new subdivision called Poplar Pointe Estates. One of my largest concerns is the impact on our already dwindling water supply. The road, will be even more damaged by the addition of a potential 80 more vehicle on it, as well as the safety issues of these extra vehicles. There are many more good reasons for this subdivision not being allowed to go through, some being the destruction of good farm land, the stress added to the wildlife as their domain dwindles and the ability to handle the waste from such a large number of dwellings in such a concentrated area. These are just a few concerns of the many that could be listed . Please do not allow this to go through. Kind Regards Brenda Senko Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 157 of 188 April 26, 2016 Re: Poplar Pointe Estates Proposal To: Red Deer County I am writing this letter in grave concern regarding the proposal of the new subdivision called Poplar Pointe Estates. One of my largest concerns is the impact on our already dwindling water supply. The road, will be even more damaged by the addition of a potential 80 more vehicle on it, as well as the safety issues of these extra vehicles. There are many more good reasons for this subdivision not being allowed to go through, some being the destruction of good farm land. These are just a few concerns of the many that could be listed. Please do not allow this to go through. Kind Regards Myron 1 Senko Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 158 of 188 From: Andrew/LauraShepherd <_,. V Sent: Saturday,April23, 2016 204 PM To: RichardMoje Subject: FileNumber.ASP»15-002 Opposition to proposal for Development Acknowledgement requested >> Land Owner: 734175 AlbertaLtd. >> >> I would liketo register my opposition to this proposal on the following grounds: >> >> 1. RD County prides itself on rural living.When I movedto the county from the city, it was on this basisthat sold me. I moved to a already developed rural area that Ichose due to its mixture of country residentialdwellings but also the unoccupied farm land that surrounded my home. According to the material that I have received, the proposal is for 1 to 1.5 acre residential lots.Thetotal amount of land involved isalmost 49 acres whichcalculates to no less than 32 new homes. Thisis not an insignificantnumber and does result Ina large development footprint. It willhave a enormous effect on the area and willchange the dynamic of the neighbourhood. With that many new homes, the ruralfeeling and atmosphere willbe lost forever. There is already Poplar Ridgeto the east of us and if allowedto proceed, this development willbring another dense community to the area. There is a need to retain this parcel of land in its natural state. >> >> 2. The Increasedtrafficthis development willbring willalso alter the area. Access onto Hwy 11 is already difficult when proceeding south off RR284. The volume of traf?c going both east and west from Hwy 11 already makes accessa challenge at peak periods. Thereis a significant population from Sylvan Lakethat commutes daily Into the city of Red Deer. The current method to merge onto Hwy 11 from RR284is already unsafe.There is no merge laneto proceed eastbound and with the Increase of traf?c this development would bring, the traf?c safety concerns wouldbe magni?ed. )> » when turning off Hwy 11 onto RR284, there isa smalllanethat forces one to move over, slow down and turn in a very short distance Is also Inadequate. Again, the Increase of traffic would makethis already poor situation even more dangerous. >> merge or » when looking at the Hwy 11a junction with RR284, this situation is even worse. There are no turn lanes in either direction.The eastbound traf?c on Hwy 11a comes over a hillmaking visibilityterriblefor entering Hwy 11a from RR 284. >> » in addition to the aforementioned, traf?c on RR284 itselfwould also see a significant increase. Again,with the addition of this numberof homes, traf?c could potentially double.The are currently only approximately 20 homes in the Harvle Heights and Poplar Ridge west area. With an additional32 homes added, RR284 willbe the main feeder route from our area to the city of Red Deer and the associated increase in trafficwould be signi?cant. Again, the real tempo of this area wouldnow be drastically altered. >> >> I do not see any plan fromthe developer that addresses traf?c as I have commented on above. >) >> 3. What does this development do to our water capacity? We are all using our own well system that iscurrently suitable. Anadditional 32 homes would put pressure on the underground water supply i'm sure. It is not responsible to ignore this concern. Ruralwater wellsare the lifebloodof rural living. Ifwater supply was reduced so as to effect quality 1 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 159 of 188 of life, irrevocabledamage willbe done. Thiswillhave a direct result in property values for current land owners. There is mention in the material that I received ofa communal waste water facility. Thisisvague and unclear. We all utilize septic systems in the area and these too are working well. >> >> In conclusion,county livingwould be forever changed ifthis proposal is allowed.i think there are many viable points that l have raised that shouldserve to decline this proposal. I have had the opportunity to speak to some neighbours and they share my opinions and I hope they took the time to communicate them to the county. >> >> Thank—youfor giving this opinion due consideration. >> >> Andrew Shepherd Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 160 of 188 ...._ i\lv1aIri mi Red Deer County, Planning and Development Services Dept. Planning and DevelopmentOfficer, RE: Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan. Landowner's name:734l75 Alberta Ltd. File # ASP~15-002 Although we had already written a letter voicingour concerns about the developmentof this area, it seems that it is never enough, therefore we, again,voice our concerns about this plan. We wonder who will be responsiblefor any break in the sewage lines from the home owners to the communal sewage system? Is the county or the developer ultimately responsible for this or is it each home owner? That could be quite a bill for a home owner to pay‘ What happens to all the ground water below this high point? Owners dmxmstream from such an accident would have contaminated wells and who would pay for that clean up ~ if it ever could be cleaned up? Who is the engineer who will be monitoring the fancy septic system that is to be so efficient? Who pays him and who pays for that system if something goes wrong with it? This is a huge concem and no one wants to take responsibility for consequences that will surely surface at some point. We had also voiced our concerns of the traffic volume. There would be at least 2 or 3 vehicles per acreage adding (at the very least) 80 more vehicles to an already congested 8168. Respectfully submitted by, D Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 161 of 188 Mrs. Leonora Skoz Red Deer County, Planning and Development Services Dept. Planning and Development Officer, RE: Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan. Landowner's name:734175 Alberta Ltd. File # ASP—l5—002 Although we had already written a letter voicing our concerns about the development of this area, it seems that it is never enough, therefore we, again, voice our concerns about this plan. We wonder who will be responsible for any break in the sewage lines from the home owners to the communal sewage system? is the county or the developer ultimately responsible for this or is it each home owner‘? That could be quite a bill for a home owner to pay. What happens to all the ground water below this high point? Owners downstream from such an accident would have contaminated wells and who would pay for that clean up — ifit ever could be cleaned up? Who is the engineer who will be monitoring the fancy septic system that is to be so efficient? Who pays him and who pays for that system if something goes wrong with it? This is a huge concem and no one wants to take responsibility for consequences that will surely surface at some point. We had also voiced our concerns ofthe traf?c volume. There would be at least 2 or 3 vehicles per acreage adding (at the very least) 80 more vehicles to an already congested area. Respectfully submitted by, Leonore Skog Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 162 of 188 To: Planning and Development Services Red Deer County Division 6 Re: Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan Area Structure Plan for lands within the NE 29-38-28-4 File ASP-1 5-D02 ROLL NO: 488291005 Date: November 20, 2015 As an Adjacent landowner (NE 21 38 ZSW4) we are submitting our concerns and obiections to the above subdivision application. 1. Red Deer County, Division 6 including Poplar Ridge, Westridge Estates, Harvey Heights and Mountain View acreages' already draw a large volume of water from the existing aquifer and indeed, some acreages are already experiencing water problems. Adding an additional 40 to 50 single family homes with garages and shops etc. would further negatively impact this Issue. 2. One Important consideration for purchasing our home in this area was the fact that it was relatively quiet, with limited noise and traf?c. All the lands around the area were zoned Agriculture District (AG) and most of the Residential zoned lots had already been developed. The ability to take a quiet walk or bicycle ride around the area was and still is very important. The addition of even 40 new homes will change this forever, and it was not part of the "deal" when we purchased. increased traffic and the resulting Increased noise and congestion would negatively impact our neighborhood forever. 3. Finally, I am totally opposed to a new Sewage Treatment Facility In our neighborhood. This cannot help but devalue properties in the area and is not something that should be even considered. Over the past 20 years we have had to light numerous subdivision proposals and in all instances, reason has prevailed and large scale development has been denied. Why must the existing tax payers and land owners need to continuously justify their access to peace and privacy? We very much are opposed to re-zoning 133 acres of Agricultural lands to Residential District (R1) as proposed in the Poplar Polnte Estates Area Structure Sincerely, £ 1§<\K.«\ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 163 of 188 To: Planning and Development Services Red Deer County Division 6 Re: Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan Area Structure Plan for lands within the NE 2973842844 File ASP—15—002 ROLL N0: 483291005 Date: November 20, 2015 As an Adjacent landowner (NE 21 38 28W4) we are submitting our concerns and objections to the above subdivision application. 1.Red Deer County, Division 6 including Poplar Ridge, westridge Estates, Harvey Heights and Mountain View acreages' already draw a large volume of water from the existing aquifer and indeed, some acreages are already experiencing water problems. Adding an additional 40 to 50 single family homes with garages and shops etc. would further negatively impact this issue. 2. One important consideration for purchasing our home in this area was the fact that it was relatively quiet, with limited noise and traffic. All the lands around the area were zoned Agriculture District (AG) and most of the Residential zoned lots had already been developed. The ability to take a quiet walk or bicycle ride around the area was and still is very important. The addition of even 40 new homes will change this forever, and it was not part of the "deal" when we purchased. Over the past 20 years we have had to fight numerous subdivision proposals and in most instances, reason has prevailed. why must the existing tax payers and land owners need to continuously justify their access to peace and privacy? In conclusion, we are very much opposed to re—zoning 133 acres of Agricultural lands to Residential District (R1) as proposed in the Poplar Pointe Estates Area Structure Plan. Sincerely, Therese (Terry) Sleno . - Lona} Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 164 of 188 Marvin Trimble 31 )e, April 20, 2016 Red Deer County 38106 Rge.Rd. 275 Red Deer County, AB RE:Bylaw No.2015/35Poplar Pointe Estates LocalArea Structure Plan To Whom it May Concern: We cannot believethat anyone at the County would recommend a development such as this in this area?.7 lf the administrativestaff who we tax payers pay the wages for would have done any research they would know that this area is overpopulated and has several issues with water wells drying up, water well contamination, septic leechlng,storm water runoff and traf?c. Several documentshave been presented over the years to the Countythat prove that they havemade mistakes in planning or allowingdevelopments such as this; starting with the Ken Van DeWark Stormwater Runoff Study for the Proposed Poplar Ridge Development Area Structure Plan (2000/2001), the 2005 Red Deer County GroundwaterStudy, and the AssociatedEngineering Stormwater Management Plan report in 201 1. Allof these point to serious issues that only get worse with every new development in this area. If the Developer would have his engineers spend anytime in the area they would know that no stormwater system design willnot have a serious impact on the area when there are hundreds of people living downhill and downstreamin the aquifers. Regards, ‘447a»«--—x\7.,vl,~(:3 Marvin Trimble Please con?rm receipt! Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 165 of 188 SheilaTrimble Rt. April 20, 2016 Red Deer County 38106 Rge.Rd. 275 Red Deer County, AB RE:Bylaw No. 2015/35Poplar Pointe Estates LocalArea Structure Plan To Whom it MayConcern: We are very concerned by the lack of physical data that this application has been providing!There is a lot of talk of community well, and communal sewage treatment system but nowhere do they have an engineered reports or examples of successful development to support this plan. We ourselves have experienced $100,000s of dollarsin buildingdamage and water well contamination due to poor storm water management planning.We now have our own storm water retention pond in our backyard and have had several engineers try to ?nd a way to reduce the massive mosquito issue we have each year. if this developer is so con?dent in this design have him put up a $S0,000,000.00 bond to cover any future issue that may arise from the well, the sewage treatment plant or the storm water run off design. We have seen similar "communalor condo" developmentsand when something goes wrong the developer is nowhere to be found and the residence are le? trying to cover the billsto fixany issues that may arise. Unless this developeris willingto meet these conditions we strongly oppose the development/ Bylaw. Regards. Sheila Trimble Please con?rm received! En Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 166 of 188 May 4, 2016 Red Deer County Centre 38106 Range Rd 275 Red Deer County, AB T43 2L9 Re: Proposed Poplar Pointe Estate Subdivision on NE 29-38-28 W4 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing this letter, which is in addition to the one my wife and I sent in January, 2016, to state my opposition to the above development. My concems include: Lack of water to support additional residences, There are already residents in Poplar Ridge experiencing water shortages. Productive agricultural land should NOT be used for residential development. Increased population density, resulting in more traffic on Poplar Ridge road, more students at Poplar Ridge school; the area is likely to become undesirable as population reaches the level ofa hamlet or more. Your consideration of my concerns and opposition is appreciated. Sincerely, Gordon Tunheim Westridge Estates Red Deer County, AB Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 167 of 188 January31, Red Deer CountyCentre 2016 38106RangeRd275 RedDeer County,AB T4S 2L9 Re: Proposed Poplar PointeEstateSubdivisionon NE29-38-28W4 Dear Sir or Madam, We are writingthis letterto state our opposition to the aboveproposed development. are as follows: Our concerns l. Lack of water: - We are awarethatthereare alreadywater shortagesfor someresidentsin thePoplar RidgeSubdivision — TheArea StructurePlan forPoplarPointesuggests there is adequatewater supply to support its development,E the last study doneis outdated(2005) - Watermust be adequate to support existing dwellings20-30years into the future.(We havebeenin Westridgesince1981,ie 35 years) - Will the Countypay our water for supply shouldit be depleted? It shouldnot be paid by increasingtaxes if it is a result of a bad decisionby the County. 2. Misuse of agricultural land; - Thelandin question seemsto be productive land,as this area west of Red Deergenerally is. Residentialdevelopmentmust be avoidedon landthat can be better used. - Don’trepeat mistakesof the past: We were appalledto see there was about2 feetof good blacktopsoil upon excavationwhenbuilding our homein Westridge.We wrote the County a letter expressingour shockthat thisprime landwould be subdivided. If you have records dating back to 1981,you will?nd this letter. 3. Populationdensity: - This area has expandedto a degree that it is becomingundesirablefor those whowish to raisetheir childrenina Q area. OriginallyonlyPoplar Ridgeand Westridgeexisted. PoplarRidge hassinceexpanded to the north, Westridge has expandedsouth, east and west, and MountainView and Harvey Heights have been added.The original schoolis still in use, thusfar. ~ Trafficis heavy;walkingon roads is no longer safe; The Area Structure Plan suggests that accessto PoplarPointe willbe via Hwy 11Aas well as iriitiallyvia Hwy ll. In fact, it' is morelikely thatresidentsworkingin Red Deer willuse PoplarRidgeroad ratherthan eitherof these 2 longer routes. There are many walkers along PoplarRidge road;we do not want to see a fatality. _ _ , , _ . . A « we do not want people to feel that living on acreages in this area is like living in the city except with an acre of lawn to mow. Your considerationof our concernsand oppositionis appreciated.Shouldthere be any questions we can be contacted as below. Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 168 of 188 Sincerely, *§%-«?g/” Q_WL___.. LorettaLindberg-Tunheim GordonTunheim Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 169 of 188 ‘RECEIVED W 02 zms November 24, 2015 59 — 28319 Twp Rd 384 Red Deer Co., AB T4S 2A4 Dear Sir or Madam: Re File ASP-15-002 — Landowner 734175Alberta Ltd. We would like to register our objection to this subdivision.It is the same one that was rejected several years ago andthe same concerns apply. Some of our concerns are the increase in ti-a?ic,the increased pressure on the water supply, the destruction of the ruralhabitat that is a big part of why we live here. The niralpart is a big attraction for us andthis subdivision opens the potentialfor further development. It willbe an added pressure also on the wildlife in this area. We are already dealing with a large increasein vehicles on Rge Rd 283 & 284 and Twp Rd 384 due to the massive number of peoplenow working in the Burnt Lake Subdivisionand who use our roads as shortcuts to avoid the chaos at the tmf?c light by Burnt Lake Store. This subdivisionwould add another potential80 — 100vehicles to thatmix. Therefore pleaseconsider this letter as our formalobjection to this subdivision. Sincerely, ?/<’/Lu:et@~ ./bk) n7,.,~..Q.fw\ LrV\ Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 170 of 188 ---Original Message-—-« From: Philwright [r _ 7 Sent: April27, 2016 10:36 AM To: info Subject: Proposed poplarpointe estates Asa resident of poplar ridge for many years I am opposed to thls newdevelopment.My major concern isthe sustainability of water reservoirs for the present residents. We already have hadto Installa cistern system to counter lowwater ?ow rates. .Pleaseforwardthisto the appropriate people Involvedso It can be includedfor the Monday meeting on May 2nd. Thankyou very much. Sent from my iPad Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 171 of 188 V?’ 13*‘ M». 2I 7016 l April 19"‘,2016 Red Deer c:«;jjy__ ‘jg, County of Red Deer 38106 Rge Rd 275 Red Deer County, AB Re: Poplar Pointe Estates LocalArea Structure Plan NE29-38-28-W4 Please find attached a copy of the original petition which was presented at the Councilmeeting on February 2”“,2016. We are submitting this again to ensure that it is part of the second public meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 10”‘,2016. Ifyou need any information do not hesitate to contact me. Sheldon Griffith Rt-edDem \.UuII[y Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... Page 172 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... we, on this petition, are AGAINSTthe proposed area structure plan for Popiar Pointe Estates PROPOSED AREASTRUCTUREPLANFORPOPLARPOINTEESTATES on NE 29-38-28 W4 directly north of Harvev Haiahn with arrp<< nff Rana: Rand 7524 January, 2015 - Petition PRINTNAME Sun: §),bcu( \::5 fbkxn 7,\$\&r! §‘,$ ’?¢2z/C/54/)4/:>ze ‘1'\Mxr¢EI-JJ Lmvoie, Bff<$ ?eomm ‘EX , /r//L4‘ if '45/1 7; /3 [iLnH___> \ /\<€ géégt’ ?g,’ g \N \§o\,’ tL\~\ ‘V/ , \ - \««/v\ i_,~J<‘/w\\S J5?” éx Lizwaq19{LmZL Page 173 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTURE PLAN FOR POPLAR POINTE ESTATES on NE29-38~28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road 284 January, 2016 - Petition PRINT NAME nl .u: rIr:|| nnnurnc mm“: ...... m 5/age/m v/12¢/4 _««Jcuq\ in \.\\<.r *7{rxa/7{/ragg£,(. 4/‘K7 izm /7’222 ,-D(‘K 1,”):Q I//«IL ‘jig Sb/te’3‘ -$7! 4LLzaa,~ J1mnI§;(1A/!I_$on 7/\éHeJEruni)4er /Rob§Q\\ 42, Rims%1c'v. max MCU41on DlJ Q5;Hal; j lg)» 31;, K?geCi'w"'55 Page 174 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTUREPLAN FOR POPLAR POINTE ESTATES on NE29-38-28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road 234 January, 2016 - Petition PRINT NAME nun: <|r:M Annnrcc numu: nu ma“ cI!:I\IAYI ma ; ‘S. g2§'g~_s_3g .}nv\ De5 BVL'c‘\€~/V:/w» 0?;3 CVL3) Vi ‘ii‘9i%‘*“‘*‘*L,,‘,,.r\ Page 175 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTURE PLAN FOR POPLAR POINTE ESTAYES on NE29~38~28 W4 directly north oi Harvey Heights with access off Range Road 284 January, 2016 » Petition PNNTNAME .."=n,n....." nunurunnmcn /::mmY“.. 5527;}: I //// Iiizomiiz WW3/37 (9 r‘. |. , Z ._g¢m*§m?;_____ y ,/4 gmg 5 /k\.\'\'~)t\F1 €’T‘L ( 76 $l‘JJo\amt ,'2 fl (::iz)L§7:.‘/\«‘“E/‘.y\/k izg? §»1«’f//e‘74az I//4%? ‘Dar 541;!/AC-'9” // 4 -,1 f 46 . 7/ me’ I ' v//4 Page 176 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... we, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTURE PLAN FOR POPLARPOINTEESTATES on NE29-38-28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road 284 January, 2016 - Petition pR|NT RI I I: Annnzcc ounur Mlmlncn NAME Bwop Piwvu?nqgnl . XL/. - ..w. , .2 /M/ L/jgxv/Qgr“ /xuneile/111114/)5 M(:E\n\S W 18“:843we CbdY EK‘¢r;,gE 327.; J,/rém L /75/n//Mm, mg; jg/2/z Page 177 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointer Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTURE PLAN FOR POPIAR POINTE ESTATES on NE2938-28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road284 January, 2016 - Petition PRINT NAME 04 ‘ _)Jé, W4’ oi/17//52 oi .4475?’ .M?5%"/ Q//27//6 /4z// 1//6 "22,’-3&3Q79 5 3 0/0 « ma 1-xzr7v7 Page 178 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSED AREASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR POPLARPOINTE ESTATES on NE29-38-Z8 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with accessoff Range Road284 January, 2016 - Petition PRINT NAME BLUESIGN ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER SIGNATURE (A)/,:(,(/S / ///£z°Z4%0///9//" / *4- ,. c”,5 U?IIAWII3 /o‘ I §t\9M.j 57:44 ' //if///’/,‘ ,.: I’\ Mu: S‘ ,{fjf("r:‘\u.’q;«_~,a¢ ;} I p“ ./I ., ' ,4’. 5 IX“; \ Ni I v’ L I «’ :24’7/, /341,1‘ 2/:»X.z’( ‘ (I. ?ame Z;g//'m/M (7,. If ( Q05(II[EyY\{£INIFIVVIof %:/réw OI/«X?/r31()AIIz: \ ( //M ?awa. ’\\\InaI‘/\xx}: /{ Page 179 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar I-‘ointe Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTURE PLAN FOR POPLARPOINTE ESTATES on NE29-38-28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road284 January, 2016 - Petition PRINTNAME min: umu nnnnzcc Sag E.r\r\ r?iga} _ ? r/c: .3; Fmnédnvi .\ _\ 77955‘ 0 Rl(L\(«vc{Sim U Wfcxr“, (bk .Q v-vL\l FKEl} vL.I[ 3cm <)_€>\RQ‘\.'*lr§.(\‘4L,..~.u>'tx\ /I V /' ,..r .V Mgr E/Wk‘7/L//fr/J4"‘ ~5/,V't"M/fbv/.4/L z...’,_ . ~L . "NV. . /7 ’* J . "-‘» _. ,-2.-3 L4, /141% my /3%44/a -*\‘.\r\5t\‘*\\'<\«Q\a'\ /Meg r\»)\'o in Page 180 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure gtarz for Poplar Pointo Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTURE PLAN FOR POPLARPOINTE ESTATES on NE 29-38—28W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road 284 January, 2016 - Petition ,,PRINTNAME BLUESIGNA/DBRESS PHONENUMBER SIGNATURE 2 « :44 L,’ \A!>‘:\f)~7»\\»"\\ _, ~ KM/.'g :73M _ mu "J4?/M Loam.Skephvd Q/2:/LCflu S¢u,p‘//L lg]/' /\/e'/W /5 l?//rE[(EL;\ :"’Zé°?5«wb /V 1 A? [am/V /3? .0055K?67/ . Cab; .L<.~I5v~‘/« P12 D/J1/LA/x€IL/WK birq [L 1»-r‘/-’9'~{ a?dtn/?vu7’/Ame/A J£L»L?~%?‘ émyww 0//3///A Page 181 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSEDAREASTRUCTUREPLANFOR POPLARPOINTEESTATES on NE29-33-28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road 284 January, 2016 - Petition pnmt "AME nun: umu nnnnccc nunnu: nllulmzn SIGNATURE Ca/5%“/\_//_ /(evir-1/N\(§'2(,r %4; , £(’/>4// /f’0 /7 i 4 , /' t /Lmrhigv’Q wr gig‘? Quota/1 '; 4 : "',V\,\/\ AZ/1.L/£"\ y’/Z’/J ‘/1LN . Page 182 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTURE PLAN FOR POPLAR POINTE ESTATES on NE 29-38-28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road234 January, 2016 » Petition PRINT NAME BLUE SIGN ADDRESS PHONF NI IMRFR M~\lC§(//"K1.x/C W/M///L_t.;=»..:.., / 20//' 1)’ 1", ‘x,/ ‘/ __:,I/2 . ./’ - QieuaN‘&:i;uL‘ //g?mmvfY)r55€( QW/Z/dfgz _ '7/€Kc 455/ , ,€Wz/e;?£q{. /imxwFem 116/L?»/IWAZI1 ‘\K’ , ?x.” iv?‘/ /‘ Page 183 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINSTthe proposed area structure pian for Popiar Pointe Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTUREPLAN FORPOPLARPOINTEESTATES on NE29-38-28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road 284 January, 2016 - Petition .D»>"iTE PRINT NAME BLUESIGNADDRESS PHONENUMBER SIGNATURE J/04/3,/4;//., awe MI 0;/J!’ a74)%cI74='~‘ /721%(26.4/£ /’729n2/u sf»/W , (M2,? A‘0/; M3 GR/7F/TH £24 57+-A @’%2/LE5 C—/3/if .44’ 494% JIIA/3%az- 54244_ 'o—¢ . <74/31> b 4 ? V _( "' D cq?g,‘ ii“;%Wi}WI.1,u KELKA011" V J!) a $525‘*‘/Et.L‘IOTi— Z4 Ike 5% ,:~i‘6’W6« ’“/’*"”»”°/./, Page 184 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... we, on this petition, are £\GAlNS3‘ the proposed area structure pian fur Poplar Poinie Estates PROPOSED AREASTRUCTUREPLAN FORPOPLARPOINTEESTATES on NE29—38~28W4 directly north of Harvey Helghts with access off Range Road 284 January, 2016 — Petition “ ‘ ” ’ * ' " 55 mm NAME SIGNATURE (Mi 7” 11 DIITE “ “— ,.. L ,, ~ / , .\;‘|7.)"L’ Q[EA/M <1&4‘ \¢——--lg a 4 . A0,!» v s 5“"3?£ [Rah(fag Q qév?dx ‘:T.\\ Q0”, Crmg | :10/£6 I 3%; Low §>w=b J«w«=’~»\~.¢-.\ ‘um 4M>§¢,,Dgg S7-Eu)/M21’ Jm’4‘$,“//90/3/0%’~S7£w+~l/6 ’ Wit//ég/£4.25 /Wgg/Qqr gm‘?//1‘élzbgcj /7//M/?gr’ .:.w1#//J3;? Lg?sr M222‘ 2059/\Crag)? ?wéf’ am; svm gag(W 17/a «J J Page 185 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINSTthe proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSEDAREASTRUCTUREPLAN FOR POPLARPOINTE ESTATES on NE Z9~38-23 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road284 January, 2016 » Petition PRINTNAME BLUESIGNADDRESS PHONE NUMBER SIGNATURE ii:/V05?,££‘j‘:i:72.’ ;:I2£R‘_/o(E;Bf ”]"r.(1M.r/3 W4 Lug/7 73 I3/raw 4%‘!/7'99%;‘/«"5 . J KQA:)2 (M g:// may a”I/7/1I v./J/Q6’ i//41 .Cram //'/Ema» é?ézé/755(‘/( ?xxal LC1¢>5M rvifmmLP.sér?sM o//‘7///4 Page 186 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSED AREA STRUCTUREPLANFOR POPLARPOINTEESTATES on NE 29-38-28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road284 January, 2016 - Petition PRINT NAME BLUESIGNADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 7 £0 ‘ énme Eroww ' ,\..3rs~1 Kmié»HT Page 187 of 188 Bylaw No. 2015/35 – a bylaw to adopt the Poplar Pointe Estat... We, on this petition, are AGAINST the proposed area structure plan for Poplar Pointe Estates PROPOSEDAREASTRUCTUREPLANFOR POFLARPOINTE ESTATES on NE 29-38-28 W4 directly north of Harvey Heights with access off Range Road 284 January, 2016 — Petition PRINTNAME BLUESIGN ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER SIGNATURE ;/mj? E/cc/netll?f? JHN5/ZmeranbePo+oA—z M”;/2? Am/DHvam ?“’%[ amG501’~ 37‘”5%I'Cug;§%“€exr\ ‘ 73"‘?//Z(.':mJ20905]; J/’’”%:’:‘mae«X2cm6€. / »/H/vi’;/BE:2 EE _ “M aszcmaAbwwmxz»Kercseu/rL /AA'-%[333 Dtmcuu-Q /4~%Laac>y Fjérx/4/%1< .?A/_/15C,’/»'Ie;