WHAT WE HEARD Report to Council | January 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Summer Village of Poplar Bay WHAT WE HEARD Report to Council | January 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................................. I OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 WHAT WE HEARD .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF RESIDENT FEEDBACK .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY AGENCY FEEDBACK.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 NEWSLETTER ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 OPEN HOUSE DETAILS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 OPEN HOUSE FEEDBACK ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 MDP SURVEY RESPONSES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 AGENCY RESPONSES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 1 OVERVIEW This What We Heard report provides a summary of the public engagement and the feedback received regarding the draft Municipal Development Plan for the Summer Village of Crystal Springs. The details of the public engagement and the feedback received are outlined in Appendix A. In July 2019, a newsletter was mailed out to residents providing residents with a project update, details of the Open House, and information regarding opportunities to participate in the project and provide feedback. The newsletter was posted on the Summer Village website along with a survey for residents to complete. In August 2019, Summer Village Administration and Municipal Planning Services (MPS) held an Open House for Poplar Bay to provide residents with information about the project, review the contents of the proposed draft MDP, and gather feedback from residents. In August 2019, the draft MDP was posted on the Summer Village website for residents to review and it was also referred to various agencies for comments. WHAT WE HEARD The section below summarizes What We Heard from residents and agencies regarding the draft MDP in August and September 2019. Where necessary, MPS has outlined recommended changes to the draft MDP. SUMMARY OF RESIDENT FEEDBACK MPS received seventeen (17) MDP survey responses and one (1) open house feedback form. The detailed summary of the responses is outlined in Appendix A. 1. DEMOGRAPHICS & LAKE USE WHAT WE HEARD MPS RESPONSE / RECOMMENDATION 71% of respondents are long-time residents (10 years or This information helped MPS understand who lives in the more) community and how residents view the use of Pigeon Lake. 65% of respondents reside seasonally Recommendation: Changes to the MDP are not required. 33% of respondents would consider moving to the lake permanently 95% of respondents are age 50+ 52% of respondents own a lakeside lot 76% respondents believe the lake is adequately used on weekends 17% of respondents participate in winter activities at the lake 2 2. DEVELOPMENT WHAT WE HEARD MPS RESPONSE / RECOMMENDATION 55% of respondents believe there should be setbacks Policy 5.2.1 Policy requires a development setback as per for development the requirements in the Land Use Bylaw (currently 6m). An There was mixed feedback on the setback distance: increased setback was not recommended due to the 14% of respondents believe the current 6m setback significant variation in lot length within the Summer Village. should remain as is, 72% of respondents believe the Policy 5.4.5 encourages a minimum of 25% of the area of setback should 10m or more the lot not covered by buildings as permeable or semi- 64% of respondents think that the amount of non- permeable surfaces. The policy limits the amount of non- permeable surfaces allowed on a residential lot should permeable surfaces by requiring a minimum amount of be limited permeable or semi-permeable surfaces. By determining There was mixed feedback on the percentage of non- the minimum amount based on the area of the lot not permeable surfaces that should be allowed on a covered by buildings, complying with the policy is feasible residential lot for lots with smaller areas. Recommendation: Changes to the MDP are not required. 3. ENVIRONMENT WHAT WE HEARD MPS RESPONSE / RECOMMENDATION 75% of respondents do not experience flooding on their This information helped MPS understand the types of lot issues residents experience related to flooding, ice damage, Surface water management: and drainage. o Flows over property to the lake The importance of permeable surfaces for improving o Infrastructure (ditches, sump pumps, etc.) to help drainage and enabling the water to absorb into the ground manage runoff was a common theme in the feedback. The provision of 82% of respondents do not experience ice damage on permeable/semi-permeable surfaces in Policy 5.4.5 their property. (described above) is an important component of the MDP Hazards identified: to help limit drainage of water directly into Pigeon Lake. o High water table Additionally, the policies in Section 6 The Pigeon Lake o Creek Watershed consider environmental constraints (e.g., steep slopes, erosion, shallow ground water, or high ice damage o Recent work for the sewer system installations has risk, etc.) and require development proponents to affected surface water flow. demonstrate that proposed developments are suitable for the site. These policies is important to ensure development occurs in suitable areas and limits impacts on the lake and its ecosystems. Recommendation: Changes to the MDP are not required. 3 4. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS & COMMENTS Additional comments and concerns are summarized in the table below. WHAT WE HEARD MPS RESPONSE / RECOMMENDATION Clearing of vegetation on reserve parcels The policies in the MDP encourage the preservation of Enforcement of fertilizer bylaw natural areas and the restriction of the fertilizer use, but issues related to enforcement are not relevant for the MDP. Recommendation: Changes to the MDP are not required. SUMMARY AGENCY FEEDBACK MPS received comments from Alberta Health Services, Alberta Transportation, and Atco Gas & Pipeline. Summaries of the key comments relevant to the MDP are outlined in the tables below. 1. ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES WHAT WE HEARD MPS RESPONSE / RECOMMENDATION Expresses support for the consideration of potential Developments with potential off-site impacts such as impacts of industrial development on adjacent land agricultural, natural resource development and industrial uses including nuisance issues (e.g. noise) and the uses are not allowed in the Summer Village. requirements for risk and environmental impact Recommendation: Changes to the MDP are not required. assessments. Expresses support for the initiatives stated that pertain The policies in the MDP, particularly in Section 5 Future to protecting the natural environment, water quality, Land Use, Section 6 The Pigeon Lake Watershed, and and the watershed. Section 7 Infrastructure support the protection of the Expresses support for discouraging residential Pigeon Lake watershed, conserving environmental development on lands that are subject to flowing or features, and ensuring future land use activities are high water tables. designed to mitigate negative impacts on Pigeon Lake and Expresses support for community designs that the watershed. incorporate the natural environment. Recommendation: Changes to the MDP are not required. Expresses support for the protection of the Pigeon Lake Watershed, especially pertaining to the goals of environmental stewardship, wastewater servicing, and storm water management. Expresses support for intermunicipal collaboration to The policies in Section 4 Intermunicipal Collaboration promote supportive, healthier environments. support collaboration with regional partners, neighbouring municipalities, and other levels of government on initiatives that benefit the region. Recommendation: Changes to the MDP are not required. Expresses support for active transportation Policies in the MDP encourage pedestrian friendly infrastructure. infrastructure including pathways